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, Paci fic 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 Inve stigations Progress Report, April 2005. (by DWR, USBR, and Califor nia Bay-Delta Authority)

• 

### Hydropower Projects Relicensing

Landscape Water Use

• 

### Urban Landscape Evapotranspiration (by Richard L. Snyder, University of Ca lifornia, 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 Requireme nts 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 Associ ation of Santa Barbara County)

• 

### Summary of Significant Litigation 1998-2005 (by DWR, Office of Chief Counsel)

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

(Volume 4 - Reference Guide contents continued)



### Planning

• 

### Addressing California's Uncertain Water Fu ture 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 Dani el 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

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



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

xxiiPublic 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 Stra tegic 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 (O nline Documentation).........................................................................1-7



### Boxes (where cited in text)

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Wa ter 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



### Boxes 1

Box 1-1 Updates of the California Wa ter 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-iCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 1 Introduction

1-iiPublic 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 t he 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, c onservation, 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 re vised 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 some times 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 th at 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 he lp us sustain our water resource use and manage our supplies to ensure that water is ava ilable where and when it is needed. Its new features include a strategic plan with vision, goals, recomme ndations and implementation plan, an analytical approach with extended information and tools, use of water portfolios, regional reports, future scenarios, and resource management strategies.

1-1California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 1 Introduction

In preparing this update, DWR sought the participa tion 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 envi ronmental review and documentation as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequent ly, policy-makers and lawmakers must take further action to adopt the recommendations in this water pl an 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 extende d 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, envir onmental justice advocacy, cities, counties, federal and State agencies, the California Bay-Delta Authorit y, academia, and different regions of California.

DWR sought a broadly informed and consensus-seek ing process. Using large group meetings held roughly every six weeks for three years, more freque nt 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, advi sory committee members periodically briefed their constituencies on key developments. Members rela yed 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 ar e 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 fo r 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 meeti ng 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 a dvisory committee members and other interested parties.

1-2Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 1 Introduction

To create a fair, open and transparent process, the Ca lifornia State University Sacramento, Center for Collaborative Policy provided impartial third party fa cilitation and mediation design, implementation, and refinement for the consensus-seeking process. The center ensured adviso ry committee members’ interests, views, and opinions were thoughtfu lly considered and advisory committee activities were governed by its own operating guidelines.

This new process is one of the significant accomplishmen ts 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 acc ess 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, Stat e, 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 managi ng 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 en tire 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 (a verage), and 2001 (driest since extended drought when preparing this update). Water portfolios in clude 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.)

1-3California 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 Ri ver 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 w ith 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 differe nt 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 regiona l water management to m eet 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

1-4Public 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 Referen ce Guide article “Work Plan for Meeting Legal Requirements for the California Water Plan.”) The new, additional data and studi es 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 th e best available data a nd 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 publ ic 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 wh en DWR initiates the process for California Water Plan Update

2010 with participation of a broa d public advisory committee. DWR will begin to quantify and evaluate 3 future scenarios and alternative manageme nt responses using the data and tools identified in Phase 2. A water flow diagram will present eval uation 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) Refe rence Guide, and (5) Tech nical Guide. It includes recently compiled water data, information, and studies u sed to develop the strategic plan. It identifies the most pressing water management issues and challeng es affecting the state and its regions. It describes short-term and long-term actions that can be implemen ted at the state and regional level. It considers future uncertainties, scenarios, and their water dema nds; 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 informati on are available on the water plan Web site ( http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov ).

1-5California 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 a nd 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 pu blic process that figures significantly in this California Water Plan Update 2005 . This process will become the standa rd for future water plan updates. It also discusses new features of this water plan upda te 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 th ey assume a central role in California water management. The water plan’s strategic plan w ith 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 build ing 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. Ch allenges 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 di scussion of significant factors affecting future conditions; and describes a partial implementation of th e 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 implemen tation 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 a nd related resources. Strategies can be combined in various ways to meet the water management objectiv es 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.

1-6Public 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. E ach report includes a discussion of the region: key challenges; ongoing programs; and water portfolio da ta 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 info rmation 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 docu ment 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 .)

1-7California 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 strategi c plan for managing and developing water resources statewide. Since its first California Water Plan, publ ished 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 fi ve 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 pl an 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 ex tent. 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 part s of the California Water Plan as set forth by the California Water Code. Water policy concerns include d 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 re duced, 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 wa ter 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 wate r 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 conser vation), 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

1-8Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 1 Introduction

water and energy costs. The report quantified the e ffect 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 al so discussed several leading water management concerns including water quality, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and a wi de range of evolving water policies. One of its main conclusions was that in roughl y three out of four years, Californi a'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 we re affecting water resour ce 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 agri cultural water demands, (2) presenting water demand management methods as additional means of meeti ng 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 build ing blocks to evaluate future water conditions for each of the state's 10 hydrologic regions. Potential lo cal options were integrated with options of a statewide scope to create a statewide evaluation.

1-9California 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 adviso ry 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 “W ater Resources of California,” Bulletin No. 2 of the State Water Resources Board titled, “Utilizati on 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 sh all 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, manage ment and efficient utilization of the water resources of the state. (Water Code, § 10005(a))

• The California Water Plan “does not constitute approv al 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 othe r legislation address the content of the California Water Plan and its updates:

• Without credible and accurate estimates of water s upply 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 investment s in water programs, policies, and facilities, there needs to be a credible and obj ective 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 st rategies 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 recy cling, desalinization, conjunctive use, and water transfers that may be pursued to meet the future wa ter 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)

1-10Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 1 Introduction

• The department shall include in the plan a discussi on 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 implem ent 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 vari ous strategies for meeting the state's water supply needs. The update must identify all federal and St ate permits, approvals or entitlements that may be required in order to implement the strategies. It also establishes an adviso ry 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 re levant 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 re gion’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 wate r 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 pr iorities for State strategic plans:

• To promote infill development and equity by re habilitating, 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 informa tion to the DWR for estimating related water usage reported in Bulletin 160.

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

1-11California 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 de veloping the water plan, the Department of Water Resources consulted with the Legislature and solicite d and considered the vi ews 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 desi red future for California water resources and management. A vision statement crystallizes what the wa ter 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 id entifies 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 gr oupings of interrelated state concerns. The goals are founded on the st atewide vision and may involve coordination among several agencies with similar functions.

Objectives – The specific and measurable targets for accomp lishing 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 impl ement 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 lo ng-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 me asured 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 implem enting different resource strategies, environmental benefits, water reliability, a nd water quality improvements.

1-12Public 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 ta ble in Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies. Local managing entities use water management objectiv es to identify and focus on the most important issues in meeting their resource needs. These objectiv es 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 mana gement 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, insuff icient analytical capabilitie s, incomplete scientific understanding, short- and long-term climat e 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 transf ers of surplus water, or increase reuse of water.
Improve water quality –Improve water quality by ma tching 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 ex ample, additional interconnection among neighboring water districts can help short-term water transfer s during dry years and reduce the impacts of drought.
Reduce flood impacts –Reduce flood damage to life and propert y by minimizing flow impacts to developed land, maintaining or restoring natura l 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 a ppropriate land use in undeveloped floodplains.

Provide environmental benefits –Protect, restore, or enhance the environment. This may include instream flow and timing changes, temperature manage ment, habitat restoration, physical modification to water bodies, reduction of diversion impacts to fisher ies (for example, fish screens), control of waste discharge in waterways, exotic species control, remo val 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.

1-13California 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.

1-14Public 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 wate r plan update include actual data for a recent dry water year—2001. Planning for dr ought conditions, that is, extrem e 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 dr ought conditions by using trend-based data from a sequence of dry years.

Regional reports It is important to note that estimates of future st atewide average-year water demands, however small or large, do not adequately characterize the challeng es 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 anothe r part. As local demands increase, more severe local water shortages could occur than in recent experien ce during drier water years. Moreover, the challenges of flood management, protecting water quality, an d managing water systems to help restore the environment will all require California’s water mana gers 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 decide d to initiate a phased work plan to develop the data and analytical tools that can be used to anal yze 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 th ree future scenarios and the preliminary scenario water demand estimates cannot be compared to for ecasts 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 s upply 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 contribut e to reducing a shortage elsewhere. However, the supply benefit may serve other useful purposes in th e area it occurs. DWR plans to work with regional and local partners to develop the necessary data a nd analytical tools to allow future phases of the California Water Plan update to provide a more comp rehensive evaluation of a variety of management responses for a number of plausible scenarios.

1-15California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 1 Introduction

1-16Public 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 Re gional 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 Statew ide 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 Res ponsibilities of St ate 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 Ap proach for Financing .................................................................................. ...2-13 Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investme nt in Research and Development................................................2-14 Box 2-8 Consideration of All Competing Needs .................................................................................. ..2-15

2-iCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 2 A Framework for Action



### Boxes 1

Box 2-1 The Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission, Goals, and Recommendations........................................2-17
Box 2-2 Public Trust Res ponsibilities of St ate 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 A pproach for Financing................................................................................. ...2-26 Box 2-7 Case Study of State Investme nt 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-iiPublic 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 manage ment 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 challe nges. However, we must take action now and be prepared to make significant investments. In faci ng 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

2-1California 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 h as 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 ce ntral 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 wa ter management systems—to ensure reliability of our water supplies. The initiatives outline the ways to achieve the foundational ac tions. This update also identifies a number of support activities which are essen tial 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 fund amental 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.

2-2Public 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 environm ental 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 pr otecting 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, geopoliti cal, socioeconomic, and other differences among California’s regions demand that the mix of wate r 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 ne eds 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 ar e already leaders in water use efficiency measures such as conservation and recycling. Because comp etition 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 primar y way that we meet increased demand.

In the future, we must broaden our definition of effi cient 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 impr ove their operation and efficiency • Facilitate environmentally, economically, and soci ally sound transfers to avoid regional shortages • Reduce and eliminate groundwater overdraft

2-3California 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 wringi ng every bit of utility from every drop of water, Californians can stretch water supplies and help en sure continued economic a nd 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 us es. 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 strate gies that protect and improve water quality: • Protect surface waters and aquifers from contamination • Explore new treatment technologies for dr inking water and groundwater remediation • Match water quality to its intended uses • Improve management of ur ban and agricultural runoff • Improve watershed management

Support Environmental Stewardship
To ensure sustainability, California must also ma nage 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 environm ental protection. Water development in California has a rich history of conflict, at times pitting water supply projects against ecosystem protection. Water supplies and the e nvironment must both be considered together.

Water managers must support enviro nmental 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 of ten have unavoidable environmental consequences: When water is
removed from the natural environment for other benefici al 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.

2-4Public 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 gove rnments must work cooperatively on these two critical
initiatives:

1. Promote and implement integrat ed regional water management

2. Maintain and improve statewid e 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 In tegrated Regional Water Management

Promote and implement integrated regional water m anagement to ensure sustainable water resource use, better water quality, environmental stewardship, effi cient 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 wate r 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 pr ojects 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 ove rsight, regional water planning and management will help meet water needs throug h 2030. Integrated regional water management relies on a diversified portfolio of water strategies. The resulting regional pl ans can provide efficient solutions, consider other resource issues, and enjoy broad public support.

2-5California 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 Califor nia do not allow for a one-size-fits-all approach to water management and planning. The California Wate r 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 re gion’s particular conditions and goals.

Regions have opportunities not ava ilable to individual water supplie rs. 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 regiona l watershed management; reduce co sts 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 he lp water suppliers and land planners anticipate and plan for future growth, and ensure that additio nal 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 pl ans 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 Un iverse." This concept is the premi se 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 la nd 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 popula tion increases and strain that new development can impose on ecosystems, an integrated, systemwide a pproach 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 resource s. It integrates multiple aspects of managing water

2-6Public 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 a nd imported water supplies, watershed protection, wastewater treatment and recycling, and protection of local ecosystems.

The principles of integrated regional water manage ment have a broad and lo ng-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 pr ojects that simultaneously conserve water, reduce contaminants, preserve the agricultural ec onomy, and improve aquatic habitat.

State government must help cities, counties, local wa ter agencies, and private utilities to prepare useful integrated regional water management plans. Stat e government should develop incentives to promote and support integrated regional water management. With th e State's technical assistance and partnership, local and regional agencies and governments can apply bala nced portfolios of water resource management strategies to help meet their water demands, and put in to 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 wate r 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. Co ntinued 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, su pport 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 flex ibility needed to cope with changing and uncertain

future conditions.

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 1
State government is responsible for ensuring that re gional 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 benefici al uses. To ensure that state water planning and
future decisions about water use and urban devel opment are in line with the State’s sustainable development goals, State and local governments a nd 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 gr oundwater and surface water storage varies from region to region; therefore, DWR will work with regional entities to evaluate the best ways to

2-7California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 2 A Framework for Action

meet their groundwater and surface storage need s 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 8 2 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 develo p new ones to give incentives and technical assistance to regional and local agencies and gove rnments 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 fina ncial assistance and templates for integrated regional water management plans, urban and agri cultural 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 St atewide 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 st atewide water management systems. California depends on vast statewide water management system s to provide clean and reliable water supplies, protect lives and property from flood, withstand drou ght, and sustain environmental values. These water management systems include physical faciliti es and statewide water management programs.

Facilities - the backbone of water management in Califor nia – include over 1,200 State, federal, and local reservoirs, as well as canals, treatment plants, and le vees. 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 manageme nt programs which contribute to better operation of water systems. These programs include water quality standards, monitoring programs, economic incentives, water pricing policies, and statewide wate r efficiency programs such as appliance standards, labeling, and education. These statewide water manage ment programs help meet major State government responsibilities for statewide water planning and ecosyst em 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 Gr ant 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

2-8Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Chapter 2 A Framework for Action

providing technical assistance to efforts involving interregi onal, inter-state, or inte rnational 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 wa ter facilities, especially those that provide drinking water, sewage treatment, water delivery, and flood cont rol. 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 othe r 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 challeng es, 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. Improv ements may include new water storage, additional conveyance capacity, and refinements in the way wa ter 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 devel op and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve wate r management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System. The program significantly reduced conflic ts over Delta operations through better agency coordination and implementation of compre hensive resource management solutions.

The CALFED program proposes actions to improve a nd increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta, redu ce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses, provide good water quality for all be neficial uses, and reduce
the risk to land use and associated economic activitie s, 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 reliabilit y, good water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity.

2-9California 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 a ddition, new knowledge of levee inst ability 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 floo d 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 i nvolve 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 program s, 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; whenev er possible it must be integrated with other objectives such as ecosystem restoration, farmland pr otection, and other multi-objective management of floodplains.

Sustain the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the hub of Ca lifornia 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 hab itat; 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 terrest rial and aquatic habitat. The CALFED Delta levee program is intended to reduce the risk to land u se 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 seaw ater 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 ava ilable funds have not kept pace with needs. Levee

2-10Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Chapter 2 A Framework for Action

failures are extremely costly to repair, further bur dening the ability to fund adequate maintenance and
rehabilitation.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, like the Central Va lley 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 sustaina ble 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, a nd develop a plan for future action.

Near-term Actions to Implement Initiative 2
In addition to maintaining and stre ngthening 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, a nd 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 suppl y reliability needs (see Box 2-5 Delta Improvements Package). During critically dry periods, a Water Transfers Dry Year Program 4 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 availabl e 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 st orage 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 Wa ter Transfer Program when needed to meet critical water needs during shortages while pr otecting regions with available supplies.

• DWR, in cooperation with regional partners and the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA), will continue its role in implementing th e 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 De lta 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.watertran sfers.water.ca.gov/water_pg ms/water_pgms_index.cfm

2-11California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 2 A Framework for Action

 DWR, in cooperation with the regional part ners, will complete feasibility studies of additional storage infrastructure in the CALFED Record of Decision.

• DWR will develop and carry out a comprehensiv e flood management plan. DWR has prepared a White Paper that addresses the need for an a ggressive 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 wate r use and the two initiatives for water reliability are critical parts of the Framework for Action. Underl ying these parts are essential activities that provide support for the Framework over the long te rm. 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 imp acts, 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; thousa nds of local agencies, governments, and private firms; and millions of households and farms. Th e differing roles of various agencies can create coordination problems, especially when in tegrating regional management efforts.

Moreover, legal mandates often prevent State agenci es responsible for managing natural resources from making the tradeoffs needed for comprehensive, re gional 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.

2-12Public 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 jurisdictio ns governing water management in California, State government should lead an effort to examine where th e 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 wher e 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 founda tion 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, regi onal partnerships, joint powers authority bond pooling arrangements, infrastru cture-for-water transfers, and other innovative techniques. User fees, suggested under the CALFED Ba y-Delta Program, should also be considered as a potential long-term funding source. While general oblig ation 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 ac tivities 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 examin e 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 govern ing California water management.

• State government should use a benefit-based a pproach 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 deci sions related to water resources. To produce and carry out useful integrated water ma nagement plans, managers and planners need access to promising and affordable water technologies, as we ll as current, accurate data and reliable analytical

2-13California 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 pla nned water management actions. Knowledge from such evaluations allows water manage rs to make better decisions.

State government should invest in research and deve lopment 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 inte ractions, 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 inte ractions on statewide and regional levels; they must enable planners to co mpare 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 stat ewide and regional levels, DWR will carry out the following actions:

• DWR with regional input will develop a general chec klist 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 tool s and data in support of California Water Plan Update 2010.

• DWR will develop the Water Plan Information Exch ange (Water PIE) for collecting and sharing data and networking ex isting databases and websites, using GIS software to improve analytical capabilities and developing timely surveys of statewid e land use, water use, and estimates of future implementation of resource management strategies.

• DWR will participate in efforts by the Califor nia 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 evaluatin g the interaction of water supplies between regions, it must assess the potential system-wide impacts a nd 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 mana gement for regional integrated water management plans. At a

2-14Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1— Strategic Plan Chapter 2 A Framework for Action

minimum, this investment of resources should develo p 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 in cur 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 wate r 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, a nd implementation of resource management projects. The following actions are recommended to prom ote 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 concer ns 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.

2-15California 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 s upply through 2030. Californians can secure this water supply for the future by making the right choices and th e necessary investments. To ensure that water use is sustainable, California groundwater and surface water management must be based on three
foundational actions: use water ef fi ciently, protect water quality to get maximum utility from existing supplies, and manage water in ways that protect a nd restore the environment. These actions support two initiatives that water management must pursue to ensure a reliable water supply: fi rst, promote and practice integrated regional water management; a nd 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 av ailable 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 re fi ne 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 pe ople, our growing economy, and the environment in the years to come. Working together, we can secu re our water future for the next generation of
Californians.

2-16Public 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 cha nged 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 strate gic 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 uncertainty 5

.

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 m anagement preserves and enhances pub lic health and the standard of living for Californians; strengthens economic growth, business vitality, and the agricultural industry; and restores and protects Califo rnia’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, affordab le, 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.)

2-17California 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 th roughout the state(referred to as California), the executive and legislative branches of State gove rnment, 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, ef fi cient 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 prepar e 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 strat egies 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 ef fi ciently, (c) involve inte rregional, interstate, or international issues, or (d) have broad public bene fi ts.

7. California needs to de fi ne and articulate the respective roles, authoritie s, and responsibilities of State, federal, and local agencies and governments responsible for water. 8. California needs to develop broad and realistic funding strategies that de fi ne 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, evaluat e, and implement regional integrated resource plans and programs in cooperation with other federal, tribal, local, and research entities.

12. DWR and other State agenc ies 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 participat e 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 representativ es 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.

2-18Public 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, participat es in water rights hearings to present evidence regarding the needs of fish and wildlife, determin es instream flow requirements of certain streams, implements and enforces the California Enda ngered 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 dete rmination 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 ow ner 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 appr oving 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 th e 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 reas onable. 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 d ecline to participate, or deny the use of SWP
facilities.

DWR also has the obligation to consider the public tr ust 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 ot her change petitions. SWRCB may fulfill its duty of continuous supervision under the Public Trust Doct rine 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 compla ints, SWRCB considers all available information, including NEPA or CEQA documents, input from DFG, information or evidence presented by other State

2-19California 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 ot her 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 u ses will vary with the circumstances of the particular diversion. Trust resources must be protected where feasible.

2-20Public 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 a pproach 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 explor es 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 comp onents in a given region. The focus is on the interrelation of the different water management co mponents 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 comprehens ive, win-win solutions to identified problems.

The overriding goals of the process are to ensure re liable, affordable, good quality water from a diversity of sources; and design a comprehensive plan that achieves water supply reliab ility 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 ecosys tems; socioeconomic systems; and water storage, treatment, and conveyance systems. Integrated resource planning identifies the appropriate mix of demand-side and supply-side management compone nts (for example, urban water conservation, agricultural water conservation, water reuse and recy cling, 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 bene fits 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 dema nds for water and how de mand, quality, and supply patterns are affecting land use, fish and wildlif e resources, and local and regional economies; and

• balance demand management and supply enhancemen t options to produce a comprehensive, adaptive water management plan that specifies long-te rm goals, objectives, and programs to provide
sustainable water use in a basin.

When integrated resource planning is applied rigoro usly, 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). In tegrated resource planning evaluates various response packages, which are different mixes of reso urce 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 adde d 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 individu al strategies to a region’s management response requires completion of a risk analysis. The risk an alysis 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; a nd how available contingency measures can reduce the impact of shortages when they occur.

2-21California 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 pl anning process. Integrated resource planning is multi-objective planning that recognizes decisions mu st balance competing objectives in a sustainable way. Integrated resource planning often includes the following activities:

• Define planning objectives and associated evaluati on criteria (see Chapter 4 for suggested criteria). The objectives must be specific and the criteria me asurable, so they can be used to evaluate alternative response packages.

• Involve the appropriate constituencies. The level a nd 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, floodpl ain management, and watershed management.

• Formulate and evaluate different response packag es. The resource management strategies selected
from the above activities are combined into alternative response pack ages (25 strategies are described in Volume 2). Each response package then go es through multi-level screening using approved evaluation criteria, until (one to three) responses em erge 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. Of ten, 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 re cognizing economic growth, environmen tal quality, and social equity as co-equal objectives. Based on this comprehens ive assessment, determine potential economic, environmental, and social benefits, beneficiaries, costs, and tradeoffs and include a plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for adverse impacts.

2-22Public 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 futu re generations. This can be done by promoting activities with the greatest bene fit 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 ac tivities 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 be nefits would reduce the impacts of drought in the region. In California, drought contingency planni ng is an important component of regional water planning. Examples of such strategies include water u se efficiency and recycled municipal water, system reoperation, conjunctive ma nagement 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 a ll 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 coordinati on 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, wh en possible, use planning methods and analytical techniques that have undergone scientific review.

2-23California 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, environmen tal water management, land use planning, water allocation and appropriation

• Inclusion of information from a variety of inte rests through broad public participation–especially when developing goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria

• Information regarding management strategies, cost s, risks and tradeoffs (more details offered under “Analysis” below)

• Transparency of evaluation methods, tools, assumptions, and data

Analysis

• Initial conditions for water management informati on 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 framework 6 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 res ponse packages (different mixes of management strategies)

• Identification of response packages that achieve an acceptable level of supply reliability and meet other water management objectives, wh ile considering risks and tradeoffs.

Implementation

• Finance plan based on prioritized obj ectives and preferred response packages

• Implementation plan that includes roles, tasks, a nd challenges, such as regulatory compliance, lead agencies, timelines, legal issues, etc.

• Performance measures to track plan implementati on (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 additio nal reliability measures if the cost (economic or other) of implementation exceeds the cost of coping with current reliability levels.

2-24Public 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 relate d 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 r eal-time and long-term management.

It also outlines conditions under which the State Wa ter 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 fisher y 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 Joa quin Delta Region” for discussion of some package
components.

More on website at: http://www.calwater.ca.gov/DeltaImprovements/DIP /DeltaImprovementPackage.shtml#CURRENT

2-25California 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 th an its costs and non-monetary benefits are captured in the process. Because the nature of certain types of be nefits 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 communiti es 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 acti ons that initiate local investment in new water management approaches and technology and situatio ns where environmental justice calls for public assistance to help communities in need.

2-26Public 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 I nvestor-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 mark ets, such as energy planning and fo recasting, efficiency, reliability, and environmental benefits and impacts.

Through partnerships with orga nizations 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-rel ated environmental research; and energy systems integration. The Legislature has authorized approxi mately $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 n eeds, seek to leverage research funds with other sources and organizations, and use an independent program review a nd 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 instituti ons such as the International Center for Water Technology at California State University, Fresno, and federal agencies operating pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act.

2-27California 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 th e three E's—are vehicles to sustainability and help ensure that competing need s are met when evaluating and implementing the management strategies included in integrated resource planning. Many agen cies already consider these factors in their resource evaluations. In most areas of government decisions, th e application of environmental justice policy takes place at the local level.

Environmental Evaluation As the linkage between water management and the hea lth of the natural infrastructure are understood, the benefits of restoration to water supply reliabilit y 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 th ey 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 environm ent. Tradeoffs between existing and new water uses
need to be evaluated. Water uses that benefit the na tural 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 excl usionary 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 regardi ng 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. Capitali zation 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-a nnual 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 co st accounting also includes demand management programs and project mitigation costs. Increasingly, people are identifying additional costs for more complete mitigation they believe should be in cluded 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 mu st be framed and in place prior to implementation. In addition, nonmonetary costs and be nefits must be taken into account.

2-28Public 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 a nd 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.........................................................................................3-1 3 Central Coast Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................ .3-13 South Coast Hydrologic Region.................................................................................................. ..3-14 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ..........................................................................................3-1 4 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 ....................................................................................3-2 0 Integrated Regional Water Management ......................................................................................3-21
Coordination of Water a nd Land Use Planning ............................................................................3-22
Statewide and Interre gional 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 Allo cated, 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-iCalifornia 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..............................................................................................3-3 2 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 ge omorphic features (under development)...................................3-1 Figure 3-2 Map of California w/major rive rs 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 r unoff in percent of water year runoff ...................................3-10 Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual averag e 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 Hydrologi c Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties .........3-12 Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts ..........................................................3-21 Box 3-6 Complementary Mana gement Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management ...................3-22 Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrat ed Regional Water Management...................................................3-22 Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901............................................................................................ ........3-23 Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interre gional Responses to Challenges..................................................3-23 Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools....................................................3-29 Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governin g Water-related Resources Management ...................................3-30



### Table (placed in text)

Table 3-1 California wate r balance summa ry (maf) .............................................................................. ...3-4

3-iiPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today



### Boxes and Figures 1
Figure 3-1 Map of California’s major ge omorphic features (under development).................................3-39 Figure 3-2 Map of California with major ri vers and facilities (unde r 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 r unoff in percent of water year runoff)...................................3-46 Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual averag e 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 Hydrologi c Regions, the Delta, and Mountain Counties .........3-49 Box 3-5 Examples of Ongoing Regional Water Planning Efforts ..........................................................3-51 Box 3-6 Complementary Mana gement Approaches: IRWM and Watershed Management ...................3-55 Box 3-7 New Laws Support Integrat ed Regional Water Management...................................................3-56 Box 3-8 SB 221, SB 610, and AB 901............................................................................................ ........3-57 Box 3-9 Recent Statewide and Interre gional Responses to Challenges..................................................3-58 Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools....................................................3-59 Box 3-11 Some Regulations Governin g Water-related Resources Management ...................................3-60

1 Find these boxes and figures at en d of this chapter. They are placed in order of appearance in text.

3-iiiCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

3-ivPublic 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 committ ees, 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. Plan ning 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 northwester n part of the state to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part (DWR 2003 Bulletin 118). The third la rgest state in the nation, California’s geomorphic features include the Klamath Mountains, Modoc Plat eau, 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.

3-1California 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 cr ops, people, and industry (Figure 3-2 Map of California with major rivers and facilities).

Figure 3-2 Map of California w/major rive rs 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 nativ e flora species—more than one-third are unique to California—and 1,000 introduced species (CERES 2 003). 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 infrastructur e has experienced aquatic and riparian habitat degradation and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Hydraulic mining and gold extraction in the 1800s, dam construction and operation, pollu tion, 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 extrac tion and emerging industries such as biotechnology, telecommunications, and computer technology. Califor nia 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 Cali fornia 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 contri butor. Providing food and fiber crop products to Californians, as well as to other states and countri es, 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 moveme nt 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

3-2Public 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 mo re 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 y ear 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 w ill 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 an d become the third most populous county behind San Diego.

In California's Central Valley, San Joaquin County is e xpected to triple in size and experience the greatest percentage increase over the 50-year period—200 percen t. 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 qua lity problems. Many rural residents on small water systems or wells experience lim ited water supply as well as water quality impacts during droughts. (See Regional/Local Challenges later in this chapter.) Wa ter supply and water quality are inseparable in water management. Some areas of California rely on ov er-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.

3-3California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

In many areas surface water and groundwater are impa ired by natural and human-made contaminants that can threaten human health, degrade the natural e nvironment, 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 wate r by improving productivity and efficiency. For example, from 1980 to 2000 the annual statewide harvest increased by 40 per cent measured in tons of crops per acre-foot of applied water. However, in some areas, water sour ces once used for agriculture are now used for urban needs, environmental restoration, and groundwater re plenishment. Even in average water years, some growers forgo planting and other agricultural opera tions because they lack a firm water supply.

Environmental requirements are not always met, alt hough 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 Cali fornia 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 st ate 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 water b 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 r epresents 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, an d Mexico. Of this total supply, about 50 to 60 percent either is used by native vegetation, eva porates to the atmosphere, provides some of the water for agricultural crops and managed wetlands (effective precipitation), or flows to Oregon, Nevada, the

3-4Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

Pacific Ocean, and salt sinks like saline groundwater a quifers 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 a nd 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 dedi cated 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 variet y of methods: task forces and advisory committees, partnerships and integrated re gional water management, programs, water bonds, water management systems, research and reports, legislation, regulatio n, and more. (For further discussion, see the Response section that follows.)

The biggest challenge for California water resources ma nagement 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 sh arply, and greater reliance on groundwater results in higher costs for many users. In the mean time, tho se 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 di stances across the state. Because of a variety of issues and uncertainties, new large, interbasin project s 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 tr ansfers, 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 matche d with its eventual use and potential treatment. Overall, the State should develop and adopt an inte grated “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 be ing resolved through coalitions and partnerships

3-5California 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 wor se 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 a dversely affected, jeopardizing California’s economy. Ecosystems are strained, risking sensitive and enda ngered plants, animals, and habitats. Groundwater levels decline, and many rural residents who are depe ndent on small water systems or wells run short of

water.

California's most severe recorded drought statewid e 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 dangerous ly low groundwater levels. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts were very severe during th ese 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 Va lley 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 st udies suggest a loss of about $85 million during the

winter of 1990–91.

Data released in early February 2005 suggest a lesseni ng 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 larges t 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 interregi onal water transfers to supplement local water supplies. Meanwhile, concerns of groundwater overdra ft and environmental impa irment have led some counties to pass ordinances meant to control out-of-b asin water transfers. State statute (Stats 2001,

3-6Public 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 availabilit y and water needs. Planners take into account the normal fluctuations of wet and dry years in allocating deliveries from rese rvoirs and in determini ng how much water will be provided from other sources. Urban water suppliers must adopt urban water management plans 3 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 reduci ng 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 review ed items for near-term drought planning, putting California’s conditions today into perspective with e xperiences 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 user s. The report also addressed the vulnerability of existing water users based on past droughts and discu ssed current actions that affect drought preparedness planning.

Since the drought of 1987–1992, many notable ch anges—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 Wate r District), Los Vaqueros Reservoir (Contra Costa Water District), and five large-scale gr oundwater recharge/storage projects should add flexibility in operating the water system.

• Despite the increase in population, advances in wa ter 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 Ag reement 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)

3-7California 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 Californi a almost 32,000 housing units obtained water from shallow wells and another 49,000 housing units obtai ned their water from some source other than dug wells, drilled wells, or public or private water system s. 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 wa ter can contain bacterial, parasitic, and viral contaminants. People at risk most often get their wa ter 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 asso ciated with failing septic drainfields and sewage surfacing in yards. This lack of wastewater infr astructure may cause cross-contamination with potable water (see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Ca lifornians Without Safe Water” (Wilber 2003)).

Contamination of Surface Water and Groundwater
Nonpoint-source pollution, including urban and agricultu ral 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 a nd streams and about 15 percent of its lake acreage are listed as impaired. Regarding groundwater, samples an alyzed from all 10 hydrologic regions showed that 5 to 42 percent of public water supply wells exceed ed 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 ag ricultural or industrial re gions had high percentage of exceedances for pesticides and volatile organic chemicals, respectively. Seawater intrusion in the Delta and in coastal aquifers, agricultural drainage, and im ported Colorado River wate r can increase salinity in all types of water supplies, adversel y 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 y ears 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 est imated 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 dec line in groundwater in storage during a drought, or to describe a one-year decline of ground water 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

3-8Public 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 manageme nt systems to provide clean and reliable water supplies, protect lives and property from fl oods, withstand drought, and sustain environmental values. These water management systems include physi cal 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 interconnect ed. 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 growi ng population and changing water use patterns, withstanding catastrophic natural events like earthquakes and fl oods, and adapting to the changes that accompany global climate change.

Aging facilities risk public safety, water supply reliabi lity, 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, outag es, and failures and the degradation of local water delivery systems are in part the result of years of u nderinvestment in preventive maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation. The Public Policy Institute of Californi a estimated the state’s wa ter supply and wastewater treatment systems maintenance backlog to be about $40 billion (Dowall and Whittington 2003).

Flood Management
California’s Central Valley fl ood 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 infrast ructure. At the same time, the Central Valley’s growing population is pushing new housing and job cent ers to areas that are particularly vulnerable to

fl ooding. Yet, in recent years, funding to maintain and upgrade fl ood protection facilities has sharply declined. Compounding these challenges are recent court rulings that hold State and local agencies liable
for fl ood-related damages when levees fail.

Delta Vulnerabilities
There are many factors that make it challenging to su stain the Delta levees. Subsidence of Delta islands continues to occur where peat so ils oxidize, increasing the pressure on levees that protect the islands. A catastrophic earthquake in or near the Delta might cau se multiple levee failures that would draw seawater into the Delta, rendering the water un fi t for irrigation or human consumption until levees were repaired
and seawater was fl ushed from the Delta. Climate change is causing sea levels to rise and may also increase the magnitude of fl oods. Maintenance and improvement of De lta 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.

3-9California 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 ch annels 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 th roughout the network. Failing infrastructur e leads to unreliable, poor-quality, expensive water supplies.

On June 3, 2004, a levee breach o ccurred on Upper Jones Tract in the southern region of the Sacramento San-Joaquin Delta. A roughly 300-foot wide section collapsed. There was no wa rning, 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 De lta levees, which are needed for the environment, agriculture, and urban uses. These levees protect ro adways, 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 a nd operated based on data from a relatively short hydrologic record. Mounting scientific evidence s uggests 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 suppl y and flood management makes us particularly vulnerable to these types of projected hydrologic changes. (See Chapter 4 and
Volume 4 Reference Guide articles under Globa l Climate Change for further discussion.)

Historical records reveal changes in the pattern of Ap ril–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 Apr il–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 leve l rise. Figure 3-7 (Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels) shows historical sea level ri se 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 la nds, much of which already is below sea level.

Figure 3-7 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels

3-10Public 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 exam ple, Metropolitan Water District’s Colorado River Aqueduct and the SWP. In fact, the SWP is the single la rgest 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 w ashers 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 i rrigation 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 industri al sector is more energy intensive than in the agricultural sector because surface wate r 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 res ponse 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 thr ough 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 ha ve evolved over the past 100 years largely without regard to water
resources reserved for tribal lands. Tribal water ri ghts 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-represen ted communities continue to face economic and environmental inequities with respect to water supply, participation in wate r 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 comm unities associated with

3-11California 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 Califor nia’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 B ox 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 fi sh species has affected dry-period reservoir operations and the supplies available for agricultural water cont ractors. During the recent dry period from years 2001 through 2004, the lack of water in storage severely a ffected 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 n eed for downstream flows for fish versus water diversion to the Sacramento River basin has resulted in litigation an d a revised operations plan at the USBR Lewiston
Reservoir diversion. Recent federal court decisions allo cate 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 growi ng areas for shellfish. Water diversions, channel modification, temperature, and nutrients have also impacted commercial and recreational fisheries. Groundwater quality problems include seawater intrusi on and nitrate contamination in shallow coastal aquifers, salinity and alkalinity in the lake sedimen ts 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 th e Lost River and shortnose suckers, Coho salmon,
and steelhead trout. In 1997 National Marine Fisherie s Service listed steelhead trout as threatened and in
2002 listed Coho salmon as e ndangered along part of the California coast that includes the Russian River
Basin.

3-12Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

The region must also balance Eel River fishery rest oration 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 re duction 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 droug ht 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 th e 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 continu ously 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 incl ude 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 wa tersheds. While water quality in the Estuary is much better now due to the implementation of seconda ry 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 gr oundwater resources. Surface water for agricultural and urban purposes is imported throu gh 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, futu re 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 ha s 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 p esticide contamination relate d to agriculture, which is the valley’s main land use. S eawater 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,

3-13California 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 Ri ver 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 con servation, 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 incl uding high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and low levels of perchlorate from the Colorado River, and the pr esence 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 Ange les, 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 dist ricts 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, wa ter transfers from Sacramen to 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 Programand 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 a nd other alternative sites. Flood protection and the adequacy of existing flood control structures is a ma jor concern for the low-lyin g areas of the Sacramento Valley floor, particularly in areas wh ere 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 contamin ant sources. For instance, at the north end of the Sacramento Valley, wells typically have high TDS c ontent and in the western volcanic and geothermal areas, moderate levels of hydrogen sulfide are found in groundwater In the Sierra foothills, uranium and

3-14Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

radon-bearing rock or sulfide mineral deposits cont aining heavy metals may contaminate groundwater. In addition, a history of gold mining activities has produ ced 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 r estoration 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, whic h eventually flow into the Delta. Existing and proposed projects include federal and State partnershi ps 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 reser voir 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 surp lus 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 di scharges. 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 se diments of the Coast Range exist. Agricultural pesticides, nitrates, naturally occurring selenium, a nd 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 Joaqui n River below Friant Dam while maintaining water supply reliability for other purposes. The river's hist oric 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 vi olated 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 pr oblems in the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and salt and boron load limitations. There is a lot of activity and inte rest in the use of San Joaquin River water for

3-15California 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 S outh Delta Improvement Program and increased pumping at Banks.

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region
Water supply reliability. Uncertainty and limitations of surface wa ter 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 road s. Water transfers within these areas have and will
become more common as farmers se ek 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 rech arge programs store excess water during wet periods for extraction and use during dry periods.

Water quality . Much of the groundwater in the western Valle y floor area is not suitable for use because of its high salinity and the presence of other toxic elemen ts resulting from percola tion 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 th e 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 w ildlife. Irrigation with high salinity imported water has exacerbated the drainage problem. In 2002, USBR suppor ted 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 ri ver systems have unique environmental water needs. There has been significant activity on both the Kings a nd 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 popula tions. 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 rive r through the City of Bakersfield for instream uses and then extracting the water farther downstrea m through the use of wells. Environmental water supplies on the Kaweah and Tule Rivers are being mo dified due to the mitigation requirements tied to reservoir enlargement projects on both systems.

3-16Public 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 ex ecution and implementation of that agreement will require considerable effort in the coming years. Ca lifornia and the U.S. Department of Interior are preparing the draft environmental impact statemen t/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 a nd 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 we lls in South Lake Tahoe . The abandoned Leviathan Mine impacts local creeks in the upper Carson River wa tershed with acid mine drainage. Activities in the Lake Tahoe basin are subject to extensive prohib itions, BMPs, and analysis, intended to restore and preserve the Lake’s water quality.

Environmental water supply. The principal consumptive uses of wa ter 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 Un it 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 fl ows 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 s outhwestern portion of this region are now experiencing shortfalls in water s upplies. 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 w ould 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 groundwat er 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 exc eeded in public water supply wells, it is most often for TDS, fluoride, or boron. Wate r quality and quantity are inherently related in the Owens River

3-17California 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 an d groundwater by the City of Los Angeles. Arsenic
is a health concern in the Owens River basi n, 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 complete d 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 th is 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 Rive r water (DWR 2003). Unde r 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 QS A also assists the transfer of water to meet urban needs in the South Coast region and of mitigation wa ter 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 (agric ultural) part of the Coachella Valley.

Water quality. The Colorado River provides irrigation a nd 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 th is supply with low salinity water supplies before urban use. Low levels of perchlorate in the Colora do 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 internationa l 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, a nd conveys industrial and agricultural wastes from Mexico into the United States; the Alamo River, whic h 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.

3-18Public 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 qual ity 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 w ith low river inflows from the San Joaquin River can make it difficult for local irrigati on 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 gat es 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 qua lity 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 pumpi ng 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 Ca lifornia. Salinity (from saltwater intrusion and from agricultural drainage), organic carbon, and pathogens are among th e major constituents of concern for water agencies that divert water for domestic purposes. Water qua lity threats include population growth and increased wastewater discharge and urban runoff in Delta tribut aries, recreational use within Delta waterways, and agricultural runoff and drainage from the Central Va lley. 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 Jon es Tract levee break in early June 2004), and also can adversely impact Delta water quality. Long-te rm 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 biot a. Habitat quality has also declined due to diversion of water, toxics, exotic species, and other factor s. 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.

3-19California 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 wa ter 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 avai lable 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 th e 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 a nd Watershed Protection” laws as a mechanism for obtaining a larger share of the available water supply.

Water quality. Domestic water users generally benefit from hi gh 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 rive rs that create water quality problems in downstream water bodies. Erosion from natural flooding, logging, la nd 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 re cent 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 unde r way are described in Volume 3 Regional Reports.

Moving Toward Regional Water Reliability

Water managers have learned that even though impor ted supplies will continue to be important, they cannot be relied on to satisfy gr owing water demands. In the 1980s concerns for protecting the environment were manifested in strong new laws an d regulations. These regulations affected the ability of imported water projects to deliver water. The resulting un certainty also contributed to hesitancy to invest

3-20Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

in additional facilities for these interbasin systems an d 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 st orage. 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 cons ider 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 provi de 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 integr ated 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, in cluding water quality, local surface water, groundwater, conservation, recycled water, c onveyance, 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 provid e long-term, reliable water supply at lowest reasonable cost and with highest possibl e 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 s howing that these regional efforts can better resolve regional needs, especially when paired with stat ewide water management systems. Regional water management options can reduce physical and economi c 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 in creased focus on integrated regional water management solves water management problems more efficiently, c onsiders other resource issues, and enjoys broader public support.

3-21California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

With integrated regional water mana gement, regions have been able to take advantage of opportunities that are not always available to individual wate r suppliers: reduce depende nce 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 impr ove water quality. The extent to which regions have carried these out has been driven by considera tions 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 pl ans 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, preser ve 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 suppl y, 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 project s produce a diverse and valuable mix of other
benefits.

The California Legislature has enacted several re gulations to improve integrated regional water management (see Box 3-7 New Laws Support Inte grated Regional Water Management). Recent legislation has also encouraged improvements in r ecycling, 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 fl exibility while addressing an array of benefits and interests. For example, Water Code section 1053 0 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 effec tive 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 pr ojects that depend on water. The new laws require verification of sufficient water supplies as a conditio n for approving developments, and they compel urban water suppliers to provide mo re information on groundwater relia bility if used as a supply. They also require average and drought year conditions be addressed when evaluating water supply reliability.

3-22Public 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 th eir 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 planni ng 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 cons istent 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 wate r management issues are best planned and carried out on a regional basis. However, the State has led colla borative 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 a nd 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 probl ems in the Bay-Delta. The Program plan addresses four interrelated, interdependent resource manageme nt 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 habita ts and improve ecological functions in the BayDelta to support sustainable populations of dive rse and valuable plant and animal species.

• Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supp lies 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 impl ementation after signing of the ROD. (Stage 1 covers the first period of program implementation.) Actions taken duri ng Stage 1 build the foundation for

3-23California 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 re duced conflicts over Delta operations through better agency coordination and the new Environmental Wa ter 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 th e 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 r each agreement on how to reduce thei r 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 chaptere d in 2003—SB 277 (Ducheny), SB 317 (Kuehl), and SB 654 (Machado).

Included in the QSA are water transfers—from Imperi al Irrigation District to San Diego County Water Authority and to Coachella Valley Water District—tha t 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, a nd Oregon is now working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the State of California to evalua te and report on the capabilities of this interstate groundwater system.

In March 2002 the federal administration establishe d a cabinet-level Klamath River Basin Federal Working Group that includes the departments of Interi or, Agriculture, and Commerce to address concerns raised by farmers, ranchers, fishers, tribes, and othe rs affected by the difficult conditions in Klamath. As part of the working group, the Department of Agricultur e 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, bot h major water sources of the Klamath Basin. These projects will benefit water quality and improve wildlife habitat, thereby pr oviding 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 Sout hern California have negatively affected the region for decades. In 1993 after years of litigation the Lo s Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) began final flow releases to restore Mono Lake to pr evious levels, with a desired water surface elevation

3-24Public 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 Lowe r 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 pr ogram 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 da mage 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 chang es 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 proj ects to meet the system’s comprehensive public safety, flood damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration obj ectives. 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) recogni zes the water supply conveyance benefits of the levee system and suggests that a broader responsibilit y for maintenance of the flood management system
should be considered. The Reclamation Board of th e 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 Ecosyste m 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 identif ied approximately 80 consensus-based projects and studies that could be undertaken to improve the ri ver 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 fundi ng and purchase of water from upstream reservoirs, which is released per VAMP pulse flow criteria in April and May.

3-25California 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 r estore 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 e xport 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 injuncti on and ruled that the original year 2000 Record of Decision was adequate. The water allocated to downstr eam 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, wh ich includes Lake Tahoe, efforts continue to resolve years of disputes over the waters of th e Truckee and Carson rivers. In 1990 Congress passed the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settle ment Act (Public Law 101-618), which makes an
interstate allocation of the waters between California and Nevada, provi des for the settlement of certain American Indian rights claims, and provides for wa ter 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 wate r interests in Nevada. However, provisions of the Settlement Act, including the interstate water alloca tion, 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 Tr uckee 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 grou ndwater diversions in California’s part of the

Truckee Basin.

Programs to manage Lake Tahoe water quality by re gulating development and preventing pollutants from reaching the lake are being implemented at the fede ral, 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 pr otect 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 ad dition to its regulatory activities, TRPA carries out a capital improvement program to repair environmental damage done before the regional plan was adopted.

3-26Public 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 comprehensiv e long-term capital investment plan for financing public building needs, including responsible financia l 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 investme nt in the nation’s history (California Commission on Building for the 21 st Century 2001).

California Floodplain Management Task Force . This task force was establishe d 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 lo cal 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—Finding s and Recommendations" to the Legislature on potential opportunities for desalination of seawater an d 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 Manageme nt 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 th e recognition that health, welfare, and economy of California are among those sever ely impacted. As part of a five-year planning program to implement specific actions of th e 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 recommenda tions included a critical water shortage reduction marketing program to facilitate intraregional, short-te rm, 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 20 02 and is ongoing through bond measures Proposition 13 (March 2000) and Pr oposition 50 (November 2002). (See Volume 4
Reference Guide article “Selected Task Force and A dvisory 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 reco mmendations 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.

3-27California 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 Wate rsheds: 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 wa tershed management and provide input and advice to the CBDA Watershed Pr ogram. Participants come from state and local government, nonprofit corporations, and the private sect or. 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 proj ects 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 impediment s and activities to address the decline in riverine habitat within the Fish Passage Im provement 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 infrastruct ure 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, 20 02, to December 31, 2002 (DWR 2004). The report updates information regarding project costs and fina ncing, water supply planni ng, power operations, and

3-28Public 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 Califor nia water bonds since the last water plan update:

• Proposition 13. $1.97 billion in bonds to support safe drinking, wa ter 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 protec tion and restoration, and protection of wildlife habitat. Approved by voters March 2002.

• Proposition 50 “Water Security, Clean Drinking Wate r, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” This $3.4 billion bond provides $825 million (Chapt er 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 lo cal water security by reducing dependence on imported water.” Approved by voters November 2002.

AB 303 (Local Groundwater Management Assistance Ac t 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 developmen t 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 pr edict, prevent, and alleviate water supply conflicts. Water 2025 proposes modernizing aging water supply st ructures (from dams and reservoirs to pumping stations, pipelines, and canals) and improving regiona l 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 wate r. (See Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools).

Box 3-10 Water 2025 (Federal) Principles, Realities, and Key Tools

3-29California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

In support of watershed management, federal agenci es are subject to the Unified Federal Policy for Watersheds. The UFP guides the actions of key federa l agencies such as the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Interior as well as the U.S. E nvironmental 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 fe deral 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 lo cal agencies, governments and private firms, and
millions of households and farms. Decentralization has a major influe nce 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 va rious 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 fede ral 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 constitu tional prohibition of wasteful or unreasonable use. California's water law and policy requires that “water r esources 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 a nd may depend on opinions of the SWRCB or, ultimately, the courts.

3-30Public 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 obl igation under the Public Trust Doctrine as trustee of
certain resources for Californians. The Public Tr ust 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 co mmon 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 agen cies have fiduciary obligations to the public when they make decisions affecting trust assets.

In National Audubon , the court addressed the relationship be tween 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 ov er its navigable waters, the lands beneath them, and the flows of their tributary streams. This pr events 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 pub lic 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 h as been preserved for noncontiguous parcels when land is subdivided. Generally, riparian rights are not lo st 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

3-31California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

watershed. When water in a st ream is over-appropriated, a prio rity 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 ma y 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 issu ance 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 Wa ter Commission Act took effect in 1914), but pre1914 rights are still subject to reasonable and benefi cial 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 la ndowner in California has the right to build a well and extract groundwater as long as that groundwater is put to a r easonable and beneficial use. In 1903 the California Supreme Court rejected the English common law syst em 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 estab lished the doctrine of “correlative rights and reasonable use” under which every landowner in the basin has a right to extract a nd 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 boundar ies. Many local agencies and governments have prepared groundwater basin management pl ans under AB 3030 (1992; Water Code § 10754).

Tribal Water Rights

Some Indian reservations and othe r federal lands have reserved wate r rights implied from acts of the federal government, rather than State law. When trib al lands were reserved, their natural resources were implicitly reserved for tribal use. Because reserved tr ibal 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 wate r 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 benefi cial 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 criticis ms of the "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) quantification standard from various perspectives, th e 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 provi de 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.

3-32Public 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 perspectiv e 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 aut horized the adjudication of federal water rights in stream adjudications brought in state courts. The cour t 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 wate r-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 agreemen t. 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 nume rous 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 Colo rado River Compact, which divided the states into two basins—upper and lower—and appor tioned 7.5 million acre-feet per year to each basin. The compact also referenced Mexico's right to the Colorado Rive r. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 ratified the compact and established California’s appor tionment at 4.4 million acre-feet per year 4 . 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 Me xican treaty exceed the flow of the river in most

years.

Water Contracts
Water contracts are a way for an entity to obtain shor t-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 th e 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-f eet annually. The majority of the SWP goes to urban uses. These long-term contracts were upda ted 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.

3-33California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

Conservation League (see “Joint Statement on th e 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 classifi ed as water right settlement water. In October 2004, the Bureau of Reclamation released the draf t 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 200 5, 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 wa ter 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 conf used 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 a nd 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 Agre ements, 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

3-34Public 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 pr ovide water on a short-term basis for drought-year emergency water supplies and some provide for long-te rm 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, th e 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 ac quisitions. (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 be nefit 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 Califor nia'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 Wate r 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 St ate 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—Restor es, 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 prot ecting 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—Responsib le 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—Suppor ts California’s agricultural economy.

• Department of Health Services—Oversees program s 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.

3-35California 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, bui lds, 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)—Man ages 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—Prot ects human health, safeguarding the natural
environment.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Conserves, protect s, 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 relations hip with the federal government—as beneficiary and trustee, respectively. In a broad sense, the federa l government has a fiduciary responsibility to tribes; however, the execution and effectiveness of this resp onsibility differ between the three branches of the federal government.

When reservation lands were set aside, the natural r esources of the reservations also were reserved for tribal people. The federal government is legal titlehol der 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 decisi ons have defined legal principles fo r 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 th e trust relationship. The federal government has initiated programs to encourage development of I ndian resources and tribal self-determination. The

3-36Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

socioeconomic and political history of California Indi ans 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 dist ricts have ultimate respons ibility for providing safe and reliable water to their customers. In general, Ca lifornia has two methods for forming special districts that develop, control, or distribute water: (1) enact ment 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 perm its for certain uses of groundwater within their
boundaries.

Private Entities
In addition to public agencies, private entities may pr ovide water supply. Mutual water companies, for example, are private corporations that perform wate r 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 inv estor-owned water compani es are regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission.

International Trade Agreements
Since January 2000 more than 140 World Trade Or ganization (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 agreemen ts. It is a set of multilateral rules covering international trade in services. GATS recognizes "the ri ght of Members to regulate, and to introduce new regulations, on the supply of services ... in order to meet national policy objec tives." 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 wate r projects that involve private companies with multinational ties. Such projects include desalination plants, water transfers, water storage projects (above and below ground), and wastewat er 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, i ndividual 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 circ umstances. 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 ma ke decisions on planting and water application based

3-37California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 3 California Water Today

on weather conditions, forecasted water supply, and indi vidual 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 individua ls 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, wate r costs, habitat conditions, and other important subjects can help the public become active participants in plan implementation.

• Legislation—Legislation can provide new st atutes for managing resources. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Recent Water Legislation.”)

• Voter-approved propositions—Voters can directly enact new laws by a pproving propositions. In many cases, voters decide on major funding requests. Since 1996, voters have approved four major California water bonds (propositio ns 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 alterna tive. 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 "Summa ry of Significant Litigation 1998-2005.")

3-38Public 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)

3-39California 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)

3-40Public 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 2001Millions

Total Gross State Product

Figure 3-4 California population, 1960–2030

3-41California 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 hydr aulic works—reservoirs and more than 4,000 miles
of ditches and flumes—to sluice out the elusive shin ing metal. Water was harnessed and blasted into hillsides to dislodge gold in a practice called "hyd raulic 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 floodi ng for navigation and dow nstream 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 fo rm the Delta, farmers began building levees around periodically submerged isla nds 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 be gan to drop, which caused an increase in pumping costs. This pointed out the need for a more effici ent 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 evolve d into the California Irrigation District Act of 1917 and paved the way for other types of water devel opment 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 bega n 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 fra mework for an eventual State Water Plan, which later formed the b asis 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 s upport 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.

3-42Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 3 California Water Today

During the two decades following World War II, deve lopment of California's water was virtually unimpeded. But by the 1970s, environmental awaren ess 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 enactme nt of State and federal environmental legislation have resulted in few major water deve lopment projects being built since 1980.

Today hundreds of water utility districts supply Calif ornians with water purchased by contract from the state or the federal government, bought wholesale from a nother 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 Chronol ogy” in Volume 4 Reference Guide.

3-43California 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

3-44Public 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 direct ed 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 obtai n 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 contin uation 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 )

3-45California 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

YearGolden Gate Gage 9414290 (Feet)

-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20NGVD 1929 Datum (Feet) Annual Average Tide

19-Year Mean Tide

3-46Public 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 th e 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 out put 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 hydropow er is characterized by numerous low-volume, highhead (large elevation drop) facilities, that divert wate r 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 capacitie s. 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 h ydroelectric 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 hist orical 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, whic h 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 hydr opower facilities may be an economically viable way to restoring ecosystems.

Hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federa l Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the licenses of more than 100 existing facilities in Californi a 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 opportuniti es to develop and improve integrated resource planning, so that the proposed operation of hydroelect ric projects can also consider improved benefits to local water supplies, instream flows, and recreation uses.

3-47California 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

3-48Public 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 stat e 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, a nd all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the Oregon stateline southerly through the Russian River Basin.

San Francisco Bay. Basins draining into San Francisc o, San Pablo, and Suisun bays, and into Sacramento River downstream from Collinsville; western Contra Cost a 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 sout h 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 sout h end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River watershed, encompassing basins draini ng to Kern Lakebed, Tulare Lakebed, and Buena
Vista Lakebed.

North Lahontan. Basins east of the Sierra Nevada cr est, and west of the Nevada stateline, from the Oregon border south to the southern bou ndary 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.

3-49California 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 incl udes 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 Sa n 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 incl udes 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 hydrol ogic regions. This area shares common water and other resource issues and is the origin for much of the State’s developed surface water supply.

3-50Public 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 Progr am 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 Mana gement 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 Re sources 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-t erm 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, provi ding 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 centr al 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 reliabilit y, availability, affordability, and quality of water

3-51California 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 peop le 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 b een assisted by a $22 million grant from the Department of Water Resources through RWA funding e fforts. 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 assist ance 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 wate r projects. Around $19 million has been awarded to RWA in the form of grants to support its inno vative water efficiency program. The authority has developed good working relations with Stat e and local agencies throughout the region.

[Sacramento] Water Forum In the American River watershed, individual groups, water suppliers, environmentalists, local governments, business groups, agricultu ralists, 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 Rive r. 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, wa ter managers and local governments; the Water Forum was created. It was a six-year crusade of inte nse 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 crea tive 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 understa ndings 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 reduc ing 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 Agreem ent, the seventh element, the Successor Effort was created to oversee, monitor and report on implementa tion 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.

3-52Public 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 implemen t a full range of complementary actions through 2030 that will achieve the Water Forum’s two co-equal obj ectives: 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 year s 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 Wa ter 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 De partment of Interior, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, and several other federal and State agencies. In additio n to agency involvement, CALFED encourages strong public outreach, and many individuals and nongovernmental organizati ons 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 su rplus of unproductive exchanges. CALFED has provided a platform for groups with a variety of interests and constituents to voice their c oncerns and positions, to hear from other groups with different perspectiv es, 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 Califor nia (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 me mbers, 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 th e “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 reliab ility needs through 2025. The 2003 MWD plan is a

3-53California 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 comprehens ive water resource management.

According to Chief Executive Officer Ronald R. G astelum, Metropolitan’s preparations and ability to deal with water shortages, drought and emergencies ha ve 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 furt her 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 otherw ise would not be possible through actions of the individual agencies. By employing the principles of integrated resource planning, these partnerships can develop well-structured objectiv es 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 powe rs 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 wast e treatment management plans for the watershed area; disposal of wastewater, storm water, and othe r 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 fast est-growing regions in California and because of the high regional demand for good-quality water suppli es, SAWPA has faced severe challenges since its creation. By forming a regional partnership, SAWPA h as 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.

3-54Public 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 organi zing land and other resource use within a watershed while maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. For regi onal planning purposes in California, a watershed includes living (including the people who live and work in the watershed) and no nliving elements within a defined geographical area that is generally character ized by the flow of water. Watershed management seeks to balance changes in commun ity needs with evolving ecologi cal conditions. (See Volume 2 for more discussion of watershed management as a resource management strategy.)

3-55California 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 (Sta ts 2000, ch. 720) have increased the focus on regional and integrated water planning in pr eparing the California Water Plan Update.

• The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Stats. 2002, ch. 767) authorizes regional water management groups to pr epare and adopt regional plans and requires the Department of Water Resources and other State ag encies 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 th e 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 suppor t 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 wate r suppliers and local land use agencies for large development projects and plans.

These and other legislation passed since Bulletin 16 0-98 are described in Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Recent Water Legislation.”

3-56Public 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, § 11 010 as amended; Gov. Code, § 6 5867.5 as amended; Gov. Code, §§ 66455.3 and 66473.7) prohibits approval of subdiv isions consisting of more than 500 dwelling units
unless there is verification of sufficient water s upplies for the project fro m 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 connec tions. 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 1091 5 as amended; Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.9 as amended) and AB 901 (Water C ode, §§10610.2 and 10631 as amended; Water Code § 10634) make changes to the Urba n Water Management Planning Act to require additional information in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) if grou ndwater 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 b asin 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 suppl ied 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 wate r supplier over given periods and include the manner in which water quality affects water mana gement strategies and supply reliability.

3-57California 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 Quantif ication 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 Dr ought Planning Panel’s Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan

• State Recycling Task Force

• State Watershed Management Guidelines Initia tive (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 200 3 (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, Novemb er 1996, $995 million

• Proposition 13, March 2000, $1.97 billion

• Proposition 40, March 200 2, $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 Mo nterey Amendments Litigation” and “Summary of Significant Litigation 1998-2005”

3-58Public 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 wate r rights, contracts, and interstate compacts or decrees of the U.S. Supreme Court th at 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, a nd 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 effectiv e 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 a nd increased interagency cooperation

http://www.doi.gov/water2025/

3-59California 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 a nd 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 Ag reements, 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 individua ls 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 Effi cient 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

3-60Public 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, Ch anging Questions ............................................................................................. ..................... 4-1

Desired Information............................................................................................................ ............................... 4-2
Need for a New Anal ytical Ap proach............................................................................................. ................... 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 Wate r Data and Analy tical Tools ................................................................ 4 -5 Describing the Anal ytical Pr ocess .............................................................................................. ........................... 4-5

Identify Pr oblems .............................................................................................................. ................................ 4-5 Specify Ob jectives............................................................................................................. ................................ 4-6
Describe the Water Management System........................................................................................... ............... 4-6 Explore Options................................................................................................................ ................................. 4-7 Describe Expected Changes...................................................................................................... ..................... 4-7
Craft Alternativ e Responses .................................................................................................... ...................... 4-7 Compare Performance ............................................................................................................ ....................... 4-8
Make Deci sions ................................................................................................................. ................................ 4-8 Partial Application of New Approach ............................................................................................ ....................... 4-8

Describing Expected Changes with Three Prel iminary ‘No Action’ Scenarios for 2030.................................. 4-9 Description of Pre liminary Sc enarios ........................................................................................... ................... 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 Wate r Demand for Each Scenario ........................................................................ ... 4-12

Factors Affecting Water Demand ................................................................................................. ............... 4-13 Scenario Water Demand Changes between 2000 and 2030......................................................................... 4-1 4 Implications from Pr eliminary Analysis......................................................................................... ............. 4-15 Next Steps – Craft Response s and Compare Performance ........................................................................... ... 4-17
Initial In sights.................................................................................................................................................. 4-17 Potential Changes to Consider When Preparing for the Future .................................................................... ....... 4-18 Sources for Gradual Change..................................................................................................... ....................... 4-18

Future Landscape (L and Use Patterns)........................................................................................... ............. 4-18
Urban Use...................................................................................................................... .............................. 4-19 Agricultura l Use ............................................................................................................... ........................... 4-19
Environmen tal Use .............................................................................................................. ........................ 4-21 Sources for Sudden Change...................................................................................................... ....................... 4-22

Droughts ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-23
Floods ......................................................................................................................... ................................. 4-23 Earthquakes ................................................................................................................................................. 4-24
Wildfire....................................................................................................................... ................................. 4-24 Facility Ma lfunction .................................................................................................................................... 4-24
Chemical Spills................................................................................................................ ............................ 4-25
Intentional Disrup tion.................................................................................................................................. 4-25 Global Climate Change.......................................................................................................... .......................... 4-26 Snowpack Changes............................................................................................................... ....................... 4-27 Hydrologic Pattern............................................................................................................. .......................... 4-27
Sea Leve l Ri se ................................................................................................................. ............................ 4-28
Rainfall In tensity ......................................................................................................................................... 4-28

4-iCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Urban, Agricultural, and En vironmental Water Demand ............................................................................ 4-28 Aquatic Life................................................................................................................... .............................. 4-28 Changing Policies, Regulations , Laws, and Soci al Attitu des ..................................................................... ..... 4-29

Relationships between Water Operatio ns and Environmental Impacts ....................................................... 4-29 Changing Plum bing Codes ........................................................................................................ .................. 4-29 Emerging Contaminants .......................................................................................................... .................... 4-29 Summary........................................................................................................................ ...................................... 4-30



### Figures (where cited in text) Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year wa ter demand for three scen arios, 2000 –2030 ......................................... 4-14 Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenario s by sector, 2000–2030 .......................... 4-15 Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2 000–2030 ......................... 4-15 Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in th e Delta for different high flow periods................................................ ..... 4-24 Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earth quake pr obability............................................................. ...... 4-24 Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21 st 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 aver age and 19-year m ean tide levels............................................................ ....... 4-28



### Tables (where cited in text) Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional an d statewide water demands and supplies................................................. .. 4-10
Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria fo r assessing achievement of wate r management objectives ................................... 4-17



### Boxes (where cited in text)

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the Californi a Water Plan..................................................................... ................ 4-2 Box 4-2 Types of Qu antitative Info rmation..................................................................................... ......................... 4-2 Box 4-3 Evolving An alytical Approach ................................................................................................................... 4-4 Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analy tical Tools and Data for California Water Problems and
Solutions...................................................................................................................... ...................................... 4-5 Box 4-5 Conceptual Framew ork Diagram De scription .............................................................................. .............. 4-7 Box 4-6 Sample Re sponse Package............................................................................................... ......................... 4-17 Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs ............................ 4-23 Box 4-8 Potential Impacts fr om a Critical Levee Fa ilure ....................................................................... ................ 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.................................................. 4-2 7



### Figure (placed in text) Figure 4-1 Conceptual framewor k diagram for analysis of wate r 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 aff ecting agricultural water demand ................................................................ ............ 4-14
Table 4-4 Year 2000 unmet e nvironmental wate r objectives ...................................................................... ........... 4-14

4-iiPublic Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future



### Boxes, Figures, and Tables 1

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the Californi a Water Plan..................................................................... .............. 4-31 Box 4-2 Types of Qu antitative Info rmation............................................................................................................ 4-32 Box 4-3 Evolving An alytical Approach .......................................................................................... ....................... 4-33 Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analy tical Tools and Data for California Water Problems and
Solutions.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 Box 4-5 Conceptual Framew ork Diagram De scription .............................................................................. ............ 4-37 Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional an d statewide water demands and supplies................................................. .. 4-39 Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year wa ter demand for three scen arios, 2000 –2030 ......................................... 4-40 Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenario s by sector, 2000–2030 .......................... 4-41 Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2 000–2030 ......................... 4-42 Box 4-6 Sample Re sponse Package............................................................................................... ......................... 4-43
Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria fo r assessing achievement of wate r management objectives ................................... 4-44 Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs ............................ 4-45 Box 4-8 Potential Impacts fr om a Critical Levee Fa ilure ....................................................................... ................ 4-46 Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in th e Delta for different high flow periods................................................ ..... 4-47 Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earth quake pr obability............................................................. ...... 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.................................................. 4-5 0 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 aver age and 19-year m ean 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-iiiCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

4-ivPublic 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 describe s how the State of Califor nia is adapting to the changing needs of decision-makers, water manage rs, and planners. It lays out an approach for how the Department of Water Resources will develop a nd share crucial information needed for the many difficult choices California will face when managi ng 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 a nd complex. Making wise choices will require a great deal of cooperation and collaboration between decision-m akers 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 sta ndards, and analytical approach for understanding, evaluating, and improving regional and statewide water management systems. A common analytic approach is particularly important when multiple ag encies 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 mu ltiple 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 so ciety 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 scie ntific studies show that we face a great deal of

4-1California 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 planni ng 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 as ked 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 addr essed 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 in cluded 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 quantita tive 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 growin g public awareness of the complex interactions among water-related resources. Fina lly, California lacks a consistent framework and standards for collecting, managing, and provi ding 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 redu ce 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 conflic ts (Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information).

Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information

4-2Public 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 a ppropriate 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 re gional 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 comprehensiv e description of data gaps.):

• Statewide land use data (for example, native vegetation, urban footpr ints, 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 losses 2 , and runoff to salt sinks)

• Consumptive use (evaporation and evapotranspi ration 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 Sacr amento Valley where the De lta is a central outflow measurement. In areas like the South Coast Hydrol ogic 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 aggr egated or disaggregated to provide convenient access for all areas and spatial scales of interest. In additi on, budget constraints limit extensive data collection and management necessary to quantify a nd 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 perf ormance, social equity objectives, and surface water and groundwater interaction. Today, it is difficult to compare, much less in tegrate, water data and
information from different local entities to unde rstand 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

.

4-3California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

scientific understanding without creating a new informa tion 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, wate r 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 res ponses 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 Pla nning,” provides more discussion of this approach.

Box 4-3 Evolving Analytical Approach

Developing and providing more comprehensive info rmation will take time. DWR, advisory committee members, and other stakeholders put a lot of thou ght into how to develop more useful quantitative information. In particular, a lot of discussions focu sed 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 re quired 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 in formation is an ongoing process. DWR expects to lead an effort with other State, federal, and local en tities to continue developing and refining information. Credible and relevant answers to these questions requi re significant advances in our approach to learning about the system, testing hypotheses about change, a nd 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 recogni zed experts to develop a foundation for a quantitative water information system that w ill support water plan updates and ser ve 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 en tities, with State leadership and stakeholder input. The consortium should prepare a long-term plan to impr ove and peer review data and analytical tools, as well as to develop presentation and decision-support to ols to make complex technical information more accessible to decision-makers and resource managers.

DWR intends to build and maintain an online info rmation management system—called the Water Plan Information Exchange (Water PIE)—to assist regional and local agencies and governments. It is intended

4-4Public 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 ex change 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 manageme nt plans by providing a common vocabulary and a check list of the types and format of information n eeded 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 acces s 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 deve lop a long-term vision for analytical tools and data. This effort has derived a number of principles to gui de 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 inad equate 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 planni ng 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: iden tify problems, specify objectives, describe the relevant system, explore options, and make decisions.

This planning process enhances understanding about the pr oblem 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