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

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

### 27- 8 [EID] El Dorado Irrigation Di strict. 2003. The Waterfront. Environmental Science Associates. 2003. Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant 2020 Facilities Plan EIR, District 14, Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. Whittier, CA: Pr epared for County Sanitation District 14 of Los Angeles County. Environmental Water Caucus. 1998. Blueprint for an Environmentally and Economically Sound CALFED Water Supply Reliability Program. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. www.epa.gov/OGWDW/needs.html

. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Program. www.epa.gov/safewater

. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Natio nal Water Quality Inventory (305(b) report). http://www.epa.gov/305b/

. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planni ng Division. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program--Final Report. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Our Bu ilt and Natural Environment. Washington DC. EPA 231- R-01-002. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure GAP Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. 50 p. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk Characterization. Escalon Times Staff Writer. 2004 Jan 8. Farmington program web site goes online. Fetter CW. 1994. Applied Hydrogeology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Fleckenstein J.H., M Anderson, G.E. Fogg, J. Mount. 2003 (in press). Ma naging surface water-groundwater to restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. Focazio Michael J, Thomas E. Reilly, Michael G. Rupe rt, Dennis R. Helsel. 2002. Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifi cally Defensible Information for Decision Makers. US Geological Surv ey. Circular 1224. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1998. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Crop Evapotranspiration, Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. 300 p. Frayer W.E., D.D. Peters, H.R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley, Status and Trends 1939 to mid 1980s. Portland, OR: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 29 p. Freeze R. Allan and John A. Cherry. 1979. Gro undwater. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 604 p. [FWUA] Friant Water Users Authority. 2002. Water Supply Study, Development of Water Supply Alternatives for Use in Habitat Restoration for the San Joaquin River. Giannopoulus James (State Water Resources Control Board), Karen Baker (Department of Toxic Substances Control). Percholate Contamination of California's Groundwater Supplies. Givati A., D. Rosenfeld. 2004. Quantifying Precipitation Suppression Due to Air Pollution. Journal of Applied Meterology 43(1038-1056). Goldberg Carole, and Duane Champagne. 1996. A Second Century of Dishonor: Federal Inequities and California Tribes. Prepared by the UCLA Amer ican Indian Studies Center for the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy. Availability: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ca/Tribes.htm (Chapters may be updated periodically.) Gleick Peter H., Dana Haasz, Christine Henges-Jeck, Veena Srinivasan, Gary Wolff, Katherine Kao Cushing, Adardip Mann. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Pacific Institute.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft References

27-9 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing Governor's Advisory Drought Planning Panel. 2000. Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Dec 29. Availability: http://watsup2.water.ca.gov/contingency_plan.cfm

. Great Valley Center. 2001. Economic Forecast for California's Central Valley. 69 p. Groundwater Resources Association of California. 2002 . Perchlorate and NDMA: Rock et Fuel Contaminants a Serious Challenge to Drinking Water Supplies. Groundwater Resources Association of California, 2005 . California Groundwater Mana gement. GRAC, Sacramento, California. Hanak Ellen. 2002. California's Water Market, By the Nu mbers. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 36 p. Hanak Ellen. 2003. Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California? Third-party Issues and the Water Market. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 196 p. Hayes P.D. and others. 1999. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 1998 Vol 3. Sacramento: US Geological Survey. Heath Ralph C. 1983. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology. US Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper 2220. Hess W.N. 1974. Weather and Climate Modification. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 842 p. Hildebrand Gary, (Los Angeles County. Department of Public Works). 2003. Hogue Cheryl. 2003. Rocket-Fueled River. Chemical and Engineering News 81(33):37-46. Howe K. 2003 Feb 17. Carmel River Dam in danger. Monterey County Herald. Hydrologics. 2003. Operational Modeling. Prepared for El Dorado Irrigation District. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. The Scientific Basis: IPCC Third Assessment Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jahagirdar S. 2003. Down the Drain. Los Angeles, CA: En vironmental California Research and Policy Center. 25 p. Jarma A. 2003 Apr 10. Nacimiento drawdown approved. San Luis Obispo County Tribune. Jenkins Marion W et al. 2001. Improving Californi a Water Management: Optimizing Value and Flexibility. University of California Davis. Johns G. 2003. Where is California Taking Water Transfers. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129(1):5. Kasler D. 2002 Jul 14. Kern, a Hub of the Water Trade. Sacramento Bee. [KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. Water Age newsletter. [KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. 2002. Annual Water Supply Reports, 1998. [KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. 2003. Annual Water Supply Reports, 1999. Kelley Robert. 1998. Battling the Inland Sea. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Antelope Valley Water Group. 1995. Antelope Valley Water Resource Study. Kessler John S (Kessler and Associat es LLC). 2003. Personal communication. Knowles Noah, Cayan D. 2002. Global Climate Change: Potential Effects on the Sacramento/San Joaquin Watershed and the San Francisco Estuary. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18). Availability: http://cirrus.ucsd.edu/~pierce/crd/gl obalwarming/knowles_cayan_2002.pdf

. Kuminoff NV, AD Sokolow, and DA Sumner. 2001. Farmla nd Conversion: Perceptions and Realities. Agricultural Issues Center, Issues Brief(No 16). Availability: http://aic.ucdavis.edu/pub/briefs/brief16.pdf

. Laird [The Honorable] J (Assembly Me mber D-Santa Cruz 27th District). 2003 Jun 22. Commentary: SB 149 will not solve the Peninsula's water problems. Monterey County Herald.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies References References

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

### 27- 10 Lawton K. 2003. In the Year 2013... Farm Industry News. Lerner P. 2003 May 4. Whither the Lawn: What Southern California's Booming Population and Looming Water Crisis Mean for the Great Green Carp et of Suburbia. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles (City of). 1992. A Consensus Approach to Water Rates. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 2003. Urban Water Management Plan: Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Annual Update. Los Angeles Times Editorial Desk. 2001 Oct 16. Why Land Retirement Makes Sense for Westlands WD. Los Angeles Times. Maddaus William, Gleason Gwendolyn, Darmody John. 1999. Integrating Conservation into Water Supply Planning. Bloomfield, CO: MWH. Madrid Carlos. 1988. Artificial Ground Water Recharge in Southern California. In: Finlayson AIJaDJ, editor. Artificial Recharge of Ground Water: Am erican Society of Civil Engineers. McKinney J. 2003. California Hydropower System: Energy and Environment. California Energy Commission. Environmental Performance Report. Appendix D. Oct. McMahan Nicki. 1998. Preserving Agricultural Land in the Monterey Bay Area - Who's Doing What and How You Can Help. Landwatch Monterey County. McNiesh C. 2003 Sep 24. Stopping Seawater Intrusion. Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. [MCWRA] Monterey County Water Resources Agency. 1995-1998. Groundwater Extraction Reports. Salinas. Mead & Hunt. 2003. FERC Economic Analysis Critique--El Do rado Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for El Dorado Irrigation District. Mitchell David L and W. Michael Hanemann. 1994. Setting Urban Water Rates for Efficiency and Conservation: A Discussion of Issues.: California Urban Water Conservation Council. Monterey County. 1999. Draft Monterey Co. Existing Conditions Report. Monterey. Monterey County. 2002. Monterey County General Plan. Monterey. Montgomery Watson. 2001. Palmdale Water District Final Water System Master Plan. Moran D. 2003 Apr 4. Plans for desalination plants move forward. Monterey County Herald. Moran D. 2003 Jul 9. Water supply bill could be tied to affordable housing. Monterey County Herald. Moran D and K Ramsayer. 2003 Apr 27. River of Slow Return. Monterey County Herald. [MPWMD] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. 2001. Water Allocation EIR. Salinas. [MPWMD] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. 2002. Annual Report. http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/annrpt02/annrpt2002.htm

. Mullin J, Nady P. 1985. Water Budgets for Major Stream s in the Central Valley California 1961-77. Sacramento: US Geological Survey. 87 p. [MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southe rn California. Local Resources Program. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/your water/sb60/old/sb60%5Frecycling.html

. [MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2004. Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature: Snapshots of the Past...Portrait of a New Reality. National Governors Association, Center for Best Practi ces. Private Lands, Public Benefits: A Policy Summit on Working Lands Conservation; 2001 Mar 16; Washington D.C. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. 2001. Private Land s, Public Benefits: Principles for Advancing Working Lands Conservation.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft References

27-11 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration. 1998. Climatological Data California December 1997. Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration. 1999. Climatological Data California December 1998. Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration. 2000. Climatological Data California December 1999. Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration. 2001. Climatological Data California December 2000. Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration. 2002. Climatological Data California December 2001. Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. National Research Council. 2003. Critical Issues on Weat her Modification Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Water Research Institute. 200 3. Seawater Desalination: Opportunities and Challenges-Workshop Report. Natural Heritage Institute. 1998. Feasibility Study of a Maximal Program of Groundwater Banking. Dec. Natural Heritage Institute. 2000. Desi gning Successful Groundwater Banking Pr ograms in the Central Valley. Feb. Natural Heritage Institute. 2001. The Hydrogeological Su itability of Potential Groundwater Banking Sites in the Central Valley. Natural Heritage Institute. 2002. Estimating the Poten tial for In-Lieu Conjunctive Management in the Central Valley. Feb. Newlin BD, MW Jenkins, JR Lund, RE Howitt. 2002 . Southern California Water Markets: Potential and Limitations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 128(1):21-32. Newton M, Crowley K, Curry D. 2001. Environmenta l Water Account, Need for Legislation Definition and Oversight. Sacramento: California Legislative Analyst's Office. 12 p. North American Interstate Weather Modification Counc il. 2004. Response to "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, A Report by the National Research Council". Obasi GOP (Secretary-General). 1999. St atement at the Italian Senate Hearin g on Weather Modification on WMO's Activities on Weather Modification. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meterological Organization. p 8. O'Connell J. 2003. Down on the Farm. California Journal. [OEHHA] Office of Environmental Hea lth Hazard Assessment of California Environmental Protection Agency and The Resources Agency. 2002. Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). 282 p. [OPR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2003. Governor's Environmental Goals and Policy Report. Nov. Availability: http://www.opr.ca.gov/EnvGoals/PDFs/EGPR--11-10-03.pdf

. [OPR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Resear ch. 2003. State of Californi a General Plan Guidelines. 290 p. Oct. Availability: http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf

. [OPR and DWR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research and California Department of Water Resources. 1979. The California Water Atlas. Sacramen to: Distributed by William Kaufmann of Los Altos, Calif. Parsons J. 1987. A Geographer Looks at the San Joaquin Valley. UC Berkeley. Parsons L. 2003 Jan 15. Water project vote set. Salinas Californian. Parsons L. 2003 Feb 13. Cal-Am OKs Moss Landing desal plant. Salinas Californian. Parsons L. 2003 Apr 9. 85 Percent of Ballots Approve It. Salinas Californian. Pitt R., S. Clark, K. Parmer. 1994. Potential Groundwa ter Contamination from Intentional and Non-intentional Stormwater Infiltration. Upland, Penn.: Diane Press. 120 p.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies References References

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

### 27- 12 Pollock D. 2003 Mar 9. Uprooted Vines, Overturned Lives. [PPIC] Public Policy Institute of Calif ornia. 2003. What Should the State Do About California's Infrastructure. San Francisco. 2 p. [PPIC] Public Policy Institute of Calif ornia. 2004. PPIC Statewide Survey: Sp ecial Survey of the Central Valley. Public Research Institute. 1998. The Boating Clean and Green Survey, California Coastal Commission. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 20 02. Revised Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Study of Applied Water by Selected Crops. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Total Water Use Study 1998-2001 (preliminary data). Watsonville. Ramanathan V, PJ Crutzen, JT Kiehl, D Rosenfeld. 2001 . Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrologic Cycle. Science. Reason Foundation. 1993. Water-Utility Regulation: Rates and Cost Recovery. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley. Basin Plans. www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents

. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Various regions. Water Quality Control Plans. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast. 200 2. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Water Quality Issues in the Los Osos Community. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/WMI/LosOsos/FAQ1.pdf

. Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast. 2002. Watershed Management Initiative. Rourke Daniel (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District). 2003. Salinas Californian Editorial Staff. 2003 Feb 7. Votes 'Y es' on Salinas Valley Water Projects. Salinas Californian. Salinas Californian Staff. 2003 Jan 24. District to buy Central Valley water for $25M. Salinas Californian. San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2003. The Pulse of the Es tuary: Monitoring and Managing Contamination in the San Francisco Estuary. Oakland. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2002. Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan. Santa Barbara County Water Agency . 2000. Water Resources of Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara. Santa Clarita Valley Water Purveyors. Annual Report. Seals B. 2003 Feb 23. Water woes cause area to give desalination plants a second look. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Seals B. 2003 Apr 6. Sea water may quench Central Coast's thirst. Santa Cruz Sentinel. [SFPUC] San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Fact Sheet: Proposal to Rebuild San Francisco’s Water System. http://sfwater.org/detail.cf m/MSC_ID/6/MTO_ID/38/MC_ID/7/C_ID/543/holdSession/1

. Shaffer B and others. 2000. Central Valley Wetlands Wate r Supply Investigations, CVPIA 3406 (d)(6)(A,B), A Report to Congress. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Bureau of Reclamation. Shapiro Neal (City of Santa Monica). 2003. Personal communication Sherman Leroy K, George W. Musgrave . 1942. Infiltration. In: Meinzer OE, editor. Hydrology. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Smith F. 1980. A short review of the status of riparian fore sts in California. In: Sands A, editor. Riparian Forests in California. Berkeley, CA: Univ ersity of California Press. Smith R. 1994. Sinking and Swimming in Water Policy. Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government 17(3).California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft References

27-13 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing Smithson JR and others. 2002. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 2001. Vol 3. Sacramento: US Geological Survey. Sneed D. 2003 Jun 1. Aquifer troubles alarming Paso. San Luis Obispo Tribune. Snyder RL and others. 2002. Crop Coefficients. Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Modesto. Stapley G. 2003 Mar 16. Dryspell for Wells. Modesto Bee. Starr Kevin. 2000. California: the Dream and the Challe nge in the Twenty-first Cent ury. Essay. Availability: http://www.ca.gov/state/po rtal/myca_homepage.jsp Link: History and Culture of California. State of California. Water Resour ces Board. 1954. Placer County Investigation. Bulletin 10. Jul State Water Conservation Coalition, Reclamation/Reuse Ta sk Force, Bay Delta Reclamation Sub-Work Group. 1991. Water Recycling 2000: California's Plan for the Future. Statutes of 2001 (California), ch 642. (Senate Bill 221), an act to amend § 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend § 65867.5 of, and to add §§ 66455.3 and 66473.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use. http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISd ocID=97580825206+8+0+0 &WAISaction=retrieve Statutes of 2001 (California), ch. 643. (Senate Bill 610), an act to amend § 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend §§ 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, to repeal § 10913 of, and to add and repeal Section 10657 of, the Water Code, relating to water. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20011009_chaptered.html Statutes of 2002 (California), ch. 1016. (Assembly Bill 857), an act to amend §§ 13102, 13103, 65041, 65042, 65048, 65049, and 66037 of, and to add §§ 65041.1 and 65404 to, the Government Code, relating to state planning. http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISd ocID=97596026162+3+0+0 &WAISaction=retrieve Swift CC, Haglund TR , Ruiz M , and Fisher RN. 1993. The status and distribution of freshwater fishes of Southern California. Bulletin of the Southern Calif ornia Academy of Sciences 92:101-167. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Sacramento. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Boar d. 1999. A Guide to Water Transfers. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Addr essing the Need to Protect California's Watersheds: Working with Local Partnerships, Report to the Legislature (as required by AB 2117, Chapter 735, Statutes of 2000). Apr. Availability: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/legislative/docs/ab2117legrptdraft032102.pdf

. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Water Transfer Issues in California: Final Report to the California State Water Resources Control Board by the Water Transfer Workgroup. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California 305(b) Report on Water Quality 2002. California Environmental Protection Agency. 246 p. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. A Comprehensive Goundwater Quality Monitoring Program for California (AB 599 Report to the Governor and Legislature). California Environmental Protection Agency. 98 p. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 200 3. California Nonpoint Source Program Five-Year Implementation Plan July 2003 through June 2008. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. Municipal Wastewater Recycling Survey. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycli ng/recyfund/munirec/index.html

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

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

### 27- 14 [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Californi a Coastal Commission. 2000. Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 (PROSIP). [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2000. California State Water Resources Control Board Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2002. Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 2001. Strategic Plan. California Environmental Protection Agency. 28 p. Taugher M. 2004 Jan 31. Los Vaqueros expansion debate hits boiling point. Contra Costa Times. Thompson Willard (Pacific Coast Producer s). 2001. California's Water Woes. http://www.pcoastp.com/news/ne wslst_detail.asp?news_id=36

. Tule River Association. 1999. Annual Report, 1998 Water Year. Porterville, CA. Tule River Association. 2001. Annual Report, 2000 Water Year. Porterville, CA. Tule River Association. 2002. Annual Report, 2001 Water Year. Porterville, CA. UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural an d Resource Economics. Cost and return studies on field, orchard, vineyard, truck, pasture, and rice crops. UC Cooperative Extension, Vegetable Research and Information Center. Vegetable Crop Series. Umbach K. 2002. San Joaquin Valley: Selected Statistics on Population, Economy, and Environment. California Research Bureau. 79 p. Umbach Kenneth W PhD. 1998. A Statistical Tour of Ca lifornia's Great Central Valley - 1998: Prepared at the Request of Assembly Member Dennis Cardoza. http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/09/

. US Bureau of Census. 2000. Census. US Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan. US Department of Energy. 1998. Performance Based Contracting Guide. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prev ention. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (NPG). www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html

. US General Services Administration. Federal Water Recycling Program. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do ?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=11574&n oc=T

. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Conjunctive Use for Flood Protection. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers, The Reclamation Board (California). 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins California Comprehensive Study. Interim Report. Sacramento. Dec 20. Availability: www.compstudy.org

. [USACE and others] US Army Corps of Engineers, The Reclamation Board, California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004. Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosyste m Restoration, California. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Mar. Availability: http://www.spk.u sace.army.mil/civ/compstudy/docs/hamiltoncity _draft_eiseir/hamilt oncity_draft_eiseir_fu ll.pdf

. [USACE and VCWPD] US Army Corps of Engineers (Los Angeles District) and Ventura County Watershed Protection District [VCWPD]. 2004. Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 705 Report. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Operations Office. Report of Operations Monthly Delivery Tables. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/deliv.html

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

27-15 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Central Valley Operations Water Deliverie s from the CVP [online]. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/deliv.html

. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Sierra Coope rative Pilot Project: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Denver. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Incentive Pricing Handbook for Agricultural Districts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Phase II. Final Report (Draft). [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2001. Final Envir onmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Grassland Bypass Project, Ex ecutive Overview. 11 p. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. "Drought or Opportunity." Remarks prepared for delivery by John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation; Dec 12; Las Vegas, Nev: Colorado River Water Users Association 2003 Annual Meeting. Availability: http://www.usbr.gov/main/news/speeches/03-12-12.html [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA). [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft Phase I Investigation Report, Initial Surf ace Storage Options Screenings. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture. 2004. NRCS Activities in the Klamath River Basin. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/klamath/ . Accessed on May 21, 2004. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) for California. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography and Geospatial Center. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (for Alameda, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties). http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/products/ssurgo/

. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pacific Southwest Major Land Resource Area Soil Survey Office Regi on #2. Soil Surveys (of all or part of Alameda, Amador, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties). http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/

. [USFS] US Forest Service. 1996. Sier ra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. [USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Se rvice. Grassland Bypass Project Contaminants Investigation. http://sacramento.fws.gov/ec/grassland.htm

. [USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. Salinas Ri ver National Wildlife Refuge, Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 105 p. [USGS] US Geological Survey. National Water Quality Assessment Program. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

. [USGS] US Geological Survey. 1995. Potential for Ch emical Transport beneath a Storm Runoff Recharge (Retention) Basin for an Industrial Catchment in Fresno, California. [USGS] US Geological Surv ey. 2002. Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceedings, Sacr amento, California, April 2- 4. Open-File Report 02-89. [USGS] US Geological Survey. 2002. Assessing Groun d-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifically Defensible Information fo r Decision Makers. USGS Circular 1224. [USGS] US Geological Survey. 2002. Ground Water and Surface Water, A Single Resource. USGS Circular 1139. [USGS] US Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031. By Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. Open-File Report 03-214. Availability: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of03-214/

. Visalia Times-Delta Editorial Staff. 2003 Apr 30. Living with Cows and Living with People. Visalia Times-Delta.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies References References

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

### 27- 16 Walsh D. 2003 May 6. Federal Suit Aims to Halt Resort. Sacramento Bee. Water Desalination Task Force. (Stats. 2002, ch 957) California Water Code § 12949.6 (2002) Water Education Foundation. 1997. Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Study. Water Education Foundation. 2000. Layperson's Guide to the Delta. Water Education Foundation. 2003. Tapping the World's La rgest Reservoir: Desalinatio n. Western Water Jan/Feb. Water Resources Center (University of California). Biennial Groundwater Conference and Annual Meeting of the Groundwater Resources Association of California Abstracts; 2001. Weather Modification Association. 2004. Response to "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research," report of a review panel. Journal of Weather Modification 36:53-82. Westlands Water District. Annual Reports. http://www.westlandswater.org/wwd/default2.asp?cwide=1024

. Westlands Water District. 2001. Annual Report 2000/2001. 17 p. Westlands Water District. 2001. Water Resources Inventory. Fresno. Whipple D. 2003 Analysis: Land Use Climate Change Linked. UPI. Whitcomb John B PhD, Bill Hoffman, Jane H. Ploese r. 2001. BMP 9 Handbook: A Guide to Implementing Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water Conser vation Programs as Specified in Best Management Practice 9. Sacramento: Prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council. 30 p. Whitcomb John B PhD. 2003. Urban CII Landscape Water Use and Efficiency in Californi a. Sacramento: Prepared for California Landscape Cont ractors Association. 8 p. White B. 2003 Jul 24. Ground broken for Woodward water plant. Modesto Bee. Wilber Monique. 2003. Californians Without Safe Water. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources. 43 p. Wilkinson R. 2000. Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems and An Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Throug h Integrated Water-Energ y Efficiency Measures. California Institute for Energy Efficiency, Lawrence Berkeley Nati onal Laboratory. Jan. Williams (Dr.) Brian. 2004. Assessment of the Environmental Toxicity of Silver Iodide and Indium Iodide. Cooma, NSW, Australia: Snowy Hydro Limited. Wolff Jane. 2003. Delta Primer, a field guide to the Ca lifornia Delta. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers. 196 p. Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 1999. Watermaster Report 1997-1998. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2000. Watermaster Report 1998-1999. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2001. Watermaster Report 2000-2001. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2002. Watermaster Report 2001-2002. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. World Meterological Organization. Statement on the Status of Weather Modificiation, Report to the 53rd session of the Executive Council, Annex III. http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html

. Yap F. 2003 Jun 26. Atascadero Development Must Include Cheaper Housing. San Luis Obispo Tribune.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft References

27-17 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing 

### Web sites Agricultural Water Management Council. [Web site]. http://www.agwatercouncil.org/

. Alameda County Water District. [Web site]. http://www.acwd.org/

. American Farmland Trust. California Centra l Coast Region Narrative [Web site]. http://www.farmland.org

. Association of California Water Agencies. [Web site]. www.acwanet.com

. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Los Vaqueros Reservoir Enlargement [Web site]. http://www.lvstudies.com

. California Cattlemen's Association. [Web site]. http://www.calcattlemen.org/

. California Central Valley Economic Deve lopment Corporation. [Web site]. http://www.californiacv.com/

. California Coastal Commission. [Web site]. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

. California County Agricultural Commissioners. Annu al. County Annual Crop Reports [Web site]. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agcom/indexcav.htm

. California Department of Food and Agriculture. [Web site]. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The California Fire Plan [Web site]. http://www.fire.ca.gov/Fir eEmergencyResponse/FirePlan/FirePlan.asp

. California Energy Commission. California Energy Center [Web site]. http://www.consumerenergycenter.com/

. California Farm Water Coalition. [Web site]. http://www.farmwater.org/

. California Polytechnic State University. Irrigation Tr aining and Research Center (ITRC) [Web site]. http://www.itrc.org/

. California State University Fresno. Center fo r Irrigation Technology (CIT) [Web site]. http://www.atinet.org/newcati/cit/

. California Urban Water Conserva tion Council. [Web site]. http://www.cuwcc.org/home.html

. [CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. [Web site]. http://calwater.ca.gov

. [CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nation al Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [Web site]. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html

. [CDHS] California Department of Health Services. List of Drinking Water Contaminants and MCLs [Web site]. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/mcl/mclindex.htm

. [CDHS] California Department of Hea lth Services. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List [Web site]. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem /chemicals/DLR/dlrindex.htm

. [CDHS] California Department of Health Serv ices. Regulations and Guidance [Web site]. http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/regulations/

. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. [Web site]. http://www.ccsce.com/

. [CERES] California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. 2004. California Natural Diversity Database. California's Plantlife [Web site]. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres /calweb/plantlife.html . Accessed on April 15 and May 22, 2004. [CERES] California Environmental Resources Evaluation Sy stem. Links to California county information [Web site]. http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/counties

. Delta Protection Commission. [Web site]. www.delta.ca.gov

. [DFG] California Department of Fish and Game , License and Revenue Branch. [Web site]. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/index.html

. [DWR] California Department of Water Re sources. Grants and loans [Web site]. http://www.grantsloans.water .ca.gov/choose/index.cfm

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

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

### 27- 18 [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage [Web site]. http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/northdelta/index.cfm

. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. In-Delta Storage [Web site]. http://www.storage.water. ca.gov/indelta/index.cfm

. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Office of Water Use Efficiency [Web site]. http://wwwowue.water.ca.gov/ . Mar. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater laws and legislation [Web site]. http://www.groundwat er.water.ca.gov/water_laws/index.cfm

. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Statewide Water Planning. Agricultural and Urban Water Use [Web site]. http://www.waterplan.wat er.ca.gov/landwateruse/ wateruse/wuindex.htm

. Economy.com. [Web site]. www.dismal.com

. Environmental Design Library. California Planning Online [Web site]. http://www.lib.berkeley. edu/ENVI/calplan.html

. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ground wa ter and drinking water. Perchlorate. [Web site]. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/p erchlorate/perchlorate.html . Jan 23. Farmington Groundwater Recharge Program. [Web site]. http://www.farmingtonprogram.org/

. Faultline: California's Environmental Magazine. [Web site]. http://www.faultline.org/index.html

. [FWUA] Friant Water Users Authority. [Web site]. Friant Waterline: The Journal of the Friant Water Users Authority. http://www.fwua.org/ Giannini Foundation. [Web site]. http://giannini.ucop.edu/

. Groundwater Replenishment System. [Web site]. http://www.gwrsystem.com/

. LandWatch Monterey County. [Web site]. http://www.mclw.org/

. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. [Web site]. http://www.lcrmscp.org/

. National Agricultural Compliance A ssistance Center. [Web site]. http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/index.html

. Rand Corp. [Web site]. http://ca.rand.org/cgi-bin/homepage.cgi

. Sacramento River Watershed Program. [Web site] http://www.sacriver.org/

. San Diego County Water Authority. Recycled Water [Web site]. http://www.sdcwa.org/manage/sourcesrecycling.phtml

. Shaw John A (Dr.). [Web site]. http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnsh/

. Stewardship America. [Web site]. http://www.privatelands.org/index.htm

. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs. Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program [Web site]. www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/

. University of California Agricultu ral Issues Center. [Web site]. http://www.aic.ucdavis.edu/

. University of California Coopera tive Extension. Agriculture and Natural Resources [Web site]. http://ucanr.org/CES.CEA.shtml

. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Watershare Program [Web site]. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/watershare/

. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigations [Web site]. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri

. [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation [Web site]. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage

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

27-19 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing [USDA] US Department of Agriculture. Ag ricultural Research Se rvice [Web site]. http://pwa.ars.usda.gov/locations.shtml

. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Services [Web site]. www.nrcs.usda.gov

. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Recreational activities [Web site]. http://www.fs.fed.us/r ecreation/map/state_list.shtml#California

. [USGS] US Geological Survey. [Web site]. http://www.usgs.gov/

. [USGS] US Geological Survey. Water Resources Data and Water-Data Reports [Web site]. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wdr/#CA

. Water Infrastructure Network. [Web site]. http://www.win -water.org/

. WateReuse Association. [Web site]. http://www.watereuse.org/

. Westlands Water District. [Web site]. http://www.westlandswater.org/ wwd/default2.asp?cwide=1024

.1 1 **C hapter**  **1** Introduction California Wa ter Plan Update 200 5

### The California Water Plan Update 2005 i s organized in five volumes:

Volume 1: Strategic Plan V olume 2: 25 Resource Management Strategies V olume 3: 12 Regional Reports V olume 4: Reference Guide (60+ articles) V olume 5: Technical Guide (Online documentation)

The final California Water Plan Update 2005 and the Water Plan Highlights briefing book were completed in December 2005. The five volumes of the update, the Highlights document, and the introductory video, “Water for Tomorrow,” are contained on the CD and DVD below and also available online at www.waterplan.water.ca.gov.

Printed copies are available. The Highlights briefing book, which contains the CD and DVD, is available at no charge. Volume 1, 2, and 3 are $15 each. Volume 4 is $50. For printed copies, contact:

California Department of Water Resources A ttn: Publications and Paperwork Management Office P .O. Box 942836 S acramento, CA 94236-0001 ( 916) 653-1097

For online order form, go to www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/information/pubs.cfm If you need this publication in alternate form, contact the Public Affairs Office, 1-800-272-8869.

Cover photographs: DWR Graphic Services, Photography Unit. Cover design: Chris Sanchez.

# State of California T he Resources Agency D epartment of Water Resources 

# California Water Plan Update 2005
A Framework for Action

Bulletin 160-05 December 2005

**Arnold Schwarzenegger Mike Chrisman**  **Lester A. Snow** Governor Secretary for Resources Director State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources3 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Volume 3 – Regional Reports

Chapter 1 State Summary Chapter 2 North Coast Hydrologic Region Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Chapter 4 Central Coast Hydrologic Region Chapter 5 South Coast Hydrologic Region Chapter 6 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region Chapter 9 North Lahontan Hydrologic Region Chapter 10 South Lahontan Hydrologic Region Chapter 11 Colorado River Hydrologic Region Chapter 12 Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Chapter 13 Mountain Counties Glossary

## Chapter 1 State Summary 

# Volume 3i 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 1 State Summary

Contents Chapter 1 State Summary ........ 1-1 Hydrologic Regions ............. 1-1 Overlay Areas .................... 1-2 Coordination of Regional Reports .........................................................................................................................1-4 Hydrology for Current Conditions .........................................................................................................................1-5 Water Portfolios .................. 1-6 Applied Water Methodology ...........................................................................................................................1-8 Statewide Water Balance Summary ....................................................................................................................1-10 Statewide Water Portfolio Results for Years 1998 (Wet), 2000 (Average), and 2001 (Dry) ......................................1-15 Statewide Water Data Needs .............................................................................................................................1-16



## Boxes Box 1-1 California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions ..............................................................................................................1-1 Box 1-2 Acronyms Used in State Summar y ...............................................................................................................1-2 Box 1-3 T wo Overlay Areas ..... 1-4 Box 1-4 W ater Portfolio Components ........................................................................................................................1-8 Box 1-5 Key W ater Supply and Use Definitions .......................................................................................................1-10


## Figures Figure 1-1 State of California (map) .........................................................................................................................1-ii Figure 1-2 Hydrologic regions with Mountain Counties and Legal Delta

...................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-3 Mountain Counties and Legal Delta overlays .............................................................................................1-4 Figure 1-4 Range of average annual precipitation across regions, 1961-1990 ............................................................1-5 Figure 1-5 Range of actual precipitation across regions, 1998

................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-6 Range of actual precipitation across regions, 2000 ...................................................................................1-6 Figure 1-7 Range of actual precipitation across regions, 2001 ...................................................................................1-6 Figure 1-8 State of Califor nia population ..................................................................................................................1-7 Figure 1-9 Regional inflows and outfl ows, year 2000 (an average water year) ............................................................1-9 Figure 1-10 Califor nia water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ............................................1-13 Figure 1-11 Califor nia - illustrated water flow diagram ............................................................................................1-19 Figure 1-12 Califor nia - schematic water flow diagram ............................................................................................1-20



## Tables Table 1-1 California water summary ......................................................................................................................1-11 T able 1-2 State of California water balance summary .............................................................................................1-12 T able 1-3 California water use and distribution of dedicated supplies ........................................................................1-14 T able 1-4 California water portfolios .......................................................................................................................1-18**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

FRESNO INYO

TULARE KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

VENTURA

LOS ANGELES SAN BERNARDINO

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL SANTA BARBARA HUMBOLDT TRINITY

TEHAMA

GLENN

LAKE
SONOMA COLUSA BUTTE

YUBA

SUTTER NEVADA SIERRA SACRAMENTO YOLO NAPA

SOLANO PLACER

EL DORADO
ALPINE

MONO

MARIPOSA

MERCED MADERA

SAN BENITO

MONTEREY CALAVERAS

SAN JOAQUIN CONTRA COSTA ALAMEDA

SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SAN MATEO MARIN

SAN FRANCISCO TUOLUMNE

STANISLAUS MENDOCINO PLUMAS

AMADOR SISKYOU MODOC

SHASTA LASSEN DEL NORTE

**Some Statistics**

Area - 158,552 square miles Average annual precipitation - 22.9 inches Regional Precipitation range - 5.7 to 50.6 inches Year 2000 population - 34,088,135 2030 population projection - 48,110,700 Total reservoir storage capacity - 40,741 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 9,511,850 acres .

.

.

.

.

.

. Flow in TAF 1998 2,105 2000 1,498 2001 998 **Inflow from Oregon**

Flow in TAF 1998 184 2000 114 2001 66 **Outflow to Oregon**

Flow in TAF 1998 1,391 2000 754 2001 552 **Outflow to Nevada**

**Inflow from Mexico** Flow in TAF
1998 182 2000 166 2001 155 **Inflow from Colorado River** Flow in TAF
1998 4,896 2000 5,349 2001 5,197 **Figure 1-1 State of California**

The third largest state, California has a variety of landforms and climates. Annual rainfall ranges from more than 140 inches in the north coast to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving the region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. *Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows. Flow in TAF 1998 87,567 2000 43,413 2001 20,155 **Outflow to Ocean***1 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

This volume contains a statewide summary of water supply and water-use information for 1998, 2000 and 2001, followed by 12 individual regional reports. Ten reports summarize California’s hydrologic regions. Two additional reports are included — one for the Mountain Counties region and another for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. These two reports describeareas with significant water issues that overlay parts of the other hydrologic regions. These 12 regional reports provide information on the current water supplies and uses in each area, as well as a discussion of the water issues, accomplishments, and challenges that are specific to each region of California. Figure 1-1 provides a geographic overview of California and summarizes surface water inflows and outflows with adjoining states. 

# Chapter 1 State Summary

10 hydrologic regions, corresponding to the state’s major water drainage basins. Using the drainage basins as planning boundaries allows logical tracking of natural water runoff and accounting of surface and groundwater supplies. See Figure 1-2 and Box 1-1 California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions. 

## Hydrologic Regions California has a variety of climates and landforms. To better understand these diversities and plan for future needs, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) divides the state into 

## Box 1-1 California’s 10 Hydrologic Regions North Coast. Klamath River and Lost River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from Oregon south through the Russian River Basin. San Francisco Bay . Basins draining into San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, and into the Sacramento River downstream from Collinsville; western Contra Costa County; and basins directly tributary to the Pacific Ocean below the Russian River watershed to the southern boundary of the Pescadero Creek Basin. Central Coast. Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed to the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County. South Coast. Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin to the international border with Mexico. Sacramento River. Basins draining into the Sacramento River system in the Central Valley (including the Pit River drainage), from the Oregon border south through the American River drainage basin. San Joaquin River. Basins draining into the San Joaquin River system, from the Cosumnes River basin on the north through the southern boundary of the San Joaquin River watershed. Tulare Lake. The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River watershed, encompassing basins draining to Kern Lakebed, Tulare Lakebed, and Buena Vista Lakebed. North Lahontan. Basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest and west of the Nevada state line, from the Oregon border south to the southern boundary of the Walker River watershed. South Lahontan. The interior drainage basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, south of the Walker River watershed, northeast of the Transverse Ranges, and 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, Salto n Sea, and other closed basins north of the border with Mexico.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 2 1 

## Box 1-2 Acronyms Used in State Summary ABAG—Association of Bay Area Governments CALFED—State and Federal Bay Delta Authority CBDA—California Bay-Delta Authority DAU—Detailed Analysis Unit DWR—California Department of Water Resources ET—Evapotranspiration ET AW—Evapotranspiration of Applied Water maf—million acre-feet P A—Planning Area SWP—State Water Project SWRCB—State Water Resource Control Board taf—thousand acre-feetCalifornia is a state of contrasts and diversity as illustrated in this satellite image of Central California. Visible to the east are the forested slopes and snowcovered higher peaks of the Sierra Nevada and the light blue Lake Tahoe. The great Central Valley appears in center of the image. Farther west are the Coast Range, the San Francisco Bay and Delta, and the Pacifi c Ocean. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

For planning and data collection, DWR subdivides the 10 hydrologic regions into 56 planning areas (PAs) plus a more detailed breakdown into 278 detailed analysis units or DAUs (see Box 1-2 for more abbreviations used in this summary). Most of DWR data collection and analyses are started at the DAU level. This water plan update then gathers results into hydrologic regions for presentation. 

## Overlay Areas Some areas of the state with common water issues or interests often cross the boundaries from one hydrologic region to another. This is the first water plan update in the Bulletin 160 series to describe overlay areas. The two regional overlays in this report are the Mountain Counties region and the Sacra3 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 1-2 Hydrologic regions with Mountain Counties and Legal Delta**

The California Department of Water Resources divides the state into 10 hydrologic regions that correspond to its major drainage basins. This water plan update also describes the Mountain Counties and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as two overlay areas of special interest. Santa Cruz Hollister Salinas Merced Oakland
Redwood City

San Jose

San Luis Obispo Bakersfield

Santa Barbara Ventura
Los Angeles

Santa Ana Riverside San Berdardino

San Diego El Centro Martinez San Rafael Stockton

Modesto Sonora San Andreas Jackson Placerville

Bridgeport

Mariposa

Madera

Fresno

Hanford Independence

Visalia San Francisco Crescent

City

Eureka Yreka

Weaverville
Redding Alturas

Susanville

Quincy

Downieville Oroville Willows Red Bluff

Ukiah Lakeport Colusa Nevada City Yuba City Auburn

Santa Rosa Napa Fairfield Woodland Marysville

Sacramento Markleeville DEL NORTE SISKYOU

SHASTA MODOC

LASSEN

PLUMAS HUMBOLDT TRINITY

TEHAMA

GLENN BUTTE SIERRA

NEVADA

PLACER YUBA

EL DORADO

ALPINE

MONO TUOLUMNE CALAVERAS AMADOR SUTTER YOLO

NAPA COLUSA LAKE MENDOCINO

SONOMA

MARIN

SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA SACRAMENTO

SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ STANISLAUS MARIPOSA

MADERA MERCED

KINGS FRESNO SAN BENITO

KERN TULARE INYO

SAN LUIS OBISPO

VENTURA SANTA BARBARA

LOS ANGELES MONTEREY

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL SAN DIEGO ORANGE Hydrologic Regions

North Coast San Francisco Bay Central Coast South Coast Sacramento River San Joaquin River Tulare Lake North Lahontan South Lahontan Colorado River Mountain Counties County Seat County Line Legal Delta BoundaryCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 1 mento – San Joaquin Delta region (see Figure 1-3 and Box 1-3 Two Overlay Areas). There are many other regional overlays that could be developed, based on boundaries such as county lines, regional water districts, or integrated regional planning areas. Two examples of other regional agencies that could be distinguished in this manner are the California Bay-Delta Authority’s (CBDA) Southern California regional area of infl uence and the nine-county regional boundary for the Association of Bay Area Governments. 

## Coordination of Regional Reports As this California Water Plan Update 2005 was being prepared, CBDA was also preparing multiyear plans for implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Plan. As part of that activity, CBDA was preparing a description of regional water management needs as well as regional and state plans to meet those needs for all regions within the CALFED solution area. CBDA is interested in providing the most up-to-date information on how CALFED implementation is being integrated with regional efforts to address both local and state needs. 

## Box 1-3 Two Overlay Areas Mountain Counties. The Mountain Counties include the foothills and mountains of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and a portion of the Cascade Range. The area includes the eastern portions of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions. This area shares common water and other resource issues and is the origin for much of the state’s developed surface water supply. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Legal Delta includes about 740,000 acres of tidally infl uenced land near the confl uence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. While the Delta occupies portions of the Sacramento, San Joaquin and a small part of the San Francisco hydrologic regions, the Delta is described as an overlay area because of its common characteristics, environmental signifi cance, and the important role it has in the State’s water systems. **Figure 1-3 Mountain Counties and Legal Delta overlays**

Some areas of California with common water issues or interests span more than one hydrologic region and are called overlay areas. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Mountain Counties are two overlay areas described in this water plan update. Santa Cruz Hollister Salinas Merced Oakland
Redwood City

San Jose Martinez San Rafael Stockton

Modesto Sonora San Andreas Jackson Placerville

Bridgeport

Mariposa

Madera

Fresno Independence San Francisco Eureka Weaverville
Redding
Susanville

Quincy

Downieville Oroville Willows Red Bluff

Ukiah Lakeport Colusa Nevada City Yuba City Auburn

Santa Rosa Napa Fairfield Woodland Marysville

Sacramento Markleeville SHASTA

LASSEN

PLUMAS HUMBOLDT TRINITY

TEHAMA

GLENN BUTTE SIERRA

NEVADA

PLACER YUBA

EL DORADO

ALPINE

MONO TUOLUMNE CALAVERAS AMADOR SUTTER YOLO

NAPA COLUSA LAKE MENDOCINO

SONOMA

MARIN

SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA SACRAMENTO

SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ STANISLAUS MARIPOSA

MADERA MERCED

FRESNO SAN BENITO INYO Hydrologic Regions

North Coast San Francisco Bay Central Coast South Coast Sacramento River San Joaquin River Tulare Lake North Lahontan South Lahontan Colorado River Mountain Counties County Seat County Line Legal Delta Boundary5 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 1-5 Range of actual precipitation**  **across regions, 1998**

Color contour map shows range of actual precipitation throughout California in water year 1998. Percentage of average precipitation for each hydrologic region is shown in box. In 1998, an El Nino year, all regions received from 1.5 to 2 times their average precipitation. In October 2003, DWR and CBDA agreed that the regional reports that fall within the CALFED solution area should be jointly coordinated and prepared. This includes the Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Tulare Lake, and South Coast hydrologic regions as well as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta overlay. As part of thisongoing coordination, CBDA and DWR will work cooperatively to add additional information to these joint reports, regarding local or regional water management needs and plans to meet those needs as it becomes available. 

## Hydrology for Current Conditions Previous updates to the California water plan presented information about current water use and supplies by using a process that statistically “normalized” all water year data to represent average conditions. For Bulletin 160-98, year 1995 was chosen to represent current conditions and levels of water use. However, water year 1995 was actually classifi ed as a wet year. Thus to develop information about average water year uses and supplies, the actual annual water supply and use data was statistically adjusted (also called normalized) based on historical trends, so that the 1995 level of all wateruses represented what would be expected to occur in a statistically average water supply year. In the same way, a drought scenario was calculated to represent 1995 level water uses under drought water supply conditions. As a result of signifi cant public advisory committee input and

r ecommendations for California Water Plan Update 2005, the previous process was changed. The advisory committee and the public requested that data for current levels of water use be prepared and presented from recent actual years, without any statistical adjustments. Three years were selected to show the range of actual water supplies and uses, based on a range of hydrologic conditions:

• 1998, which was a wet water-supply year statewide

• 2000, an overall average or normal water year

• 2001, a below average or dry year for most of the state **Figure 1-4 Range of average annual precipitation**  **across regions, 1961 - 1990**

Color contour map shows 30-year average annual precipitationthroughout California. Fourteen colors indicate ranges of precipitation from a low range less than 12 inches per year to a high range greater than 156 inches per year. The 10 hydrologic regions are delineated on the map.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 6 1 A consequence of this new method is that the actual data presented in this report is not directly comparable to the type of data presented in previous Bulletin 160 updates. The three recent years refl ect the supplies and uses at a certain time and under specifi c conditions. Similarly, the data for 2001 do not constitute drought conditions, but only present actual conditions for a single dry water year. In addition, these generally wet, average, and dry conditions for the entire state are not universally the same for all regions of the state. Figure 1-4 presents a map depicting long-term (based on years 1961 – 1990) average annual precipitation amounts throughout the state. For comparison, Figures 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 show the range of actual precipitation across the different regions of the state for individual years 1998, 2000, and 2001 respectively. These maps were developed using data from National Weather Service’s California Normal Stations. See Volume 5 Technical Guide for further information. Population growth is a major factor that infl uences current and future water uses. California’s population increased from about 30 million in 1990 to about 36.5 million in 2005. The California Department of Finance projects that the population could exceed 48 million by 2030 (Figure 1-8). 

## Water Portfolios Previous updates to the California water plan have only provided regional and statewide water information for the developed water supplies and identifi ed uses, but not for the entire water supply of the whole state. For California Water Plan Update 2005, a new concept was developed (nicknamed the water portfolio) to describe and evaluate the entire water resources of the state. The reasons for documenting this expanded water portfolio concept are to:

• identify and evaluate all of the statewide water supply sources whether or not they are currently developed and used,

• p rovide better information on the disposition of our source waters statewide by including additional categories of water supply and use,

• p resent water balances using accepted accounting principles, **Figure 1-6 Range of actual precipitation**  **across regions, 2000**

Color contour map shows range of actual precipitation throughout California in water year 2000. Percentage of average precipitation for each hydrologic region is shown in box. In 2000, most regions received near average precipitation, while the South Coast, South Lahontan, and Colorado River regions received significantly less. **Figure 1-7 Range of actual precipitation**  **across regions, 2001**

Color contour map shows range of actual precipitation throughout California in water year 2001. Percentage of average prec ipitation for each hydrologic region is shown in box. In 2001,northern regions received significantly less than average precipitation, while more southern regions received just below average precipitation.7 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 **Figure 1-8 State of California population**

The nation's most populous state is now growing by about 600,00 0 people per year. The California Department of Finance projects that the state’s population may exceed 48 million by 2030 and 55 million by 2050.

• provide insight where there may be underutilized “assets” (supply) and unmet “liabilities” (uses),

• provide insight about natural, physical (infrastructure) and institutional constraints, and water management decisions, by combining water balances with narrative discussions,
• identify ‘data gaps’ where additional information is needed to evaluate supplies and uses, and
• include key supplemental information such as water quality, water rights, and water contracts. This new concept was derived from a comparison with the principles of a traditional fi nancial accounting portfolio, and is intended to identify all of the state’s water assets whether or not they are currently developed and used.
The water portfolios are based on the concept of the hydrologic cycle, and identify all possible categories of statewide water supplies and uses for each of the three specifi ed years (1998, 2000, and 2001). On a statewide and regional basis, the portfolio diagrams also show the routing of water from initial source of supply to fi nal disposition. The basic data and assumptions that are presented in these portfolio diagrams have been assembled for smaller local and regional areas (PAs and DAUs), and then accumulated to compile water portfolio totals for each hydrologic region and statewide. All of the information presented in the portfolio diagrams has also been cross-referenced by number codes to the tabular versions of the data. For consistency in each of the subsequent regional reports within Volume 3, the same portfolio format and data tables are used (see Box 1-4 Water Portfolio Components). The primary reason for using these new water portfolio tables and fl ow diagrams is to provide an accounting of all water that enters and leaves the state and that is exchanged between the regions. This is important to all water planning activities. (See Figure 1-9 for regional infl ows and outfl ows and further discussion under Statewide Water Portfolio Results later in this chapter). One shortcoming of this expanded process is that there are many regions of the state where some of the water portfolio data categories have never been measured. The resulting water portfolio tables show many categories where inadequate data are available. However, the ability to identify what data are needed is an important byproduct of this process. Another disadvantage resulting from the use of real data from three specifi c years is that those years provide no information about how supplies and demands would change during a drought sequence of several dry years. The collection of water supply and water use data for a series of 10 or more actual years would be very helpful toward the development of representative conditions for both average and extended droughts.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 8 1 

### Applied Water Methodology As previously developed in Bulletin 160-98, Bulletin 160-05 computes dedicated water supplies and uses on the basis of applied water data. Applied water refers to the total amount of water that is diverted from any source to meet the demands of water users, without adjusting for water that is used up, returned to the developed supply or irrecoverable. Within Volume 3, Tables 1-1 and 1-2 and Figure 1-10 present total statewide information on an applied water basis (see next section for discussion of Figure 1-10 and Tables 1-1 and 1-2). However, for the remaining statewide tables and each of the individual regional reports (Chapters 2 through 13), the information 

## Box 1-4 Water Portfolio Components The water portfolios for the California Water Plan Update consist of the following items 

### Flow Diagrams The flow diagrams presented in Update 2005 are an expanded version of the diagram that originally appeared in Bulletin 160-83 on page 88. The flow diagram begins with the sources of water, such as precipitation and inflows into the state, and attempts to track all the water as it flows through many different uses until it reaches its ultimate destination in the ocean, an inland sea or as evaporation to the atmosphere. Diagrams have been prepared for each of the 10 hydrologic regions, Mountain Counties, and statewide totals by year

. 

### Flow Diagram Table Format The Flow Diagram Table provides additional detail for 1998, 2000 and 2001, by presenting each of the components of the flow diagram by number and category (inputs or withdrawals). In addition, the web portal for this Water Plan update includes the Flow Diagram Tables by Planning Area in each region. 

### Developed / Dedicated Water Balances As previously in Bulletin 160-98, water balances are computed for applied water use, net water use and depletion for each region and planning area within a region, Mountain Counties, and for statewide totals. The balances include measured water supplies that are applied to the following dedicated or developed uses within a region:

• Agricultural

• Urban (including commercial and industrial)

• Wildlife refuges (managed wetlands)

• Instream flow requirements

• Wild and scenic river requirements

• Required Delta outflow These tables include reuse of water within a region, but not show water expor ted from a region. 

### Water Quality Existing water quality basin plans prepared by the SWRCB and RWQCB will eventually become part of the California Water Plan. In the future, those basin plans along with other water quality reports will be integrated regionally into the water portfolios. has been expanded to also present net water uses and water depletion. Net water supply and net water use data are smaller than applied water use. Net water use consists of water that is consumed in the system, irrecoverable water and outflow, while applied water also includes reuse of surface and groundwater supplies. Water depletion is net water use minus water that can be later recovered, such as deep percolation and return flow to developed supply (see Box 1-5 Key Water Supply and Use Definitions). Water supply information that is presented using applied water methodology is easier for local water agencies to evaluate because applied water use information is closer in concept to agency water system delivery data.9 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

Klamath and Lost Rivers 1,498 Klamath Straits Drain and Lost River 114

North Fork Ditch 2

Sonoma Petaluma Aqueduct

33 Trinity River 1,111 Outflow to Ocean 18,888 

### NC

Outflow to Ocean 21,751 

### SF

San Felipe Unit (CVP) 89

Outflow to Ocean 276 

### CC

East Branch California Aqueduct (SWP) West Branch California Aqueduct and Los Angeles Aqueduct 1,695

Outflow to Ocean 2,498 

### SC Putah South Canal North Bay Aqueduct (SWP) City of Vallejo 72

Sacramento River

18,156 Folsom South Canal Delta Mendota Canal California Aqueduct 6,174 

### SR

San Felipe Unit (CVP) 113 Sly Park 30 San Joaquin River 2,846

Contra Costa Canal Mokelumne Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct South Bay Aqueduct 629 

### SJ

California Aqueduct 1,509 Friant-Kern Canal 1,212 Kings River 0

Coastal Branch California Aqueduct 31 California Aqueduct San Luis Unit (CVP) DMC-Mendota Pool Cross Valley Canal 4,414 

### TL

Colorado Aqueducts and All American Canal 5,349

Colorado River Aqueduct 1,296 New River 166 

### CR Virginia Creek 1 To Nevada

754 Echo Lake Conduit

1 Little Truckee 9 Pit River

3 

### NL

East Branch California Aqueduct West Branch California Aqueduct and Los Angeles Aqueduct 1,695 

### SL **Figure 1-9 Regional inflows and outflows, year 2000 (an average water year)**

Water moves great distances within and between California’s 10 hydrologic regions, some through natural waterways and some through constructed water systems. Shown are the volumes of water in million acre-feet that flowed from one region to another in 2000, an average water year. NC SF CC SC SR SJ TL NL SL CR Nor th Coast San Francisco Central Coast South Coast Sacramento River San Joaquin River Tulare Lake North Lahontan South Lahontan Colorado River **Hydrologic Regions**

*Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 10 1 

## Box 1-5 Key Water Supply and Use Definitions The water portfolio tables presented throughout Volume 3 summarize California’s water supplies and urban, agricultural and environmental water uses for 1998, 2000 and 2001. Certain key concepts, defined below, provide an essential foundation for understanding and evaluating the water supplies and water uses presented in these tables.

A pplied Water. The amount of water from any source needed to meet the demand of the user. Examples would include the quantity of water that is delivered at any of the following locations:

• The intake to a city water system or a factory.

• The farm headgate or other point of measurement for agricultural use.

• The diversion point to a managed wetland, either directly or from other drainage fl ows. For instream use, applied water is quantified as the amount of stream flow dedicated to instream purposes (or reserved under federal or State wild and scenic rivers legislation). It is also identified as the amount of stream flow required for maintaining flow and water quality in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta per the SWRCB’s Decision 1630 or previous standards.
Ne t Water. The amount of water needed in a water service area to meet all demands. It is the sum of several components including (1) evapotranspiration of applied water within an area, (2) the irrecoverable water from the distribution system, and (3) the agricultural return flow or treated urban wastewater leaving the area. Irrecoverable Water. The amount of water that flows to a salt sink, is used by the growth process of plants (evapo transpiration), or evaporates from a conveyance facility or drainage canal. Evapotranspiration. ET is the amount of water transpired (given off), retained in plant tissues, and evaporated into the atmosphere from plant tissues and the surrounding soil surfaces. Evapotranspiration of Applied Water. ETAW is the portion of total ET which was provided from the applied irrigation water. Depletion. The amount of water consumed within a service area that is no longer available as a source of supply. For agricultural and environmental wetlands water use, depletion is the sum of irrecoverable water and the ETAW due to crops, wetlands vegetation, and flooded water surfaces. For urban water use, depletion is the ETAW due to landscaping, wastewater outflow to a salt sink, and incidental ET. For environmental instream use, depletion is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds to a salt sink. 

## Statewide Water Balance Summary In average water years like 2000, California receives close to 200 million acre-feet of water from precipitation and imports from Colorado, Oregon and Mexico. Of this total supply, about 50 to 60 percent is either used by native vegetation; evaporates to the atmosphere; provides some of the water for agricultural crops and managed wetlands (effective precipitation); or flows to Oregon, Nevada, the Pacific Ocean, and salt sinks like saline groundwater aquifers and Salton Sea. The remaining 40 to 50 percent, called the dedicated or developed supply, is distributed among urban and agricultural uses, water for protecting and restoring the environment, or storage in surface water and groundwater reservoirs for later use. In any year, some of the dedicated supply includes water that is used multiple times (reuse) and water held in storage from previous years. Ultimately, about a third of the dedicated supply flows out to thePacific Ocean or to other salt sinks, in part to meet environmental water requirements for designated Wild and Scenic rivers.

T able 1-1 summarizes the total supply and distribution of the dedicated supply to various uses within California for the three years evaluated. As indicated for wet (1998) and dry (2001) years, the total supply and the distribution of the dedicated supply to various uses do change significantly, compared to the average year 2000 values.11 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

**Table 1-1 California water summary - MAF** 

1998 2000 2001 (171% of nor mal) a (97% of normal) a (72% of normal) a Total supply (precipitation & imports) 336.9 194.7 145.5 Total uses, outflows, & evaporation 331.5 200.4 159.9 Net storage changes in state 5.5 -5.7 -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 represents a wet year; 2000, average water year; 2001, drier water year. b. Environmental water includes instream flows, wild and scenic flows, required Delta outflow, and managed wetlands water use. Some environmental water is reused by agricultural and urban water users.

Key components of the illustrated flow diagram are shown as characteristic elements of the hydrologic cycle. This volume has flow diagrams for statewide water summary in this chapter and for regional water summaries in their respective chapters.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 12 1 Water Entering the State Precipitation 329.6 187.7 139.2 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 2.3 1.7 1.1 Inflow from Colorado River 5.0 5.3 5.2 Imports from Other Regions N/A N/A N/A Total 336.9 194.7 145.5 Water Leaving the State Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 22.5 27.9 27.8 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 1.6 0.9 0.7 Exports to Other Regions N/A N/A N/A Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 43.8 28.0 13.9 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 73.0 37.1 17.7 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 190.5 106.5 99.7 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows Total 331.4 200.4 159.8 Storage Changes in State [+] Water added to storage [−] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 7.2 -1.3 -4.6 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -1.7 -4.4 -9.7 Total 5.5 -5.7 -14.3 Applied Water * (compare with Consumptive Use) 33.9 41.8 41.2 *Footnote for applied water Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.
**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation: GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals This equation does not include the unknown factors such as nat ural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation) 1998 (171%) 2000 (97%) 2001 (72%) **Table 1-2 State of California water balance summary - MAF**  Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in Region13 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 1-10 California water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

1998 2000 2001Million Acre-Feet Wild & Scenic R.
Instream Flow

Req Delta Outflow Managed Wetlands Irrigated Agriculture
Urban

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

1998 2000 2001Million Acre-Feet Instream Environmental Reuse & Recycle Ground Water
State Project

Federal Projects Colorado Project Local Projects **Dedicated Water Supplies Applied Water Uses** 

Three years show a marked change in amount and relative proportions of water delivered to urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment (applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, bottom chart).California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 14 1 Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000 **Table 1-3 California water use and distribution of dedicated supplies - MAF** 

**WATER USE Urban**  Large Landscape 0.6 0.7 0.6 Commercial 1.3 1.6 1.6 Industrial 0.5 0.6 0.6 Energy Production 0.1 0.1 0.1 Residential - Interior 2.9 3.3 3.1 Residential - Exterior 2.0 2.3 2.3 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Outflow 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 Conveyance Applied Water 0.2 0.2 0.2 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.2 0.1 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 7.8 6.3 6.3 8.9 7.2 7.2 8.6 7.0 7.0 Agriculture**  On-Farm Applied Water 24.1 31.1 31.2 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 16.8 16.8 21.6 21.6 21.8 21.8 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Outflow 3.7 1.5 4.0 1.8 4.0 2.1 Conveyance Applied Water 2.1 2.4 2.2 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Conveyance Outflow 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 GW Recharge Applied Water 1.1 0.7 0.3 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Agricultural Use 27.3 22.6 20.4 34.2 27.8 25.6 33.7 27.9 26.0 Environmental**  Instream Applied Water 6.9 7.5 6.8 Outflow 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 41.6 23.1 9.8 Outflow 32.1 32.1 18.2 18.2 6.9 6.9 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 9.5 7.2 4.5 Outflow 9.5 9.5 7.2 7.2 4.5 4.5 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 1.4 1.5 1.3 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Managed Wetlands Use 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 **Total Environmental Use 59.4 44.8 44.7 39.4 28.7 28.5 22.5 14.7 14.5 TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 94.5 73.8 71.4 82.5 63.6 61.3 64.8 49.7 47.5**  **DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES** Surface Water Local Deliveries 22.5 22.5 21.1 19.8 19.5 18.2 15.3 15.3 14.3 Local Imported Deliveries 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Colorado River Deliveries 5.0 5.0 4.7 5.3 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.8 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 5.3 5.3 4.9 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.7 Other Federal Deliveries 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 SWP Deliveries 2.1 2.1 2.0 3.6 3.6 3.4 2.1 2.1 1.9 Required Environmental Instream Flow 32.4 32.4 32.4 18.7 18.7 18.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 4.4 4.4 4.4 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 5.6 7.0 6.7 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 15.1 11.5 8.5 Recycled Water 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 **TOTAL SUPPLIES 94.5 73.8 71.4 82.5 63.6 61.3 64.8 49.7 47.5 Balance = Use - Supplies**  **0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0**15 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005

Table 1-2 provides more detailed information about total statewide water supply sources and provides estimates for the primary uses of the state’s supplies for these three years. As indicated, a large component of the statewide water supply isused by natural processes, such as evaporation, evapotransp iration from native vegetation and forests, and percolation to groundwater. This water is generally not counted as part of the dedicated water supplies. Each of the regional reports within Volume 3 presents the same tabular information at the regionallevel. For some of the items presented in Table 1-2, the numeric al values were developed by estimation techniques, because measured data are not available on a statewide basis. A statewide summary of dedicated water supplies and uses is presented in Table 1-3, which provides a more detailed breakdown of the components of developed supplies used for agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes. For each of the three water years, information is presented as both applied water and net water usage, as well as the calculated total water depletion. As previously mentioned, much of the environmental water usage in this table is actually dedicated to instream flow requirements and Wild and Scenic rivers, which in some cases can later be reused for other downstream purposes. Figure 1-10 identifies all of the water supply sources used to meet the developed and dedicated water uses statewide for years1998, 2000 and 2001 and also summarizes all of the corresponding urban, agricultural and environmental water uses for the three years. In each of the following regional report chapters, similar regional bar charts are provided, which can be compared to Figure 1-10 to understand how each individual region compares to the statewide distribution.


## Statewide Water Portfolio Results for **Y ears 1998 (Wet), 2000 (Average),**  **a nd**  **2 001 (Dry)**  Statewide summaries of water supplies and applied water usesare presented graphically in the portfolio flow diagram (Figures 1-11 and 1-12), and numerically for years 1998, 2000 and 2001 in the accompanying water portfolio data Table 1-4. These figures and tables are large-format and placed in the back of this chapter; similar regional graphics are placed in the back of the regional chapters. The primary purpose of these diagrams and tables is to present information for comparison about how water supplies and uses can vary between the wet, average, and dry hydrologic conditions that are represented by these three specific years. It is important to remember that actual water supply and water use information from these three years is only a snapshot of a single year’s hydrology and water uses. It would not be appropriate to assume that other past or futureyears with similar hydrology (wet, average, or dry) would produce the same levels of water use as summarized in Table 1-4.

T he statewide information has been assembled from the 10 individual hydrologic regions. The organization of the portfoliodiagrams and the numerical identification for the data categories are consistent between the 10 regional reports and these statewide summaries. However, note that when water supply and water-use information from the regional reports is accumulated for the statewide totals, some categories, such as interregional water transfers between one hydrologic region and an adjoining region, are not applicable, so they are not shown in the statewide tables. Figure 1-9 presents a map of California’s hydrologic regions with all interregional transfers shown, using data from average water year 2000. In the statewide diagrams and tables presented in this chapter, several categories indicate “incom

plete” or “unknown” data for components of water supply andwater use where information is either not available, or only partially available from some regions of the state. Within the data tables, the code “N/A” is used to identify categories where data are not available, and the symbol “-” is used to identify water data categories that are not applicable on a statewide basis.

On a statewide basis, Figure 1-12 shows a detailed flow diagram for water supplies and uses, with numerical references to data in Table 1-4 for 1998, 2000, and 2001. Companion Figure 1-11 presents the same information in an illustrated picture to graphically show the identified components of water supply, movement, and use. In the statewide and all of the regionalportfolio flow diagrams throughout Volume 3, the information is consistently organized to show sources of water supply on the left side, water uses in the middle, and the ways that water leaves the state on the right side. To assist the reader in following the movement of water from initial sources to final disposition in these diagrams, water supplies, called deposits, are consistently shown in blue boxes, water uses are sum

marized in green boxes, and water withdrawals (how water leaves the state) are shown in yellow boxes. The numericalidentification numbers in the small circles on the diagram correspond to the tabular presentation of the data in Table 1-4.

T he flow diagram data (Table 1-4) presents the statewide water portfolio information from the flow diagram, with 61 major categories of water supply and water use identified. This statewide table is different from the regional data tables in the following chapters, in that there is only one column shown for each year with the water supply and applied water use values aggregated together. The regional tables in the following chapters are more detailed, because theyCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 16 1 also present water-use information on a net-water basis and tabulate water depletions where appropriate. In addition, there are several water data categories that are accounted for at the regional level, but which lose their relevance at the statewide level, such as interregional water transfers.


## Statewide Water D **a** 

## ta NeedsWhen the concept of developing water portfolios with information about all of California’s supplies and uses was firstdiscussed, it was noted that there would be insufficient information available for many of the data categories and several of the less developed regions of the state. However, identifying the categories where inadequate information is available is a necessary first step toward making improvements in the types and amount of water data that needs to be collected. The types of necessary technical information can be grouped into three categories:
• Data – factual or observed information, such as measurements or statistics including gauged flows in a river, population as measured by census, and salinity of a water sample. Sets of data can be raw as taken from a measurement device, elaborated by modifying it slightly as part of quality assessment and quality control measures, or supplemented to address missing measurements.
• Relationships or system interactions – descriptions of how the social, physical, and environmental systems affect or are affected by the status of water supply and water use in California. Examples include (1) how releases from a reservoir affect water temperature at a point in a river downstream, (2) the crop mix in a region and the expected market conditions for each crop, and (3) mountain snowpack conditions in February as used to forecast the delivery of State Water Project water.
• Estimates – inferred, derived or forecasted quantities based on available data, defined relationships, and other assumptions. Examples include population forecasts for the Los Angeles area in 2030, groundwater flows between adjacent regions, future available water deliveries, and the projected cost to implement water conservation best management practices. There are a number of categories where data are simply not available or else it is very expensive to compile. TheData and Analytical Tools section of the Volume 4 Refere nce Guide contains additional information about these types of data needs in the article titled “Future Quantitative Analysis for California Water Planning.” In addition, many types of data are available for the developed regions of the state, but significant gaps exist in the undeveloped parts of California, so that statewide summaries cannot be gener

ated. Significant categories with insufficient data include:

• Statewide land use data, for example, delineation and acreage for native vegetation, urbanized regions and boundaries, areas with nonirrigated agriculture, and irrigated agriculture acreage and crop-type delineation
• Groundwater, including total natural recharge, subsurface inflow and outflow, recharge and extractions, water levels, and water quality
• Surface water, including natural and incidental runoff, local diversions, return flows, total stream flows, conveyance recoverable and irrecoverable water, and runoff to salt sinks
• Amounts of water consumed by evaporation from water surfaces, evapotranspiration from native vegetation, wetlands, urban runoff and nonirrigated agricultural production A number of data items are necessary to calculate or estimate these categories. Some of the major data items needed to complete the water portfolio flow diagram and the water balances are listed below. These include the measurement and calculation of information needed to identify the differences between applied water use and consumptive water use. The major data items are:
• Information on the source of water supply - surface, groundwater, or amounts from both
• Data for the amounts of surface outflow leaving any identified region
• Water level data for depth to groundwater
• Groundwater recharge rates
• Water needed to maintain designated natural riparian habitats
• Evapotranspiration rates for all types of vegetation, which vary by the geographic region of the state
• Detailed surface water return flow information
• More detailed physical information about the water infrastructure for all watersheds, water systems and groundwater basins in the state A significant increase in the amount of data collected and evaluated will be needed, before California can fully quantify and understand the state’s water supplies and plan for future water needs.17 1 **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

State SummaryCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 18 1 ID CA CA CA Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001 1 Colorado River Deliveries 4,986.4 5,349.0 5,197.1 2 Total Desalination 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Water from Refineries 0.0 0.0 0.0 4a Inflow From Oregon 2,104.5 1,498.0 988.0 b Inflow From Mexico 182.4 165.6 154.7 5 Precipitation 329,588.3 187,742.9 139,182.6 6a Runoff - Natural 53,812.0 no data no data b Runoff - Incidental no data no data no data 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge no data no data no data 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 Local Deliveries 22,538.3 19,770.7 15,342.3 10 Local Imports 955.2 810.7 828.4 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries 1,585.1 1,925.7 2,014.8 b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 3,706.7 4,790.1 4,106.0 12 Other Federal Deliveries 692.8 799.3 667.4 13 State Water Project Deliveries 2,130.4 3,629.3 2,086.4 14a Water Transfers - Regional 1.0 1.0 0.2 b Water Transfers - Imported 0.0 0.0 0.0 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP 0.0 0.0 0.0 b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP 0.0 0.0 0.0 c Instream Flow Applied Water 6,903.7 7,523.0 6,842.6 16 Environmental Water Account Releases 0.0 264.0 242.0 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag 60.0 44.5 45.4 c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 b Conveyance Seepage - Ag 219.2 283.3 279.0 c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands 23.8 24.5 13.4 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture 28.4 28.2 28.2 b Recycled Water - Urban 270.7 253.9 261.7 c Recycled Water - Groundwater 8.3 43.3 42.4 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag 2,182.1 2,167.2 1,930.7 b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands 139.7 133.4 140.6 c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban 2.6 2.6 2.6 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 2,152.9 3,753.7 3,964.9 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands 211.2 209.5 190.1 c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 1,282.0 1,530.5 1,531.3 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag 593.8 825.0 635.7 b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 14,287.7 10,351.9 7,558.0 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag 0.0 0.0 227.9 b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 1,565.8 1,414.8 966.5 c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 Direct Diversions 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 23,996.2 27,062.6 25,745.6 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated 847.8 926.8 903.1 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 9,121.6 13,926.5 16,785.4 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow 0 0 0 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 31,190.3 25,745.6 21,099.0 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking 85.1 108.2 -12.8 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins 0.0 0.0 0.0 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation 0 0 0 b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 0 0 0 35a Evaporation from Lakes 2527.3 2574.9 2556.7 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 2189.3 2414.5 2292.9 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 6212.5 3646.2 3203.1 37 Agricultural Applied Water Use 25,171.7 31,777.2 31,530.2 38 Managed Wetlands Applied Water Use 1,354.9 1,472.9 1,284.6 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 1,746.7 2,123.8 1,996.0 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 1,698.1 1,918.5 1,925.9 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 1,123.4 1,132.3 1,120.8 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 307.5 364.3 385.3 40 Urban Commercial Use 1,263.3 1,581.2 1,583.1 41 Urban Industrial Use 542.2 590.0 596.3 42 Urban Large Landscape 579.7 677.5 610.7 43 Urban Energy Production 137.1 137.4 137.2 44 Instream Flow Net Use 2198.9 2216 2249.9 45 Required Delta Outflow Net Use 9505 7231.6 4486.2 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers Net Use 32139.8 18254.8 6945.3 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 16826.6 21676 21785.85 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 501 646.5 580 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 2331.784 2669.591 2610.971 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater 0.4 0.3 0.4 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 345.7 352 334.8 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 3015.74 3475.14 3375.04 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 414.52 435.42 431.11 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 767.3 884 773.1 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands 12.3 17 15.8 d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 0 0 0 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 2431.1 2810.1 2831.7 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 3570.38 4103.09 3987.1 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands 184.04 169.5 174.4 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 66786.8 30012 10718.5 54a Outflow to Nevada 1390.6 753.9 551.9 b Outflow to Oregon 183.7 113.7 66.4 c Outflow to Mexico 0 0 0 55 Regional Imports n/a n/a n/a 56 Regional Exports n/a n/a n/a 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -1,695.0 -4,407.4 -9,679.7 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 7,194.1 -1,317.0 -4,646.6 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 39,690.0 40,740.9 40,740.9 Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes **Table 1-4 California water portfolios (TAF)** **Chapter 1** California State Summary 1 9 1 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 200 520 1 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 1** California State Summary California Wa ter Plan Update 200 5

## Chapter 2 North Coast Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 2 North Coast Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 2 North Coast Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................................2-1 Setting ................................ 2-1 Climate ............................... 2-1 Population .......................... 2-1 Land Use ............................ 2-2 Water Supply and Use ......... 2-3 State of the Region .............. 2-4 Challenges ..................... 2-6 Accomplishments ............ 2-8 Relationship with Other Regions ...........................................................................................................................2-8 Looking to the Future ........... 2-9 Regional Planning ............... 2-9 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................2-10 Selected References ........... 2-10


## Figures Figure 2-1 North Coast Hydrologic Region (map) ......................................................................................................2-ii Figure 2-2 Nor th Coast Hydrologic Region population ...............................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3 Nor th Coast water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar char ts) .............................................2-5 Figure 2-4 Nor th Coast region - illustrated water flow diagram ................................................................................2-15 Figure 2-5 Nor th Coast region - schematic flow diagram .........................................................................................2-16


## Tables Table 2-1 North Coast Hydrologic Region water balance summary ...........................................................................2-11 T able 2-2 North Coast Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies .........................................2-12 T able 2-3 North Coast water portfolios ...................................................................................................................2-14**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

Flow in TAF 1998 2,105 2000 1,498 2001 998 **Klamath and Lost Rivers** Flow in TAF 1998 184 2000 114 2001 66 **Klamath Straits Drain and Lost River**

Flow in TAF 1998

2 2000 2 2001 2 **Sacramento River Region** Nor th Fork Ditch

Flow in TAF 1998 32 2000 33 2001 34 **San Francisco Region**

Sonoma Petaluma Flow in TAF 1998 851 2000 1,111 2001 669 **Sacramento River Region** Trinity River HUMBOLDT TRINITY

SONOMA MENDOCINO SISKYOU MODOC DEL NORTE

**Some Statistics** Area - 19,476 square miles (12.3% of State) Average annual precipitation - 50.6 inches Year 2000 population - 644,000 2030 population projection - 895,150 Total reservoir storage capacity - 3,780 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 326,600 acres .

.

.

.

.

. **Figure 2-1 North Coast Hydrologic Region**

North Coast Hydrologic Region is in the northwestern corner of California and includes redwood forests, inland mountain valleys, and the arid Modoc Plateau. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving the region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF 1998 32,464 2000 18,888 2001 8,143 **Outflow to Ocean***

*Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows.