i

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA

WATER PLAN UPDATE

BULLETIN 160-98

Executive Summary

November 1998

Pete Wilson

Governor

Douglas P. Wheeler

Secretary for Resources

The Resources Agency

David N. Kennedy

Director

Department of Water Resources

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

ii

Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 1998

Copies of Bulletin 160-98 may be purchased for $25 from:

California Department of Water Resources

P. O. Box 942836

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Make checks payable to: Department of Water Resources

California residents add current sales tax

C

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
iii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

I

n 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was

followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993, updating

the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the

Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in the series. The

Bulletin 160 series assesses California’s water needs and evaluates water supplies, to quantify the

gap between future water demands and water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview

of current water management activities and provides water managers with a framework for

making decisions.

In response to public comments on the last update, Bulletin 160-93, this 1998 update

evaluates water management options that could improve California’s water supply reliability.

Water management options being planned by local agencies form the building blocks for evaluations performed for each of the State’s ten major hydrologic regions. Local options are integrated

into a statewide overview that illustrates potential progress in reducing the State’s expected

future water shortages.

When the previous water plan update was released, California was just emerging from a sixyear drought. This update follows the largest and most extensive flood disaster in California’s

history, the January 1997 floods. These two hydrologic events fittingly illustrate the complexity

of water management in the State.

The Department appreciates the assistance provided by the Bulletin 160-98 public advisory committee, which met with the Department over a three-year period as the Bulletin was

being prepared. The Department also appreciates the assistance provided by the many local

water agencies who furnished information about their planned water management activities.

David N. Kennedy

Director

Foreword . . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

iv

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
v

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Chapter ES1. Introduction

Overview of California’s Water Needs ............................................................................................... ES1-2

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions ................................................................................................ ES1-4

Changes Since the Last California Water Plan Update ...................................................................... ES1-4

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93 Public Comments....................................................... ES1-4

Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts ......................................................................... ES1-6

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98 ......................................................................................................... ES1-7

Public Comments on Draft........................................................................................................ ES1-7

Works in Progress and Uncertainties .......................................................................................... ES1-8

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98..................................................................................... ES1-9

Chapter ES2. Current Events in California Water Management

Facilities ........................................................................................................................................... ES2-1

Legislation ........................................................................................................................................ ES2-4

Proposition 204 ......................................................................................................................... ES2-4

Proposition 218 ......................................................................................................................... ES2-4

MTBE ....................................................................................................................................... ES2-4

Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................................................ ES2-5

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water Conservation Act of 1996 ................................................... ES2-6

Water Desalination Act of 1996 ................................................................................................. ES2-6

Major Water Management Issues and Programs................................................................................ ES2-6

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED ................................................................................................ ES2-6

Colorado River .......................................................................................................................... ES2-8

Recent ESA Listings ................................................................................................................... ES2-9

January 1997 Central Valley Floods ......................................................................................... ES2-10

CVPIA Implementation........................................................................................................... ES2-12

SWP Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments .................................................................. ES2-14

Environmental Restoration Activities ....................................................................................... ES2-14

Implementation of Urban Water Conservation MOU ............................................................. ES2-17

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices MOU......................... ES2-17

Klamath River Fishery Issues.................................................................................................... ES2-17

Truckee-Carson River System .................................................................................................. ES2-17

City of Los Angeles’ Water Supply from Owens Valley ............................................................. ES2-18

Mono Basin ............................................................................................................................. ES2-19

Salton Sea ................................................................................................................................ ES2-19

Contents . . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

vi

Chapter ES3. Water Supplies

Water Supply Calculation ................................................................................................................. ES3-1

Definition of Bulletin 160 Water Supplies ................................................................................. ES3-1

Applied Water Methodology ...................................................................................................... ES3-2

Normalized Data ....................................................................................................................... ES3-2

Water Supply Scenarios .............................................................................................................. ES3-3

Sources of Water Supply ................................................................................................................... ES3-4

Surface Water Supplies ............................................................................................................... ES3-5

Groundwater Supplies ............................................................................................................... ES3-5

Water Marketing ........................................................................................................................ ES3-7

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies..................................................................................... ES3-8

Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region .......................................................................... ES3-9

Water Quality................................................................................................................................... ES3-9

Chapter ES4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use

Urban Water Use .............................................................................................................................. ES4-1

Population Growth .................................................................................................................... ES4-2

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use ........................................................................... ES4-2

Urban Water Use Forecasting ..................................................................................................... ES4-4

Summary of Urban Water Use ................................................................................................... ES4-4

Agricultural Water Use ..................................................................................................................... ES4-5

Crop Water Use ......................................................................................................................... ES4-5

Quantifying Base Year Irrigated Acreage ..................................................................................... ES4-6

Forecasting Future Irrigated Acreage .......................................................................................... ES4-7

Summary of Agricultural Water Use......................................................................................... ES4-11

Environmental Water Use............................................................................................................... ES4-11

Wild and Scenic River Flows ................................................................................................... ES4-12

Instream Flows......................................................................................................................... ES4-12

Bay-Delta Outflow .................................................................................................................. ES4-14

Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. ES4-14

Summary of Environmental Water Use .................................................................................... ES4-15

Water Use Summary by Hydrologic Region ................................................................................... ES4-15

Chapter ES5. Balancing Supply and Demand

Future with Existing Facilities and Programs .................................................................................... ES5-2

Water Supply ............................................................................................................................. ES5-2

Water Demand .......................................................................................................................... ES5-3

Water Shortages ......................................................................................................................... ES5-3

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process .............................................................................................. ES5-3

Major Steps in Planning Process ................................................................................................ ES5-5

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
vii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Shortage Management ............................................................................................................... ES5-7

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate New Water Needs .................................................... ES5-7

Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented ............................................................................... ES5-8

Implementing Future Water Management Options ........................................................................ ES5-10

Bulletin 160-98 Findings................................................................................................................ ES5-11

Appendix ES5A. Regional Water Budgets with Existing Facilities

and Programs ....................................................................................................................................... ES5A-1

Appendix ES5B. Regional Water Budgets with Options Likely

to be Implemented............................................................................................................................... ES5B-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................... ESA-1

Tables

Table ES2-1. Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 .................................................................. ES2-2

Table ES2-2. Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects ..................................................................... ES2-3

Table ES2-3. Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown................................................................................. ES2-5

Table ES3-1. California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs......................................... ES3-5

Table ES3-2. 1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region ...................................................... ES3-7

Table ES3-3. Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements.......................................... ES3-8

Table ES3-4. 2020 Level Total Water Recycling and New Water Supply ................................................. ES3-9

Table ES3-5. California Average Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region ......................................... ES3-10

Table ES3-6. California Drought Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region........................................ ES3-10

Table ES4-1. California Population by Hydrologic Region...................................................................... ES4-2

Table ES4-2. Effects of Conservation on Per Capita Water Use by Hydrologic Region ............................ ES4-4

Table ES4-3. Applied Urban Water Use by Hydrologic Region ............................................................... ES4-5

Table ES4-4. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 1995 Level ......................... ES4-8

Table ES4-5. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Level ....................... ES4-10

Table ES4-6. Applied Agricultural Water Use by Hydrologic Region .................................................... ES4-11

Table ES4-7. Wild and Scenic River Flows by Hydrologic Region ........................................................ ES4-12

Table ES4-8. Instream Flow Requirements by Hydrologic Region ........................................................ ES4-14

Table ES4-9. Wetlands Water Use by Hydrologic Region ...................................................................... ES4-15

Table ES4-10. Applied Environmental Water Use by Hydrologic Region .............................................. ES4-15

Table ES4-11. California Average Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region .............................................. ES4-16

Table ES4-12. California Drought Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region ............................................. ES4-16

Table ES5-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs .......................................... ES5-2

Table ES5-2. Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type ........................ ES5-9

Table ES5-3. California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented .................................... ES5-11

Table ES5A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..................... ES5A-2

Table ES5A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs............. ES5A-2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

viii

Table ES5A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................... ES5A-2

Table ES5A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..................... ES5A-3

Table ES5A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............. ES5A-3

Table ES5A-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs............. ES5A-3

Table ES5A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs....................... ES5A-4

Table ES5A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............... ES5A-4

Table ES5A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............... ES5A-4

Table ES5A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs............... ES5A-5

Table ES5B-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Options ......................................................... ES5B-2

Table ES5B-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options ................................................. ES5B-2

Table ES5B-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options ....................................................... ES5B-2

Table ES5B-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Options .......................................................... ES5B-3

Table ES5B-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options.................................................. ES5B-3

Table ES5B-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Options ................................................. ES5B-3

Table ES5B-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Options ........................................................... ES5B-4

Table ES5B-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options ................................................... ES5B-4

Table ES5B-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options .................................................... ES5B-4

Table ES5B-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Options ................................................... ES5B-5

Figures

Figure ES1-1. California’s Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States’ Populations ............ ES1-3

Figure ES1-2. California’s Hydrologic Regions ........................................................................................ ES1-5

Figure ES3-1. Disposition of California’s Average Annual Precipitation .................................................. ES3-3

Figure ES3-2. California’s Major Water Projects ...................................................................................... ES3-6

Figure ES4-1. Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995-2020................................................................ ES4-3

Figure ES4-2. California Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................. ES4-13

Figure ES5-1. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs .................... ES5-4

Figure ES5-2. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options ............................................ ES5-12

Sidebars

Summary of Key Statistics ....................................................................................................................... ES1-2

California’s Hydrologic Regions .............................................................................................................. ES1-6

American River Flood Protection .......................................................................................................... ES2-11

Sacramento River Flood Control Project ............................................................................................... ES2-12

CVPIA’s Dedicated Water ..................................................................................................................... ES2-13

Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions ......................................................................................... ES3-2

Procedures for Normalizing Water Supply and Water Use Data .............................................................. ES3-4

Initial Screening Criteria ......................................................................................................................... ES5-5

Options Category Evaluation .................................................................................................................. ES5-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ix

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Pete Wilson, Governor

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

David N. Kennedy, Director

Raymond D. Hart Robert G. Potter Stephen L. Kashiwada

Deputy Director Chief Deputy Director Deputy Director

L. Lucinda Chipponeri Susan N. Weber

Assistant Director for Legislation Chief Counsel

DIVISION OF PLANNING AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

William J. Bennett, Chief

This Bulletin was prepared under the direction of

Jeanine Jones . .......................................................................................................... Chief, Statewide Planning

by

Naser Bateni ...................................................................................Former Chief, Water Resources Evaluation

Paul Hutton ................................................................................................ Chief, Water Resources Evaluation

Waiman Yip ............................................................................................................................. Senior Engineer

Bob Zettlemoyer ......................................................................................................................Senior Engineer

assisted by

Barbara Cross Tom Hawkins Dick Neal

Steve Cowdin Ray Hoagland Virginia Sajac

Dan Fua Scott Matyac Clara Silva

with assistance on special topics or studies by

Manucher Alemi Marla Hambright Richard Le

Linton Brown Darryl Hayes Claire LeFlore

Randy Brown Dale Hoffman-Floerke Jim Rich

Ed Craddock Steve Kasower Maurice Roos

Baryohay Davidoff John Kramer Ray Tom

Farhad Farnam

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

x

Data collection and regional information provided by Department District offices

Northern District

Naser Bateni, Chief

assisted by

X. Tito Cervantes Douglas Denton Glen Pearson

Andrew Corry Todd Hillaire Eugene Pixley

Central District

Karl Winkler, Chief

assisted by

Alan Aguilar Al Lind Doug Osugi

Emil Calzascia Ed Morris James Wieking

Toccoy Dudley

San Joaquin District

Lou Beck, Chief

assisted by

Jack Erickson Brian Smith Ernie Taylor

Robert Polgar Arvey Swanson Iris Yamagata

David Scruggs

Southern District

Charles White, Chief

assisted by

Glenn Berquist Vern Knoop Mark Stuart

Sergio Fierro Kelly Lawler Garret Tam Sing

David Inouye Michael Maisner

Editorial, design, and production services were provided by

Nikki Blomquist Teresa Chaney Joanne Pierce

John Carter Mike Miller Therese Tynan

Photography provided by

Department of Water Resources, Photography Unit

Peter Stoiber, Supervising Photographer

Paul Hames Dale Kolke Stephen Payer

Norm Hughes

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

State of California

The Resources Agency

Department of Water Resources

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION

Daniel F. Kriege Stanley M. Barnes

Chair, Capitola Vice Chair, Visalia

Donald C. Cecil ................................................................................................................................... Willows

George Gowgani, Ph.D........................................................................................................... San Luis Obispo

Homer F. Lundberg ............................................................................................................................ Richvale

Michael D. Madigan ........................................................................................................................ San Diego

Martin A. Matich..................................................................................................................... San Bernardino

Sayre M. Miller ....................................................................................................................................... Clovis

Raymond E. Barsch, Executive Officer

The California Water Commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Director of the Department of Water Resources on all California water resources matters. The nine-member citizen commission provides a water resources forum for the people of the State, acts as a liaison between the

legislative and executive branches of State government, and coordinates federal, State, and local water

resources efforts.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES1-1 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

I

n 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3

was followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993,

updating the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water

Code directed the Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the

latest in the series.

The Bulletin 160 series assesses California’s agricultural, environmental, and urban

water needs and evaluates water supplies, in order to quantify the gap between future water

demands and the corresponding water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview of

current water management activities and provides water managers with a framework for

making water resources decisions.

While the basic scope of the Department’s water plan updates has

remained unchanged, each update has taken a distinct approach to water

resources planning, reflecting issues or concerns at the time of its

publication. In response to public comments on the last update, Bulletin

160-93, the 1998 update evaluates water management actions that could

be implemented to improve California’s water supply reliability. Bulletin

160-93 analyzed 2020 agricultural, environmental, and urban water

demands in considerable detail. These demands, together with water supply

information, have been updated for the 1998 Bulletin, which also uses a

Introduction

Executive Summary

The Department’s Bulletin

160 series quantifies only

California’s managed or

dedicated water uses—

urban, agricultural, and

environmental uses.

Unmanaged uses, such as

the precipitation consumed

by native plants, are not

quantified.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION ES1-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

1995 2020

Agricultural

Environmental

Urban

Agricultural

Environmental

Urban

11% 15%

43% 39%

46% 46%

2020 planning horizon. However, much of Bulletin

160-98 is devoted to identifying and analyzing options for improving water supply reliability. Water

management options available to, and being considered by, local agencies form the building blocks of

evaluations prepared for each of the State’s ten major

hydrologic regions. (Water supplies provided by local

agencies represent about 70 percent of California’s

developed water supplies.) These potential local options are integrated with options that are statewide in

scope, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program, to

create a statewide evaluation.

The statewide evaluation represents a snapshot,

at an appraisal level of detail, of how actions planned

by California water managers could reduce the gap

between supplies and demands. The evaluation does

not present potential measures to reduce all shortages

statewide to zero in year 2020. Such an approach

would not reflect economic realities and current planning by local agencies. Not all areas of the State and

not all water users can afford to reduce drought year

shortages to zero. Bulletin 160-98 focuses on compiling those options that appear to have a reasonable

chance of being implemented by water suppliers, to

illustrate potential progress in reducing the State’s future shortages.

Overview of California’s Water Needs

Bulletin 160-98 estimates that California’s water

shortages at a 1995 level of development are 1.6 maf in

average water years, and 5.1 maf in drought years. (As

described later in the Bulletin, shortages represent the

difference between water supplies and water

demands.) The magnitude of shortages shown for

drought conditions in the base year reflects the cutbacks in supply experienced by California water users

during the recent six-year drought. Bulletin 160-98

forecasts increased shortages by 2020—2.4 maf in an

average water year and 6.2 maf in drought years. The

water management options identified as likely to be

implemented could reduce those shortages to 0.2 maf

in average water years and 2.7 maf in drought years.

Population growth is expected to drive the State’s

increased water demands. To put California’s population into perspective, about one of every eight U.S.

Summary of Key Statistics

Shown below for quick reference are some key statistics presented in the Bulletin. Water use information is based on

average water year conditions. The details behind the statistics are discussed in Chapter ES4.

1995 2020 Forecast Change

Population (million) 32.1 47.5 +15.4

Irrigated crops (million acres) 9.5 9.2 -0.3

Urban water use (maf) 8.8 12.0 +3.2

Agricultural water use (maf) 33.8 31.5 -2.3

Environmental water use (maf) 36.9 37.0 +0.1

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES1-3 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

 +15.4 million

The anticipated growth

in California's population

by the year 2020

is approximately equivalent to

the combined 1995 population

of these eight neighboring states.

Anticipated

Population

Growth

In California

By 2020:

New Mexico

Arizona

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Wyoming

Utah

Montana

TOTAL:

1.7

4.3

1.5

3.1

1.2

0.5

2.0

0.9

15.2 million

Oregon

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

Nevada

Utah

Arizona

New Mexico

FIGURE ES1-1.

California’s Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States’ Populations

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION ES1-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

residents now lives in California. During the time period covered in the Bulletin (the 25 years from 1995

to 2020), California’s population is forecast to increase

by more than 15 million people, the equivalent of adding the present populations of Arizona, Nevada,

Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and

Utah to California, as shown in Figure ES1-1. Today,

four of the nation’s 15 largest cities (Los Angeles, San

Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco) are located in the

State.

The sidebar on page ES1-2 summarizes key

statistics developed later in the Bulletin.

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions

Figure ES1-2 shows California’s ten hydrologic regions, corresponding to the State’s major drainage

basins. The Department subdivides the State into regions for planning purposes. The largest planning unit

is the hydrologic region, a unit used extensively in this

Bulletin. The next level of delineation below hydrologic regions is the planning subarea. Some of the

Bulletin’s regional water management evaluations discuss information at the PSA level. The smallest study

unit used by the Department is the detailed analysis

unit. California is divided into 278 DAUs. Most of

the Departments’ Bulletin 160 analyses begin at the

DAU level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.

Changes Since the Last California Water

Plan Update

The last California Water Plan update, Bulletin

160-93, was published in 1994 and used 1990-level

information to represent base year water supply and

demand conditions. At that time, California had recently emerged from the six-year drought and

Bay-Delta issues were in a state of flux. Bulletin

160-98 uses 1995-level information to represent base

year conditions, including new (interim) Bay-Delta

standards.

Changes in Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

conditions are a major difference between the two bulletins. Bulletin 160-93 was based on State Water

Resources Control Board Decision 1485 regulatory

conditions in the Delta, and used a range of 1 to 3 maf

for unspecified future environmental water needs—a

range that reflected uncertainties associated with BayDelta water needs and Endangered Species Act

implementation. Bulletin 160-98 uses SWRCB’s Order WR 95-6 as the base condition for Bay-Delta

operations, and describes proposed CALFED actions

for the Bay-Delta.

 Bulletin 160-93 was the first California Water Plan

update to examine the demand/supply balance for

drought water years as well as for average water years,

a response to water shortages experienced during the

then-recent drought. Bulletin 160-98 retains the

drought year analysis and also considers the other end

of the hydrologic spectrum—flooding. Traditionally,

water supply has been the dominant focus of the

water plan updates. In response to the January 1997

flooding in Northern and Central California, Bulletin

160-98 highlights common areas in water supply and

flood control planning and operations and emphasizes

the benefits of multipurpose facilities.

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93

Public Comments

Other changes between the two reports resulted

from public comments on Bulletin 160-93. The dominant public comment on Bulletin 160-93 was that it

should show how to reduce the gap between existing

supplies and future demands, in addition to making

supply and demand forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 addresses that comment by presenting a compilation of

local agencies’ planning efforts together with potential water management options that are statewide in

scope. Local agencies’ plans form the base for this effort, since it is local water purveyors who have the

Agreements reached in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord were

widely hailed as a truce in California’s water wars. The

approach taken in the Bay-Delta exemplifies some hallmarks

of today’s water management activities—increased

participation by local governments and other stakeholders in

statewide water management issues, and significant efforts to

carry out ecosystem restoration actions.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES1-5 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

North

Coast

Sacramento

River

San Joaquin

River

San

Francisco

Bay

Central

Coast

Tulare

Lake

South

Lahontan

South

Coast Colorado

River

North

Lahontan

FIGURE ES1-2.

California’s Hydrologic Regions

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION ES1-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

ultimate responsibility for meeting their service areas’

needs.

Bulletin 160-98 excludes groundwater overdraft

from the Bulletin’s base year water supply estimate and

is therefore the first water plan update to show an average water year shortage in its base year. (Both of the

bulletins excluded future groundwater overdraft from

future water supply estimates.) About 1.5 maf of the

1.6 maf base year shortage is attributable to groundwater overdraft.

Finally, Bulletin 160-98 uses applied water data,

rather than the net water amounts historically used in

the water plan series. This change was made in response

to public comments that net water data were more

difficult to understand than applied water data. This

concept is explained in Chapter ES3.

Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts

Bulletin 160-93 used a planning horizon of 1990-

2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses a planning horizon of

1995-2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses the 2020 planning

horizon because no major data changes occurred between the two reports that would justify extending the

planning horizon. Urban water demands depend

heavily on population forecasts—the next U.S. Census will not be conducted until 2000.

The water plan series uses population forecasts

from the Department of Finance. DOF reduced its

2020 forecast for California in the period between

Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. The reduction

reflects the impacts of the economic recession in California in the early 1990s. California experienced a

record negative net domestic migration then, as more

California’s Hydrologic Regions

North Coast Klamath River and Lost River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the Oregon

stateline southerly through the Russian River Basin.

San Francisco Bay Basins draining into San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, and into Sacramento River downstream

from Collinsville; western Contra Costa County; and basins directly tributary to the Pacific Ocean

below the Russian River watershed to the southern boundary of the Pescadero Creek Basin.

Central Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed to the southeastern

boundary of Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County.

South Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin to the

Mexican boundary.

Sacramento River Basins draining into the Sacramento River system in the Central Valley (including the Pit River

drainage), from the Oregon border south through the American River drainage basin.

San Joaquin River Basins draining into the San Joaquin River system, from the Cosumnes River basin on the north

through the southern boundary of the San Joaquin River watershed.

Tulare Lake The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River

watershed, encompassing basins draining to Kern Lakebed, Tulare Lakebed, and Buena Vista Lakebed.

North Lahontan Basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, and west of the Nevada stateline, from the Oregon

border south to the southern boundary of the Walker River watershed.

South Lahontan The closed drainage basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, south of the Walker River watershed,

northeast of the Transverse Ranges, north of the Colorado River Region. The main basins are the

Owens and the Mojave River Basins.

Colorado River Basins south and east of the South Coast and South Lahontan regions; areas that drain into the

Colorado River, the Salton Sea, and other closed basins north of the Mexican border.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES1-7 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

people moved out of the State than moved in. This

reduction in the population forecast translates to a

reduction in forecasted urban water use in Bulletin 160-98.

The 2020 forecasted agricultural water demands

increased from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98,

even though the forecasted crop acreage decreased

slightly. This increase resulted from elimination of the

“other” category of water use shown in Bulletin 160-

93, which included conveyance losses. For Bulletin

160-98, water in the “other” category was reallocated

back to the major water use categories to simplify information presentation. Most of the conveyance losses

are associated with agricultural water use. Combining

the “other” category into the major water use categories most affected the agricultural water demand

forecast. When conveyance losses are factored out of

the Bulletin 160-98 forecast, agricultural water use decreases between Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98.

Bulletin 160-93 was the first water plan update to

quantify environmental water use, recognizing the

importance of the water that is dedicated to environmental purposes for maintaining those resources and

that this water is unavailable for future development

for other purposes. As illustrated earlier, the environmental sector is California’s largest water using sector.

Bulletin 160-98 uses the same definition and quantification procedure for environmental water use as did

Bulletin 160-93.

The 2020 environmental water demand forecast

increased substantially from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160-98. This increase results from implementation

of the Bay-Delta Accord, inclusion of additional wild

and scenic river flows, and increased instream flow requirements.

The shortage shown in Bulletin 160-98 is similar

in magnitude to the low end of the shortage range reported in Bulletin 160-93. The treatment of forecasted

Bay-Delta environmental water demands accounts for

much of the difference. The range of potential future

environmental water demands of 1 to 3 maf used in

Bulletin 160-93 was added to that Bulletin’s base environmental water demand forecast, rather than being

evaluated through operations studies, because BayDelta regulatory assumptions could not be determined

then. This conservative approach yielded higher demands than operations studies would have provided.

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98

Although the water plan updates are published

only every five years, the Department continuously

compiles and analyzes the annual data used to prepare

them. After publication of Bulletin 160-93 in 1994,

the remainder of that year was devoted to finishing

data evaluation deferred during the Bulletin’s production. Work on Bulletin 160-98 began in 1995. A

citizens’ advisory committee with more than 30 members, representing a wide range of interests, was

established to assist the Department in its preparation

of the next water plan update. The advisory committee met with Department staff 17 times during

Bulletin 160-98 preparation, and in August 1997 reviewed an administrative draft that preceded release of

the public review draft at the end of January 1998.

The review period for the public draft extended

through mid-April 1998, during which time public

meetings were held and presentations were made to

interested parties. The draft was also made available

on the World Wide Web. Over 4,000 copies of the

public review draft were distributed.

Public Comments on Draft

The Department received over 200 comment letters on the draft and additional comments from public

meetings. Many comments were provided by local

agencies whose facilities and projects are described in

the public draft, and dealt with edits or corrections

regarding those facilities or projects. Another major

class of comments dealt with policy, conceptual, or

analytical subjects. Many of these comments were influenced by discussions taking place in the CALFED

Bay-Delta program and reflected the commenters’

positions on CALFED issues. For example, proponents

of CALFED’s no conveyance improvements alternative generally expressed opposition to Bulletin 160-98’s

exclusion of groundwater overdraft as a supply, because

this approach increases overall statewide shortages. The

Department received positive public comments on

Bulletin 160-93 when it excluded groundwater overdraft as a supply for the first time, and also received

positive comments on its treatment of overdraft for

Bulletin 160-98. Often, public comments conflicted

with one another. For example, environmental organizations frequently stated that the Bulletin should

include more future water conservation, while water

purveyors frequently stated that levels assumed in the

Bulletin were overly optimistic. Some comments suggested that the Bulletin’s future water demands could

be reduced by raising water prices, while others felt

that the forecasted demands were too low and did not

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
INTRODUCTION ES1-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

take into account future needs of California’s population and agricultural economy. Likewise, some

comments expressed philosophical opposition to constructing more reservoirs in California, while others

emphasized the need for more storage and flood control reservoirs. The Department considered these

comments in the context of the Bulletin’s goal of accurately reflecting actions that water purveyors statewide

would be reasonably likely to implement by year 2020.

Some comments suggested that Bulletin 160-98

(or the Department, or the State of California) advocate or express a vision on a variety of

subjects—including State-funded water supply development, sustainable development, nonpoint source

pollution, flood control, food production security,

mandatory water pricing, and greater use of desalting

(by entities other than the commenter). Such an approach is outside the scope of the Department’s water

plan update series. The role of the Bulletin 160 series

is to evaluate present and future water supplies and

demands given current social/economic policies, and

to evaluate progress in meeting California’s future water needs. As appropriate, the Bulletin discusses how

other factors such as flood control may relate to water

supply planning.

To develop 2020-level conditions, the Department

makes a fundamental assumption that today’s conditions—facilities, programs, water use patterns, and

other factors—are the basis for predicting the future.

(And, as one commenter correctly pointed out, Bulletin 160-98 also assumes that California’s climate will

remain unchanged over the Bulletin’s 25-year planning

horizon.) This approach differs distinctly from the

approach of establishing a desired future goal or vision, and then preparing a plan that would implement

that goal or vision. Such a plan would require broad

public acceptance that simply does not exist today.

Many of the advocacy or vision comments described above are also not within the Department’s

jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of other State agencies.

For example, the Department’s role in developing water supply for local agencies is limited to fulfilling its

State Water Project contractual obligations. (The Department may provide financial assistance to local

agencies for various water management programs as

authorized under bond measures enacted by the Legislature and approved by the voters.) The Department

has no regulatory authority to mandate how local water agencies price their water supplies, or to require

that local agencies adopt one type of water management option over another. Comments such as those

suggesting that the Department plan for control of

nonpoint source pollution or food production address

the jurisdictional areas of other State agencies.

The subject of flood control merits special mention because of the direct relationship between

operation of water supply projects and flood control

projects. The purpose of the water plan update series

is to evaluate water supplies, but those supplies can be

affected by flood control actions such as increasing the

amount of reservoir storage dedicated to flood control

purposes. With memories of the disastrous January

1997 floods still fresh in people’s minds, some

commenters recommended that Bulletin 160-98 devote more attention to flood control needs, such as

floodplain mapping programs, that are not directly related to water supply considerations. The 1997 Final

Report of the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action Team

describes recommended actions to be taken based on

the damages experienced in January 1997. Sections of

that report are referenced throughout the Bulletin. Bulletin 160-98 emphasizes the interaction between water

supply and flood control planning, and points out the

benefits associated with multipurpose water projects.

As discussed in the following section, the Department received a number of comments requesting that

Bulletin 160-98 quantify future water supply uncertainties associated with ongoing programs or regulatory

actions, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric

plant relicensing, and Endangered Species Act listings.

Text has been added that quantifies those actions for

which data are available.

The Department received some comments that

could not be incorporated in Bulletin 160-98

because they suggested substantial changes in the scope

or content of the Bulletin that could not be addressed

before the Bulletin’s due date to the Legislature, or

suggested changes for the next update of the water plan.

The scope of Bulletin 160-98 was established in coordination with the Bulletin’s advisory committee in

1995, just as the scope of the next plan update (five

years hence) will be established early in the process of

preparing that update. The Department will consider

these long-term comments when work begins on the

next update.

Works in Progress and Uncertainties

The descriptions of major California water management activities provided in the Bulletin are generally

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES1-9 INTRODUCTION

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

current through July 1998. There are several pending

activities that could be characterized as works in

progress, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program

and Colorado River water use discussions. For programs such as these, the Bulletin describes their current

status and potential impacts, if known, on future

water supplies. There are uncertainties associated with

the outcomes of these activities, just as there are with

any process that is evaluated in mid-course.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, each

water plan update focused on issues or concerns of

special interest at the time of its publication. As an

example of this focus, Bulletin 160-83 was the last

water plan update to review water use for hydropower

generation. No major changes have occurred since the

late 1970s/early 1980s, when high energy prices and

favorable tax treatment for renewable energy spurred

a boom in small hydropower development. Today,

uncertainties about water supply and water use associated with hydropower production are increasing, with

the 1998 initiation of deregulation for California investor-owned power utilities and the prospect of FERC

relicensing of several powerplants on major Sierra

Nevada rivers between 2000 and 2010. Although there

is presently little information available on which to

base forecasts of resultant changes in water supplies,

more information is likely to be available for the next

water plan update.

Colorado River interstate issues are a new addition to a statewide water picture largely dominated by

Delta and Central Valley Project Improvement Act

issues in the recent past. Achieving a solution to

California’s need to reduce its use of Colorado River

water to the State’s basic apportionment (a reduction

of as much as 900 taf from historical uses) requires

consensus among California’s local agencies that use

the river’s water, as well as concurrence in the plan by

the other basin states.

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98

Water budget and related data are tabulated by

hydrologic region throughout the Bulletin. The statewide totals in these tables are generally presented as

rounded values. As a result, individual table entries will

not necessarily sum exactly to the rounded totals.

In the Chapter ES5 water budget appendices, regional water use/supply totals and shortages are not

rounded. Individual table entries may not sum exactly

to the reported totals due to rounding of individual

entries for presentation purposes.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-1 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

California’s

increasing

population is a

driving factor

in future water

management

planning.

Current Events in

California Water Management

This chapter highlights some significant infrastructure and institutional changes

that have occurred since the publication of Bulletin 160-93, and reviews the

status of selected high-profile programs.

A common theme in previous California Water Plan updates has been the need

to respond to the State’s continually increasing population. Population growth brings with

it the need for new or expanded infrastructure. California’s water purveyors have made

significant infrastructure improvements—including reservoirs, conveyance facilities, recycling

and desalting facilities, and structural environmental restoration projects—since publication

of the last California Water Plan update.

In 1998, Contra Costa Water District completed its 100 taf Los Vaqueros Reservoir,

improving water quality and providing emergency storage for its service area. Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California is constructing its Eastside Reservoir in Riverside

County. When completed in 1999, this 800 taf reservoir will nearly double the region’s

existing surface storage capacity and will provide increased terminal storage for

SWP and Colorado River supplies. Eastside Reservoir would provide the entire

region with a six-month emergency supply after an earthquake or other disaster

and would also provide water supply for drought protection and peak summer

demands.

Executive Summary

Facilities

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

 Several major conveyance projects were completed

or began construction since the last water plan update. For example, the Department’s Coastal Aqueduct,

completed in 1997, now carries SWP water to San

Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Mojave

Water Agency recently completed a major conveyance

facility (71 miles long) and is constructing another of

similar length to import surface water to its service

area to alleviate longstanding groundwater overdraft

problems. Large conveyance projects under construction or recently completed are listed in Table ES2-1.

Water recycling and desalting are becoming larger

components of existing and potential future water supplies, especially for urban areas. Bulletin 160-98

estimates 1995-level total statewide water recycling to

be 485 taf/yr, considerably higher than the Bulletin

160-93 total water recycling estimate of 384 taf/yr.

Groundwater recharge and agricultural and landscape

irrigation constitute the greatest uses of recycled water

in the State. As advanced treatment technologies become more cost-effective, and as public acceptance

increases, augmentation of surface water supplies may

become another application for recycled water. The

San Diego water repurification program, a proposed

project to repurify 16 taf/yr of wastewater, would be

the first example of highly treated recycled water being discharged directly into a surface reservoir.

Today, California has more than 150 desalting

plants producing fresh water from brackish groundwater, municipal and industrial wastewater, and seawater. The capacity of these plants totals about 66 taf/

yr; seawater desalting capacity accounts for only 8 taf/

yr of total capacity. Most existing plants are small (less

than 1 taf/yr) and have been constructed in coastal

communities with limited water supplies. The Santa

DWR’s extension of the Coastal Branch to serve San Luis

Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties provides an imported

surface water supply that can help reduce overdraft of coastal

groundwater basins.

TABLE ES2-1

Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992

Facility Constructing Status Length Maximum

Agency (miles) Capacity (cfs)

Coastal Branch Aqueduct Department of Water Resources completed 1997 100 100

Eastside Reservoir Pipeline Metropolitan Water District completed 1997 8 1,000

of Southern California

East Branch Enlargement Department of Water Resources completed 1996 100 2,880

Mojave River Pipeline Mojave Water Agency started 1997 71 94

Old River Pipelines Contra Costa Water District completed 1997 20 400

(Los Vaqueros Project)

East Branch Extension Department of Water Resources started 1998 14 104

Inland Feeder Project Metropolitan Water District started 1997 44 1,000

of Southern California

Morongo Basin Pipeline Mojave Water Agency completed 1994 71 100

New Melones Water Stockton East Water District and completed 1993 21 500

Conveyance Project Central San Joaquin Water

Conservation District

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-3 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Barbara desalting plant, with a capacity of 7.5 taf/yr,

is the largest seawater desalting plant in California. The

plant was constructed during the 1987-92 drought and

is now on long-term standby. In 1997, the Marina

Coast Water District completed construction on a reverse osmosis seawater desalting plant. This

$2.5 million plant produces about 340 af/yr.

Many large-scale environmental restoration

projects and programs are being implemented. Facilities associated with these programs include the United

States Bureau of Reclamation’s Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device, USBR’s Red Bluff Diversion Dam

Research Pumping Plant, and many fish screens or fish

passage improvements at local agency and privatelyowned diversions. Financial assistance provided by

programs such as CVPIA’s anadromous fish restoration program and CALFED’s Category III program

has resulted in a major expansion of local agency screening and fish passage projects. Table ES2-2 lists some of

the largest examples of recently completed structural

fishery restoration projects.

Several more large fish screen facilities are nearing

the final phases of design or construction, including

diversions on the Sacramento River at the GlennColusa Irrigation District, Reclamation District 108

near Grimes, Reclamation District 1004 near

Princeton, the Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation

District and Provident Irrigation District consolidated

diversion, and others. Construction of GCID’s

Hamilton City Pumping Plant screen began in spring

1998. This $70 million project will minimize fish losses

near the pumping plant and will maximize GCID’s

ability to meet its water supply delivery obligations.

Reclamation District 108 began construction in 1997

USBR is evaluating the fishery impacts of different types of

pump diversions to the Tehama-Colusa Canal. One

alternative for improving fish passage at Red Bluff Diversion

Dam would be to leave the dam’s gates in the raised position

and use a pumping plant to make TCC diversions. The

research plant contains three pumps—one helical pump and

two Archimedes screw pumps (right side of photo).

Shasta Dam Temperature

Control Device

TABLE ES2-2

Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects

Project Owner Description

USBR An approximately $83 million modification to the

dam’s outlet works to allow temperature-selective

releases of water through the dam’s powerplant was

completed in 1997.

Red Bluff Diversion Dam

Research Pumping Plant

USBR A $40 million experimental facility to evaluate fishery

impacts of different types of pumps diverting

Sacramento River water into the Tehama-Colusa and

Corning Canals was constructed in 1995.

Butte Creek fish passage Western Canal

Water District and others

A multi-component project to improve fish passage by

removing small irrigation diversion dams from the

creek. By 1998, five diversion dams will have been

removed.

Maxwell Irrigation District

fish screen

Maxwell ID An 80 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was

screened in 1994.

Pelger Mutual Water

Company fish screen

PMWC A 60 cfs diversion on the Sacramento River was

screened in 1994.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

on a new $10 million fish screen. The project, located

at the district’s Wilkens Slough diversion, will protect

migrating winter-run chinook salmon. The district anticipates completing the project by the 1999 irrigation

season. Reclamation District 1004 began construction

of its $8 million fish screen in 1998. In addition to a

fish screen, the project includes relocation of the

Princeton Pumping Plant and conveyance facilities. In

1998, the Princeton-Codora-Glenn and Provident

Irrigation Districts are expected to complete construction of an $11 million fish screen and pump

consolidation project. The 600 cfs project eliminates

three unscreened diversions.

Legislation

Proposition 204

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition

204, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act. The

act authorized the issuance of $995 million in general

obligation bonds to finance water and environmental

restoration programs throughout the State. Approximately $600 million of these bonds would provide the

State share of costs for projects benefitting the BayDelta and its watershed, including $390 million of this

amount to implement CALFED’s ecosystem restoration program for the Bay-Delta. These latter funds

would be available after final federal and State environmental documents are certified and a cost-sharing

agreement is executed between the federal and State

governments. Table ES2-3 summarizes all programs

authorized for Proposition 204 funding.

Proposition 218

Voter approval of Proposition 218 in November

1996 changed the procedure used by local government

agencies for increasing fees, charges, and benefit assessments. Benefit assessments, fees, and charges that

are imposed as an “incident of property ownership”

are now subject to a majority public vote. Proposition

218 defines “assessments” as any levy or charge on real

property for a special benefit conferred to the real property, including special assessments, benefit assessments,

and maintenance assessments. Proposition 218 further

defines “fee” or “charge” as any levy (other than an ad

valorem tax, special tax, or assessment), which is imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as

an incident of property ownership, including a user

fee or charge for a property-related service.

Although there are many tests to determine if a

fee or charge is subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, the most significant one is whether the agency

has relied upon any parcel map for the imposition of

the fee or charge. There is currently uncertainty in the

interpretation of Proposition 218 requirements, especially as they relate to certain water-related fees and

charges. From one point of view, Proposition 218 could

be interpreted as a comprehensive approach to regulate all forms of agency revenue sources. This broad

interpretation would include all fees and charges for

services provided to real property. Types of water-related charges and fees that may be affected by

Proposition 218’s requirements include meter charges,

acreage-based irrigation charges, and standby charges.

Additional legislation or judicial interpretation may

be needed to clarify the application of Proposition 218

to fees and charges used by water agencies. Several water

industry groups are working on proposals for clarifying legislation. To date, there has been one water-related

legislative clarification of Proposition 218. A 1997 statute clarified that assessments imposed by water districts

and earmarked for bond repayment are not subject to

the proposition’s voter approval requirements.

Municipalities and special districts are beginning

to seek voter approval of assessments as required by

Proposition 218. Many assessments to fund existing

programs have been receiving voter approval. There is

at least one example, however, of a water agency whose

proposed assessment was not approved. Monterey

County Water Resources Agency did not receive voter

approval for an assessment to support existing programs—groundwater quality monitoring, water

conservation, and nitrate management outreach—

funded by water standby charges. Examples of

MCWRA’s proposed assessment charges were $1.67

per irrigated acre for agricultural land use and $2.26

per parcel for single-family dwellings.

MTBE

Detection of methyl tertiary butyl ether in water

supplies soon after it was approved for use as an air

pollution-reducing additive in gasoline has raised concerns about its mobility in the environment. Legislation

enacted in 1997 included several provisions dealing

with MTBE regulation, monitoring, and studies. One

provision required the Department of Health Services

to establish a primary (health-based) drinking water

standard for MTBE by July 1999, and a secondary

(taste and odor) drinking water standard by July 1998.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-5 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

MTBE can be detected by taste at very low concentrations, hence the early requirement for a secondary

drinking water standard.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act, administered by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in coordination with the states, is the chief federal regulatory

legislation dealing with drinking water quality. The

104th Congress reauthorized and made significant

changes to the SDWA, which had last been reauthorized in 1986. Major changes included:

• Establishing a drinking water state revolving loan

fund, to be administered by states in a manner

similar to the existing Clean Water Act State

Revolving Fund. Loans would be made available

to public water systems to help them comply with

national primary drinking water regulations and

to upgrade water treatment systems.

• The standard-setting process for drinking water

contaminants established in the 1986 amendments

was changed from a requirement that EPA adopt

standards for a set number of contaminants on a

fixed schedule to a process based on risk assessment

and cost/benefit analysis. The 1996 amendments

require EPA to publish (and periodically update)

a list of contaminants not currently subject to

national primary drinking water regulations, and

to periodically determine whether to regulate at

least five contaminants from that list, based on

risk and benefit considerations.

• A requirement that states conduct vulnerability

assessments in priority source water areas expanded

existing source water quality protection provisions.

States are authorized to establish voluntary,

incentive-based source protection partnerships

with local agencies. This activity may be funded

from the new SRF.

• As a result of the 1996 amendments, EPA adopted

a more ambitious schedule for promulgating the

TABLE ES2-3

Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown

Program Dollars

(in millions)

Delta Restoration 193

CVPIA State share 93

Category III State share 60

Delta levee rehabilitation 25

South Delta barriers 10

Delta recreation 2

CALFED administration 3

Clean Water and Water Recycling 235

State Revolving Fund Clean Water Act loans 80

Clean Water Act grants to small communities 30

Loans for water recycling projects 60

Loans for drainage treatment and management projects 30

Delta tributary watershed rehabilitation grants and loans 15

Seawater intrusion loans 10

Lake Tahoe water quality improvements 10

Water Supply Reliability 117

Feasibility investigations for specified programs 10

Water conservation and groundwater recharge loans 30

Small water project loans and grants, rural counties 25

Sacramento Valley water management and habitat improvement 25

River parkway program 27

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 390

Flood Control Subventions 60

Total 995

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule and

the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The

first phase of the D/DBP Rule is proposed to take

effect in late 1998, as is an interim ESWTR. More

stringent versions of both rules are proposed to

follow in 2002.

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water

Conservation Act of 1996

This act amended Title 16 of PL 102-575 by

authorizing federal cost-sharing in additional wastewater recycling projects. (PL 102-575 had authorized

federal cost-sharing in specified recycling projects.) The

additional California projects are shown below, along

with the nonfederal sponsors identified in the statute.

• North San Diego County area water recycling

project (San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, Leucadia

County Water District, City of Carlsbad,

Olivenhain Municipal Water District)

• Calleguas Municipal Water District recycling

project (CMWD)

• Watsonville area water recycling project (City of

Watsonville)

• Pasadena reclaimed water project (City of

Pasadena)

• Phase 1 of the Orange County regional water

reclamation project (Orange County Water

District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange

County)

• Hi-Desert Water District wastewater collection

and reuse facility (HDWD)

• Mission Basin brackish groundwater desalting

demonstration project (City of Oceanside)

• Effluent treatment for the Sanitation Districts of

Los Angeles County with the City of Long Beach

(Water Replenishment District of Southern

California, OCWD)

• San Joaquin area water recycling and reuse project

(San Joaquin County, City of Tracy)

Federal cost-sharing in these projects is authorized

at a maximum of 25 percent for project construction

and federal contributions for each project are capped

at $20 million. Funds are not to be appropriated for

project construction until after a feasibility study and

cost-sharing agreement are completed. Federal costsharing may not be used for operations and

maintenance.

The act also authorizes the Department of Interior to cost-share up to 50 percent (planning and

design) in a Long Beach desalination research and

development project. Local sponsors are the City of

Long Beach, Central Basin Municipal Water District,

and MWDSC.

Water Desalination Act of 1996

This act authorizes DOI to cost-share in non-federal desalting projects at levels of 25 percent or

50 percent (for projects which are not otherwise feasible unless a federal contribution is provided).

Cost-shared actions can be research, studies, demonstration projects, or development projects. The

authorization provides $5 million per year for fiscal

years 1997 through 2002 for research and studies, and

$25 million per year for demonstration and development projects. The act requires DOI to investigate at

least three different types of desalting technology and

to report research findings to Congress.

Major Water Management Issues

and Programs

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED

Representatives from the California Water Policy

Council, created to coordinate activities related to State

long-term water policy, and the Federal Ecosystem

Directorate, created to coordinate actions of federal

agencies involved in Delta programs, signed a Framework Agreement for the Bay-Delta estuary in June

1994. Together, these agencies are known as CALFED.

The Framework Agreement improved coordination

and communication between State and federal agencies with resource management responsibilities in the

estuary. It covered the water quality standards setting

process; coordinated water project operations with

requirements of water quality standards, endangered

species laws, and CVPIA; and provided for cooperation in planning long-term solutions to problems

affecting the estuary’s major public values.

In December 1994 State and federal agencies,

working with stakeholders, reached agreement on the

“Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards

Between the State of California and the Federal Government” (referred to as the Bay-Delta Accord) that

would remain in effect for three years. Provisions of

the Bay-Delta Accord covered water quality standard

setting and water project operational constraints, ESA

implementation and use of real-time monitoring data,

and improvement of conditions not directly related to

Delta outflow. Parties to the Accord committed to fund

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-7 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

“non-flow Category III” measures at $60 million per

year for the agreement’s three-year term. The Accord

was subsequently extended for a fourth year. An

Operations Group composed of representatives from

the State and federal water projects and the other

CALFED agencies was established to coordinate

project operations. Stakeholders from water agencies,

and environmental and fishery groups participate in

Operations Group meetings.

Water Quality Standard Setting. SWRCB

adopted a water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta

in May 1995, incorporating agreements reached in the

Accord. In June 1995, SWRCB adopted Order WR

95-6, an interim order amending terms and conditions

of SWRCB’s Decision 1485 and the SWP’s and Central Valley Project’s water right permits to resolve

inconsistencies with D-1485 requirements and the

projects’ voluntary implementation of Accord standards. The interim order will expire when a water right

decision allocating final responsibilities for meeting the

1995 objectives is adopted, or on December 31, 1998,

whichever comes first. SWRCB released a revised draft

EIR for implementing the water quality control plan

in 1998, and intends to issue a water right decision

implementing the order by the end of 1998. The DEIR

has eight flow alternatives:

(1) SWP and CVP Responsible for D-1485 Flow

Objectives

(2) SWP and CVP Responsible for 1995 Bay-Delta

Water Quality Control Plan Flow Objectives

(3) Water Right Priority Alternative—the CVP’s

Friant Unit is assumed to be an in-basin project.

(4) Water Right Priority Alternative—the CVP’s

Friant Unit is assumed to be an export project.

(5) Watershed Alternative—monthly average flow

requirements are established for major watersheds

based on Delta outflow and Vernalis flow objectives

and the watersheds’ average unimpaired flow. The

parties responsible for providing the required flows

are water users with storage in foothill reservoirs

that control downstream flow to the Delta, and

water users with upstream reservoirs that have a

cumulative capacity of at least 100 taf who use

water primarily for consumptive uses.

(6) Recirculation Alternative—USBR is required to

make releases from the Delta-Mendota Canal to

meet the Vernalis flow objectives.

(7) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement—San

Joaquin Basin water right holders’ responsibility

to meet the plan objectives is based on an

agreement titled “Letter of Intent among Export

Interests and San Joaquin River Interests to Resolve

San Joaquin River Issues Related to Protection of

Bay-Delta Environmental Resources.”

(8) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement—

Vernalis flow objectives are replaced by target flows

contained in the agreement.

CALFED Long-Term Solution-Finding Process

for Bay-Delta. The June 1994 Framework Agreement

called for a State-federal process to develop long-term

solutions to Bay-Delta problems related to fish and

wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and

water quality. The CALFED program is managed by

an interagency team under the policy direction of

CALFED member agencies, with public input provided by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. BDAC is a

31-member advisory panel representing California’s

agricultural, environmental, urban, business, fishing,

and other interests who have a stake in the long-term

solution to Bay-Delta problems.

The CALFED program’s first phase identified

problems and goals for the Bay-Delta, and developed

a range of alternatives for long-term solutions. This

phase concluded with a September 1996 report identifying three broad solutions, each of which included

Actions funded by the Category III program include fish

screening, fish passage improvements, habitat acquisition,

and control of non-native invasive species. The zebra mussel

has caused millions of dollars of increased operations and

maintenance costs to Great Lakes water users. Preventing the

mussels’ spread is a priority in invasive species management.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

a range of water storage options, a system for conveying water, and some programs that were common to

all alternatives. The second phase consisted of preparing a programmatic EIR/EIS covering three main

alternatives for conveyance of water across the Delta—

an existing system alternative, a through-Delta

alternative, and a dual Delta conveyance alternative.

The first public review draft of the PEIR/PEIS was

released in March 1998. CALFED expects to issue a

second draft PEIR/PEIS by the end of 1998. The

revised draft would identify CALFED’s draft preferred

alternative.

The third phase would involve staged implementation of the preferred alternative over a time period

of several decades and will require site-specific environmental documents. Current plans are for an initial

implementation period of 7 to 10 years, during which

only common program elements would be implemented (water conservation measures, ecosystem

restoration, levee improvements). Any conveyance or

storage facilities would be constructed in a later phase

of implementation.

ESA Administration. The December 1994 BayDelta Accord established several principles governing

ESA administration in the Bay-Delta during the

agreement’s term.

• The Accord is intended to improve habitat

conditions in the Bay-Delta to avoid the need for

additional species listings during the agreement’s

term. If additional listings do become necessary,

the federal government will acquire any additional

water supply needed for those species by buying

water from willing sellers.

• There is intended to be no additional water cost

to the CVP and SWP resulting from compliance

with biological opinion incidental take provisions

for presently listed species. The CALFED

Operations Group is to develop operational

flexibility by adjusting export limits.

• Real-time monitoring is to be used to the extent

possible to make decisions regarding operational

flexibility. CALFED commits to devote significant

resources to implement real-time monitoring.

Colorado River

A major issue facing California is its use of Colorado River water in excess of the amount apportioned

to it by the existing body of statutes, court decisions,

and agreements controlling use of the water supply

among the seven basin states. California’s basic apportionment of river water is 4.4 maf of consumptive use

per year (plus a share of surplus flows, when available),

as compared to its present consumptive use of up to

5.3 maf/yr. California’s use has historically

exceeded the basic apportionment because California

has been able to divert and use Arizona’s and Nevada’s

unused apportionments, and to divert surplus water.

With completion of the Central Arizona Project and

the 1996 enactment of groundwater banking legislation, Arizona projects that it will use almost all of its

2.8 maf apportionment for the first time in 1998.

Nevada is projected to use about 280 taf of its 300 taf

apportionment in 1998.

California local agencies, working through the

Colorado River Board of California, have been developing a proposal for discussion with the other basin

states to illustrate how, over time, California would

reduce its use to the basic apportionment of 4.4 maf/

yr. Drafts of the proposal, known as the draft Colorado River Board 4.4 Plan, have been shared with the

other states. Efforts are being made to reach intrastate consensus on the plan in 1998. As Bulletin 160-98

CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program calls for extensive

creation of new habitat in the Delta. Construction of setback

levees would allow restoration of riparian and riverine

aquatic habitats, benefitting fish and wildlife.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-9 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

goes to press, the most current version of the draft plan

is the December 1997 version.

As formulated, the draft plan would be implemented in two phases. The first phase (between the

present and 2010 or 2015) would entail implementing already identified measures such as water

conservation and transfers to reduce California’s Colorado River water use to about 4.6 to 4.7 maf/yr. The

second phase would implement additional measures

to reduce California’s use to its basic annual 4.4 maf

apportionment in those years when neither surplus

water nor other states’ unused apportionments were

available. One of the fundamental assumptions made

in the plan is that MWDSC’s Colorado River Aqueduct will be kept full by making water transfers from

agricultural users in the Colorado River Region to urban water users in the South Coast Region.

Actions included in the first phase were: core

water transfers such as the existing Imperial Irrigation

District/MWDSC agreement and the proposed Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water

Authority transfer; seepage recovery from unlined sections of the All American and Coachella Canals;

drought year water transfers similar to the Palo Verde

Irrigation District/MWDSC pilot project; groundwater banking in Arizona; and conjunctive use of

groundwater in areas such as the Coachella Valley. The

draft plan recognizes that transfers of conserved water

must be evaluated in the context of preserving the

Salton Sea’s environmental resources, and also that plan

elements must address environmental impacts on the

lower Colorado River and its listed species.

Other actions to occur as part of the first phase

would include implementation of the San Luis Rey

Indian water rights settlement authorized in PL 100-

675 and implementation of measures to administer

agricultural water entitlements within the first three

priorities of the Seven Party Agreement. An important element of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan is the concept

that existing reservoir operating criteria be changed by

USBR to make optimum use of the river’s runoff and

available basin storage capacity. California agencies

developed new proposed operating criteria that are

included in the draft CRB 4.4 Plan. The draft plan

contemplates that changes in operating criteria would

be part of both the first and second phases. The other

basin states have been cautious in their reaction to

California’s proposals for reservoir reoperation, and

have suggested, for example, that new criteria should

not be implemented until California has prepared the

environmental documents and executed the agreements

that would be needed to begin implementation of the

draft CRB 4.4 Plan.

The second phase of the draft CRB 4.4 Plan would

include additional average year and drought year water transfers. Specifics on these transfers would be

developed during the first phase of plan implementation. Other components of the second phase would

include further transfers of conserved agricultural water to the South Coast and further work on reservoir

operating criteria. Implementation of some elements

of phase two of the plan may extend beyond the Bulletin 160-98 planning horizon.

Recent ESA Listings

Since publication of Bulletin 160-93, there has

been action on federal listing of several fish species

having statewide water management significance. In

August 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service

listed two coastal steelhead populations as threatened

(from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek, and

from the Pajaro River south to the Santa Maria River),

and one population as endangered (from the Santa

Maria River south to Malibu Creek). NMFS deferred

listing decisions for six months for other California

populations—from the Elk River in Oregon to the

Trinity River in California, from Redwood Creek to

USBR’s Parker Dam on the Colorado River impounds Lake

Havasu. At this location, the Colorado River forms the

stateline between California and Arizona. MWDSC’s

Colorado River Aqueduct and the Central Arizona Project

divert from Lake Havasu.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-10

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

the Gualala River, and in the Central Valley—due to

scientific disagreement about the sufficiency and accuracy of the data available for listing determinations.

In March 1998, NMFS listed the Central Valley population as threatened, and deferred listing of the two

north coast populations in favor of working with California and Oregon on state conservation plans.

Also in 1997, NMFS listed the Southern Oregon/

Northern California coast evolutionarily-significant

unit of coho salmon as threatened. In 1996, NMFS

listed coho salmon in the central coast ESU (from

Punta Gorda in Humboldt County south to the San

Lorenzo River) as threatened.

In 1998, NMFS proposed several runs of chinook

salmon for listing—the spring-run in the Central Valley ESU as endangered, the fall and late-fall runs in

the Central Valley ESU as threatened, and the spring

and fall runs in the Oregon/California coastal ESU as

threatened. (The spring-run chinook salmon has been

listed as a candidate species under the California ESA.)

NMFS expects to make its decision on listing in 1999.

USFWS proposed in 1994 to list a resident Delta

fish species, the Sacramento River splittail, but a congressional moratorium on listing of new species

prevented USFWS from working on the proposal until 1996. USFWS again proposed to list splittail in

1996, but received significant public comments on new

scientific information for splittail. The extended public comment period ended July 1998. USFWS is

expected to make a decision after reviewing comments.

USFWS has also listed or proposed for listing species whose limited range would result in localized water

management impacts. For example, the red legged frog,

found primarily in the Central Coast area, was listed

as threatened in 1996. Another example is the Santa

Ana sucker, found in the Santa Ana River, proposed

for listing in 1998.

January 1997 Central Valley Floods

The January 1997 flood event was notable for its

sustained rainfall intensity, the volume of floodwater,

and the extent of the storm pattern—from the Oregon border down to the southern end of the Sierra.

Over a three day period, warm moist winds from the

southwest blew over the Sierra Nevada, pouring over

30 inches of rain on watersheds already saturated by

one of the wettest Decembers on record. In many major

river systems, flood control dams reduced flood flows

by half or more, saving lives and significantly reducing property damage. However, in some areas, leveed

flood control systems were overwhelmed, causing approximately $2 billion in damages.

Most of the large reservoirs in Northern California were full or nearly full within the first days in

January. Several Sacramento Valley reservoirs—including Shasta, Oroville, and New Bullards

Bar—experienced record inflows during the January

1997 flood event. American River inflow to Folsom

Reservoir was similar to the amount recorded during

the February 1986 flood. Levees of the federal Sacramento River Flood Control Project (see sidebar)

sustained moderate to heavy damage, including two

major levee breaks (one near the town of Arboga) and

several relief cuts. Flooding in the Marysville-Yuba City

area resulted in 35,000 people being evacuated from

the Marysville area and 75,000 people being evacuated downstream in Sutter County.

The volume of runoff exceeded the flood control

capability of New Don Pedro Reservoir on the

Tuolumne River and Millerton Lake on the Upper San

Joaquin River. While the peak flood release from New

Don Pedro Dam was less than half the peak Tuolumne

River inflow of 120,000 cfs, it was more than six times

the downstream channel’s flow restrictions of 9,000

cfs. In all, 36 levee failures occurred along the San

Joaquin River system, along with extensive damage

related to high flows and inundation. Most of the damage occurred downstream of the Tuolumne River

confluence.

The January 1997 floods demonstrated the need

for increased Central Valley flood protection. The 1997

Final Report of the Governor’s Flood Emergency Action

Team identified many actions that could be taken to

increase valley flood protection, including better emergency preparedness, floodplain management actions,

levee system improvements, construction of new floodways, temporary storage of floodwaters on wildlife

refuges, reoperation or enlargement of existing reservoirs to increase flood storage, and construction of new

reservoirs.

The Sacramento River Flood Control Project’s

ability to provide protection for growing urban areas

is the primary flood control issue facing the Sacramento

Valley. Additional flood protection is needed in the

Yuba River Basin, particularly in the greater MarysvilleYuba City area. Additional flood protection is also

needed in the American River Basin for the Sacramento

metropolitan area, as discussed in the accompanying

sidebar. The 1997 FEAT report detailed several recommendations and possible actions for the Sacramento

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-11 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The Sacramento

metropolitan area has one

of the lowest flood

protection levels in the

nation, for a community of

its size. Without interim

reoperation of Folsom

Dam, the community is

estimated to have only a 1-

in-60 year level of

protection. (With

reoperation, the level of

protection is 1-in-77 years).

This photo shows the

American River in January

1997, and the high-density

urban development

adjacent to the levee.

American River Flood Protection

Following the floods of February 1986, the United States

Army Corps of Engineers reanalyzed American River Basin

hydrology and concluded that Folsom Dam did not provide

an adequate level of flood protection to the downstream

Sacramento area, significantly less than the 250-year

protection estimated in the late 1940s when the dam was

designed. The 977 taf reservoir has a normal winter flood

control reservation of 400 taf (estimated to provide the

Sacramento area with protection from a storm having a 1-in60-year return period).

Three main flood protection alternatives have been

evaluated by USACE. Two of the alternatives would increase

flood control storage in Folsom, modify the dam’s spillway

and outlet works, and improve downstream levees. The third

alternative would construct a detention dam at Auburn, with

downstream levee improvements. USACE studies identified

the detention dam as the plan that maximized national

economic benefits. The State Reclamation Board endorsed

the detention dam as the best long-term solution to reliably

provide greater than 1-in-200 year flood protection.

The Central Valley’s January 1997 flood disaster prompted

another examination of American River hydrology. Based on

that hydrologic review, the 1986 and 1997 floods are now

considered to be about 60-year events. The 1997 flooding

also triggered payback provisions of the Sacramento Area

Flood Control Agency’s agreement with USBR, under which

USBR sets aside up to 270 taf of additional winter flood

control space in Folsom. (This additional flood control space

in the reservoir raises Sacramento’s level of protection to about

a 77-year event level.) Reoperation of Folsom for additional

flood control resulted in a loss of supply to USBR. SAFCA

and the federal government purchased 100 taf to offset the

loss of supply—50 taf from Yuba County Water Agency, 35

taf from Placer County Water Agency, and 15 taf from GCID.

In 1998, the Reclamation Board restated its conclusion

that the best long-term engineering solution to reliably provide

greater than 1-in-200 year flood protection is to develop

additional flood detention storage at Auburn. As an

incremental measure to increase the level of flood protection,

the Board also resolved to support SAFCA’s plan for modifying

Folsom Dam’s outlets to increase flood protection to

approximately a 1-in-110 year level. As of June 1998, SAFCA

was seeking congressional authorization for USACE

participation in Folsom Dam modifications and downstream

levee enlargements.

Valley, including new flood storage, enlarged flood

bypasses, and increasing channel capacity through measures such as dredging and setback levees.

 The primary flood control issue facing the San

Joaquin River watershed is the lack of flood channel

capacity. Channels and levees are generally designed

for 50-year flood protection. Insufficient channel capacity is especially problematic in the lower San Joaquin

River below the Merced River. At the lower end of the

system, sediment deposition continues to raise the river

bed and reduce channel capacity. Sediment deposition

also promotes vegetation growth, thereby increasing

channel roughness and further impeding flows. As

urban development occurs on lands formerly used for

agriculture, the need for higher levels of flood protection becomes more important. The 1997 FEAT report

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

detailed several recommendations and possible actions

for the San Joaquin River watershed, including new

flood storage, development restrictions and land acquisitions in the floodplain, and increasing channel

capacity through measures such as dredging, setback

levees, and improving bridge crossings.

CVPIA Implementation

CVPIA made significant changes to the CVP’s legislative authorization, amending the project’s purposes

to place fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration

on a par with water supply, and to place fish and wildlife enhancement on a par with power generation. Key

areas of CVPIA implementation are summarized

below. USBR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a draft programmatic EIS on CVPIA

implementation for public review in November 1997.

The draft PEIS describes, among other things, estimated water supply impacts of federal implementation of the act, and illustrates the consequences of

different alternatives for fish and wildlife supplemental water acquisition. A final EIS is scheduled to be

released in 1999.

Renewal of CVP Water Service Contracts.

CVPIA prohibited execution of new CVP water service contracts (with minor exceptions), except for fish

and wildlife purposes, until all of the many environmental restoration actions specified in the statute had

been completed. The act also provided that existing

long-term water service contracts be renewed for 25-

year terms, as opposed to their previous 40-year terms.

Only interim renewals (not more than three years) are

allowed until the PEIS required by the act is completed.

Beginning in October 1997, most existing long term

contracts are subject to a monetary hammer clause

encouraging early renewal. Renewed contracts will inThe January 1997 flood

disaster was the largest in

the State’s history.

Flooding forced more

than 120,000 people

from their homes, and

over 55,000 people were

housed in temporary

shelters. Nearly 300

square miles of

agricultural land were

flooded. Livestock and

wildlife were trapped by

the flooding.

Sacramento River Flood Control Project

Congress authorized the Sacramento River Flood Control

Project in 1917 after a series of major Sacramento Valley floods

in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The project was built with

local, State, and federal funding. The project includes levees,

overflow weirs, bypass channels, and channel enlargements.

Overflow weirs allow excess water in the main river channel

to flow into bypasses in the Sutter Basin and Yolo Basin. The

bypass system was designed to carry 600,000 cfs of water past

Sacramento—110,000 cfs in the Sacramento River through

downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, and the

remainder in the Yolo Bypass. The system has worked

exceedingly well over the years.

The capacity of the SRFCP was increased upon completion

of Shasta Dam in 1945 and Folsom Dam in 1956. The

Feather and Yuba River systems did not share in the SRFCP’s

flood control benefits; however, supplemental protection was

provided by the completion of Oroville Dam on the Feather

River in 1968 and New Bullards Bar Dam on the Yuba River

in 1970. These are large multipurpose reservoirs in which

flood control functions share space with water supply

functions.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-13 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

corporate new provisions required by CVPIA, such as

tiered water pricing. Since USBR has not completed

the PEIS, all contract renewals to date have been interim renewals. USBR has had more than 60 interim

contract renewals from the date of enactment through

1996, representing over 1 maf/yr of supply.

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Actions. One of

the most controversial elements of CVPIA implementation has been management of the 800 taf of CVP

yield (see sidebar) dedicated by the act to fishery restoration purposes. This water is available for use on

CVP controlled streams (river reaches downstream

from the project’s major storage facilities on the Sacramento River, American River, and Stanislaus River)

and in the Bay-Delta.

The ambiguity of the statutory language and the

use of dedicated water in the Bay-Delta Accord have

generated many questions, including whether the water may be exported from the Delta after the water has

been used for instream flow needs in upstream rivers,

and if the water may be used for Bay-Delta purposes

beyond Accord requirements. Initially, USBR and

USFWS attempted to develop guidelines or criteria

for its management. Subsequent to CALFED’s creation, the CALFED Operations Group became a

forum for attempting to resolve dedicated water. In

November 1997, DOI released its final administrative

proposal on management of the dedicated water. The

proposal’s release was subsequently challenged in legal

action filed by some CVP water contractors.

A main purpose of the dedicated water is meeting

the act’s goal of doubling natural production of Central Valley anadromous fish populations (from their

average 1967-91 levels) by year 2002. Release of water

to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam is excluded

from this program. CVPIA authorizes USBR and

USFWS to acquire additional, supplemental water

from willing sellers to help achieve the doubling goal.

CVPIA further allocates additional CVP water supply

for instream use in the Trinity River by reducing the

quantity of water which the project could otherwise

divert, requiring that an instream flow of 340 taf/yr be

maintained through water year 1996 while USFWS

finishes a long-term instream flow study. (USFWS now

recommends instream flows much greater than

340 taf/yr.)

CVPIA enumerates specific physical restoration

measures that the federal government must complete

for fishery and waterfowl habitat restoration. The largest completed measures are a temperature control

device at Shasta Dam, at a cost of over $83 million,

and a research pumping plant at Red Bluff Diversion

Dam. CVPIA allocated part of the costs of some restoration measures to the State; the remaining costs are

being paid by federal taxpayers and by CVP water and

power contractors. Some of the smaller restoration

actions include individual fish-screening projects that

USBR and USFWS are cost-sharing with local agencies under the anadromous fish screening program.

CVPIA required USBR to impose a surcharge on

CVP water and power contracts for deposit into a Restoration Fund created by the act. Monies deposited

into the fund are appropriated by Congress to help

fund CVPIA environmental restoration actions. The

act authorizes appropriation of up to $50 million (1992

dollars) per year for the restoration actions. Annual

deposits into the fund vary with water and power sales.

CVPIA environmental restoration actions can be

funded from the general federal treasury, as well as from

the Restoration Fund.

Land Retirement Program. CVPIA authorized

DOI to carry out an agricultural land retirement program for lands receiving CVP water. USBR published

interim guidelines for administration of a pilot program, pending formal promulgation of rules and

regulations. The federal guidelines were developed in

CVPIA’s Dedicated Water

Section 3406(b)(2) describes the dedicated water as follows:

Upon enactment of this title dedicate and manage annually

800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield for the primary

purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration

purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the State

of California in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco

Bay-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to help meet such obligations

as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under

State or Federal law following the date of enactment of this title,

including but not limited to additional obligations under the

federal Endangered Species Act. For the purpose of this section,

the term “Central Valley Project yield” means the delivery

capability of the Central Valley Project during the 1928-1934

drought period after fishery, water quality, and other flow and

operational requirements imposed by terms and conditions

existing in licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to

the Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law

existing at the time of enactment of this title have been met.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

coordination with a State land retirement program established in 1992 under Water Code Section 14902 et

seq. The State statute limited the retirement program

to drainage-impaired lands. The State land retirement

program has never been funded, and thus no State acquisitions have been made. By November 1997, the

federal land retirement program had made one purchase—about 600 acres of drainage-impaired land in

Westlands Water District that would be managed for

wildlife habitat. Recently, USBR solicited proposals

from landowners wishing to participate in the retirement program and received offers to sell lands

amounting to 31,000 acres.

Other Programs and Reports. From a water supply standpoint, certain CVPIA-mandated reports are

of special interest. USFWS has prepared several draft

documents relating to estimated Central Valley environmental water needs and water management actions

for the AFRP. The most recent draft of the AFRP was

published in May 1997. In 1995, USBR released an

appraisal-level least-cost CVP yield increase plan, required by the act to identify options for replacing the

water supply dedicated to environmental purposes.

Although the act directed that the plan be prepared,

USBR was not required to implement it.

SWP Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments

The Monterey Agreement among the Department

and SWP water contractors was signed in December

1994. This agreement set forth principles for making

changes in SWP water supply contracts, which would

then be implemented by an amendment (Monterey

Amendment) to each contractor’s SWP contract. The

amendment has been offered to all SWP contractors.

Those contractors that sign the amendment will receive the benefits of it, while those that do not will

have their water supply contracts administered such

that they will be unaffected by the amendment. As of

July 1998, 26 of the 29 contractors had signed the

amendment.

Changes to SWP Water Allocation Rules. The

amendment states that during drought years project

supplies are to be allocated proportionately on the basis of contractors’ entitlements. The amendment

allocates water to urban and agricultural purposes on

an equal basis, deleting a previous initial supply reduction to agricultural contractors.

Permanent Sales of Entitlement. The amendment provides for transfer of up to 175 taf of

entitlement from agricultural use. The first transfer

made was relinquishment of 45 taf of entitlement

(40,670 af from Kern County Water Agency, 4,330 af

from Dudley Ridge Water District) back to the SWP,

as part of the transfer of the Kern Water Bank property to these agencies. This relinquishment reduces the

total SWP contractual commitment. The amendment

provides for an additional 130 taf of existing agricultural entitlement to be sold on a permanent basis to

urban contractors, on a willing buyer-willing seller

basis.

Storing Water Outside a Contractor’s Service

Area; Transfers of Non-Project Water. This provision allows a contractor to store water in another

agency’s reservoir or groundwater basin. Examples include water storage programs with Semitropic Water

Storage District, a member agency of Kern County

Water Agency. The amendment also provides a mechanism for using SWP facilities to transport non-project

water for SWP water contractors. (The Department

uses other contractual arrangements for wheeling water for the CVP and for other non-SWP water users.)

Annual Turnback Pool. Prior to the amendment,

water allocated to contractors that was not used during a year would revert to the SWP at the end of the

year. No compensation was provided to the contractor for this water, and no other contractors could make

use of these supplies during the year. The turnback

pool is an internal SWP mechanism which provides

for pooling potentially unused supplies early in the

year for purchase by other SWP contractors at a set

price. If neither the SWP nor individual SWP contractors wish to use water placed into the pool, that

water may then be sold to entities that are not SWP

contractors.

Other Operational Changes. The amendment established a procedure to transfer ownership of the

Department’s KWB property to KCWA and Dudley

Ridge Water District. The amendment allows contractors repaying costs of constructing the Castaic and

Perris terminal reservoirs to increase their control and

management of a portion of the storage capacity of

each reservoir, to optimize the operation of local and

SWP facilities. This is expected, for example, to improve dry year supplies for MWDSC, Castaic Lake

Water Agency, and Ventura County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District.

Environmental Restoration Activities

Several major environmental restoration activities

are ongoing throughout the State, in addition to the

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-15 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

intensive effort focused on the Bay-Delta. Projects focused on fishery and habitat restoration on the State’s

three most important river systems—the Sacramento,

San Joaquin, and Colorado Rivers—are described below, followed by a brief mention of restoration and

mitigation projects in other watersheds.

Sacramento River System. The extensive structural environmental restoration actions being

performed in the Sacramento River system were described earlier in this chapter. These actions include

major projects such as USBR’s Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device and research pumping plant at

Red Bluff Diversion Dam, as well as fish screen installations at many of the larger irrigation diversions on

the Sacramento River mainstem. Many more restoration actions are being planned, such as additional fish

passage improvements on Butte and Clear Creeks and

at Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District’s diversion dam. Many of the actions on the river’s mainstem

were in response to the need to protect listed winterrun chinook salmon. Actions are also being taken to

protect spring-run chinook salmon, a species proposed

for listing under the federal ESA and a State candidate

species.

In 1995, State legislation restricted future water

development on Mill and Deer Creeks to protect spring

run chinook salmon habitat. In addition, local landowners formed the Mill and Deer Creek Watershed

Conservancies. The conservancies have begun a watershed planning and management process, with

funding assistance from an EPA grant. The Department has participated with Mill Creek landowners in

a test project to construct wells to provide groundwater supplies in lieu of creek diversions for irrigation

during spring fish migration periods. A similar project

is being negotiated with Deer Creek water users.

San Joaquin River System. One of the first overviews of San Joaquin River restoration needs was

provided by the Resources Agency’s 1995 San Joaquin

River Management Program Plan, which evaluated

potential actions on part of the river’s mainstem and

on the lower reaches of its main tributaries. Structural

restoration work performed to date has focused largely

on spawning gravel placement and related habitat improvements. Several other projects are now in planning,

including replacement of Central California Irrigation

District’s Mendota Dam and a potential new fish hatchery on the Tuolumne River. Increased instream flows

have been provided in the river system through

SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements and through a

FERC settlement agreement for the Tuolumne River.

The San Joaquin River Conservancy, a State agency

charged with acquiring and managing public lands

within the San Joaquin River Parkway, is working to

expand lands preserved by the parkway. The parkway

includes the San Joaquin River and about 5,900 acres

of land on both sides of the river, extending about

22 miles from Friant Dam downstream to the Highway 99 crossing of the river. The parkway is planned

as a riparian corridor with public access trails, boating

access points, wildlife areas, and education areas. Approximately 1,900 acres are located in Madera County

and 4,000 acres in Fresno County, of which approximately 1,600 acres are now in public ownership.

In February 1998, two

large cylindrical fish

screens were installed

at one of the largest

Delta diversions

located on Sherman

Island.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-16

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Lower Colorado River System. In 1995, DOI executed partnership agreements with California,

Nevada, and Arizona to develop a multi-species conservation program for ESA-listed species and many

non-listed, but sensitive, species within the 100-year

floodplain of the lower Colorado River, from Glen

Canyon Dam downstream to the Mexican border. In

1996, a joint participation agreement was executed to

provide funding for the program. USFWS has designated the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species

Conservation Program steering committee as an ecosystem conservation and recovery implementation

team pursuant to ESA. The steering committee is composed of representatives from the three states, DOI,

Indian tribes, water agencies, power agencies, environmental organizations, and others.

The conservation program will work toward recovery of listed and sensitive species while providing

for current and future use of Colorado River water

and power resources, and includes USBR’s Colorado

River operations and maintenance actions for the lower

river. Over 100 species will be considered in the program, including the southwestern willow flycatcher,

Yuma clapper rail, and four fish species listed under

the federal ESA: Colorado squawfish, razorback sucker,

humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Developing the

program is estimated to take three years. Costs of program development and implementation of selected

interim conservation measures, estimated at $4.5 million, are to be split equally between DOI and the

non-federal partners.

USBR initiated a formal Section 7 consultation

process with USFWS, who issued a five-year biological opinion on USBR operation and maintenance

activities from Lake Mead to the southerly international boundary with Mexico in 1997. USBR has

estimated that the cost of implementing the biological

opinion’s reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures could be as high as $26 million.

The steering committee is currently participating

in funding several interim conservation measures.

These include a razorback sucker recovery program at

Lake Mojave, restoration of Deer Island near Parker,

Arizona, and a “Bring Back the Natives” program sponsored by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Other Watersheds. Major environmental restoration activities are ongoing in other watersheds

throughout the State, including the Russian and Kings

Rivers and Lake Tahoe.

A Russian River Action Plan, prepared by Sonoma

County Water Agency in 1997, provides a regional

assessment of needs in the Russian River watershed

and identifies fishery habitat restoration projects in

need of funding. The SWRCB is promoting a coordinated Russian River fishery restoration plan.

Kings River Conservation District and the Kings

River Water Association are cooperating with USACE

in a feasibility study of Kings River fishery habitat

improvements. One component of the study includes

a new multi-level intake structure for the reservoir, to

better manage downstream river temperatures. USACE

is also implementing a related project to install a bypass pipe at the dam’s powerplant so that releases can

be made through the existing penstocks when the turbines are not in operation. This project will provide

temperature control for the downstream trout fishery.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state

agency created by Congress, has identified nearly $500

million in capital improvements needed to achieve

environmental targets in the Lake Tahoe watershed.

Federal, state, and local governments have invested

nearly $90 million in erosion control, storm water

drainage, stream zone restoration, public transit, and

other capital projects. The U.S. Forest Service has

implemented a watershed restoration program and a

land acquisition program to prevent development of

sensitive private lands. The State of Nevada approved

a $20 million bond measure to perform erosion control and other measures on the east side of the lake. In

California, Proposition 204 provides $10 million in

bond funds for land acquisition and programs to control soil erosion, restore watersheds, and preserve

environmentally sensitive lands.

Mitigation Projects. Significant habitat improvements are also resulting from land management or

mitigation projects being carried out by water agencies. For example, the Department purchased much

of Sherman and Twitchell Islands in the Delta, and is

implementing management plans on them to control

subsidence and soil erosion, while providing significant wetland and riparian habitat for wildlife. The plans

also provide recreational opportunities such as walking trails and wildlife viewing.

CCWD established over 18,000 acres of preserve

as part of its Los Vaqueros construction project. This

land is being managed to protect listed species such as

the San Joaquin kit fox. The project impacted 174 acres

of valley oaks and 9 acres of alkali wetlands. To mitigate, CCWD is creating or enhancing 394 acres of

woodland habitat and 49 acres of wetlands.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-17 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Kern Water Bank Authority set aside about 10,000

acres for habitat purposes as part of its 20,000-acre

Kern Fan Element project. ESA listed species found in

the project area include the kit fox, kangaroo rat, and

blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

As part of its Eastside Reservoir project, MWDSC

purchased 3,700 acres for the Nature Conservancy’s

Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. MWDSC also

purchased 9,000 acres for the Southwestern Riverside

County Multi-Species Reserve, including lands around

the reservoir, Lake Skinner, and the 2,500-acre Dr. Roy

E. Shipley Reserve.

Behind Prado Dam in Riverside County, Orange

County Water District operates 465 acres of constructed freshwater wetlands to reduce the nitrogen

levels in the Santa Ana River. The river provides much

of the county’s coastal plain groundwater recharge. The

Prado wetlands are home to several rare and endangered bird and waterfowl species. More than 226 acres

are set aside as habitat for the endangered least Bell’s

vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher.

Implementation of Urban Water

Conservation MOU

The 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California defined a

set of urban best management practices and procedures

for their implementation, and established a California

Urban Water Conservation Council composed of

MOU signatories (local water agencies, environmental groups, and other interested parties). More than

200 entities have signed the MOU. The CUWCC has

monitored implementation of BMPs and reported

progress annually to the SWRCB. The Council developed a plan providing for ongoing review of BMPs

and potential BMPs. In late 1996, the Council initiated a review of the BMPs to clarify expectations for

implementation and to develop an implementation

evaluation methodology. Revised BMPs were adopted

in 1997.

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water

Management Practices MOU

The Agricultural Efficient Water Management

Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) required the Department to establish an advisory committee to develop

EWMPs for agricultural water use. Negotiations among

agricultural water users, environmental interests, and

governmental agencies on a memorandum of understanding to implement EWMPs were completed in

1996. The MOU established an Agricultural Water

Management Council to oversee EWMP implementation, much like the organizational structure that exists

for urban BMPs, and also provided a mechanism for

its signatories to evaluate and endorse water management plans. By May 1998, the MOU had been signed

by 31 agricultural water suppliers irrigating about

3 million acres of land, as well as by over 60 other entities.

Klamath River Fishery Issues

The primary water management issue in the interstate Klamath River basin is the restoration of fish

populations that include listed species such as the Lost

River and shortnose suckers, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The Lost River sucker is native to Upper

Klamath Lake and its tributaries, and the shortnose

sucker is found in the Lost River, Clear Lake, Tule Lake,

and Upper Klamath Lake. Both species spawn during

the spring. Higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake

have been identified as an aid to recovery of these fisheries. Coho and steelhead were recently listed, and

water supply implications will not be known until

management plans are completed and recovery goals

are established.

To address the need for greater certainty in project

operations, USBR began preparing a long-term Klamath Project Operations Plan in 1995. Several issues

have delayed completion of the long-term plan. USBR

has issued an annual operations plan each year since

1995. The Klamath River Compact Commission is

facilitating discussions on water management alternatives to address water supply needs. This three-member

commission was established by an interstate compact

ratified by Congress in 1957 to facilitate integrated

management of interstate water resources. The KRCC,

USBR, and both states are cooperatively developing

water supply options. Members include a representative from the Department, the Director of the Oregon

Water Resources Department, and a presidentiallyappointed federal representative.

Truckee-Carson River System

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights

Settlement Act (Title II of Public Law No. 101-618)

settled several water rights disputes affecting the waters of Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River, and the Carson

River. Of most importance to California, the act made

an interstate apportionment of these waters between

the States of California and Nevada. (It was the first

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-18

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

congressional apportionment since the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928.) The act addresses several

other issues, including settlement of water supply disputes between the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians

and other users of the Truckee and Carson Rivers. The

act also addresses environmental concerns, such as recovery of listed fish species in Pyramid Lake.

Many of the act’s provisions—including the interstate apportionment between California and

Nevada—will not take effect until several conditions

have been satisfied, including dismissal of specified lawsuits and negotiation and adoption of a Truckee River

Operating Agreement. The act requires that a TROA

be negotiated among DOI and California and Nevada,

after consultation with other parties as may be designated by DOI or by the two states. The TROA

addresses interstate water allocation and implements

an agreement between Sierra Pacific Power Company

and the United States which provides for storing water in upstream reservoirs for Pyramid Lake fish and

emergency drought water supplies for the Reno-Sparks

area. TROA negotiation has been ongoing since 1991.

A draft TROA is analyzed in an EIS/EIR prepared by

DOI. (The Department is the State lead agency for

compliance with the requirements of CEQA.) The draft

EIS/EIR was released for public review in 1998 and is

expected to be completed in 1999.

City of Los Angeles’ Water Supply

from Owens Valley

In 1913, the City of Los Angeles began diverting

water from Owens Valley through the Los Angeles

Aqueduct. A second aqueduct, completed in 1970,

increased the Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power’s capacity to divert both surface and groundwater from the Owens Valley. LADWP’s water diversions

have resulted in degradation of the valley’s environmental resources. Recent issues have revolved around

rewatering the lower Owens River and dust control

on the Owens Lakebed.

Rewatering Lower Owens River. In 1972, Inyo

County initially filed suit against the city, claiming that

increased groundwater pumping from the second aqueduct was harming the Owens Valley environment.

An EIR was subsequently prepared jointly by LADWP

and the county, and in 1991 both parties executed a

long-term water management agreement delineating

how groundwater pumping and surface water diversions would be managed to avoid significant decreases

in vegetation, water-dependent recreational uses, and

wildlife habitat. Several agencies, organizations, and

individuals challenged the adequacy of the EIR and

were granted amici curiae status by the Court of Appeals, allowing them to enter in the EIR review process.

Another agreement was subsequently executed in 1997,

ending 25 years of litigation between Los Angeles and

Inyo County.

The lower Owens River project, a major provision of the agreement, was developed to rewater

approximately 60 miles of the Owens River channel

from the LAA diversion downstream to Owens Lake.

The project is also identified in the EIR as compensatory mitigation for impacts that occurred between 1970

and 1990 that were considered difficult to quantify or

mitigate directly. Four significant physical features of

the LORP and agreement are: provision of year-round

flows in the lower Owens River (with a pumpback station just above the Owens River delta to return some

of the water to the LAA), provision of flows past the

pumpback station to create new wetlands in the Owens

Lake delta, enhancement of off-river lakes and ponds,

and development of a new 1,500-acre waterfowl habitat area.

The majority of planning work is expected to be

completed by December 1998. Los Angeles will pay

the costs of implementing the project, with the county

repaying one half of the costs up to a maximum of

$3.75 million. To date, the federal government has

committed $300,000 for the design of the pumpback

system. Congress has approved another $250,000 for

planning and development work. LADWP and the

county will jointly prepare an EIR on the LORP, with

a draft expected by June 2000. Rewatering of the river

channel will begin within 6 years after the pumpback

system is completed.

Dust Control on Owens Lakebed. Owens Lake

became a dry lakebed by 1929. On windy days, airborne particulates from the dry lakebed violate air

quality standards in the southern Owens Valley. In

1997, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control

District ordered the City of Los Angeles to implement

control measures at Owens Lake to mitigate the dust

problems. Under the order, 8,400 acres of lakebed

would be permanently flooded with a few inches of

water, another 8,700 acres would be planted with grass

and irrigated, and 5,300 acres would be covered with

a 4 inch layer of gravel. This order, which was appealed

by the city, could reduce the city’s potential diversion

by 50 taf/yr or about 15 percent of its supply.

In July 1998, a compromise was reached when

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-19 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

LADWP agreed to begin work at Owens Lake by 2001

and to ensure that federal clean air standards would be

met by 2006. In turn, the APCD agreed to scale back

the improvements sought in its 1997 order. Under this

compromise, LADWP’s dust-control strategy may include shallow flooding, vegetation planting, and gravel

placement. The implementation schedule requires that

6,400 acres of lakebed be treated by the end of 2001.

By the end of 2006, an additional 8,000 acres would

be treated, plus any additional lakebed necessary to

bring particulate counts into compliance with federal

air quality standards. The plan hinges on final approval

from the Los Angeles City Council, the APCD’s board,

and the State Air Resources Board.

Mono Basin

Mono Lake and its tributaries have been the subject of extensive litigation between the City of Los

Angeles and environmental groups since the late 1970s.

In 1983, the California Supreme Court ruled that

SWRCB has authority to reexamine past water allocation decisions and the responsibility to protect public

trust resources where feasible. SWRCB issued a final

decision on Mono Lake (Decision 1631) in 1994.

Amendments to LADWP’s water right licenses are set

forth in the order accompanying the decision.

The order sets instream flow requirements for fish

in each of the four streams from which LADWP diverts water. The order also establishes water diversion

criteria to protect wildlife and other environmental

resources in the Mono Basin. These water diversion

criteria prohibit export of water from Mono Basin until

the lake level reaches 6,377 feet, and restrict Mono

Basin water exports to allow the lake level to rise to an

elevation of 6,391 feet in about 20 years. Once the

water level of 6,391 feet is reached, it is expected that

LADWP will be able to export about 31 taf of water

per year from the basin. The order requires LADWP

to prepare restoration plans for the four streams from

which it diverts and to restore part of the waterfowl

habitat which was lost due to lake level decline. In May

1997, parties to the restoration planning process presented a signed settlement on Mono Basin restoration

to the SWRCB. If approved, the settlement would

guide restoration activities and annual monitoring

through 2014.

Key features of the stream restoration plans include restoring peak flows to Rush, Lee Vining, Walker,

and Parker Creeks; reopening abandoned channels in

Rush Creek; and developing a monitoring plan. One

of the restoration actions required by SWRCB—bypassing sediment around LADWP diversion

dams—was deferred for further analysis. The waterfowl habitat restoration plan proposes that a Mono

Basin waterfowl habitat restoration foundation administer a $3.6 million trust established by LADWP. Five

of the parties to the agreement would serve as initial

members of the foundation. Activities would include

annual monitoring, restoring open water habitat adjacent to the lake, and rewatering Mill Creek. LADWP

would continue its brine shrimp productivity studies,

open several channels on Rush Creek, and make its

Mill Creek water rights available for rewatering Mill

Creek, based on the recommendations of the foundation. The plans are being considered by SWRCB and

a decision is expected at the end of 1998.

Salton Sea

The present day Salton Sea was formed in 1905,

when Colorado River water flowed through a break in

a canal that had been constructed along the U.S./Mexican border to divert the river’s flow to agricultural lands

in the Imperial Valley. Over the long term, the sea’s

elevation has gradually increased, going from a low on

the order of -250 feet in the 1920s to its present level

of about -226 feet. The Salton Sea is the largest lake

located entirely within California, with a volume of

about 7.5 maf at its present elevation of -226 feet. The

sea occupies a closed drainage basin—if there were no

inflows to maintain lake levels, its waters would evaporate. The sea receives over 1 maf annually of inflow,

primarily from agricultural drainage. The largest

sources of inflow (about 80 percent of the total) are

the New and Alamo Rivers, which drain agricultural

lands in the Mexicali and Imperial Valleys and flow

into the sea’s southern end.

The sea supports water-based recreational activities and has had a popular corvina fishery. During the

1950s, the highest per capita sport fishing catches in

California were from the Salton Sea. Over the years,

concerns about the sea’s salinity have been voiced in

the context of maintaining the recreational fishery that

was established with introduced species able to tolerate high salinities.

The sea also provides important wintering habitat

for many species of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, including some species whose diets are based

exclusively on the fish in the sea. Wetlands near the

sea and adjoining cultivated agricultural lands offer the

avian population a mix of habitat types and food sourcEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
CURRENT EVENTS ES2-20

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

es. An area at the sea’s south end was established as a

national wildlife refuge in 1930, although most of that

area is now under water as a result of the sea’s rising

elevation. Some of the 380 bird species wintering in

the area include pelicans, herons, egrets, cranes, cormorants, ibises, ducks, grebes, falcons, plovers, avocets,

sandpipers, and gulls. The Salton Sea is considered to

be a major stopover point for birds migrating on the

Pacific flyway, and has one of the highest levels of bird

diversity of refuges in the federal system.

Historically, salinity has been the water quality

constituent of most concern at the sea. Present levels

are about 44,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is about 35,000

mg/L TDS). This high level of salinity reflects longterm evaporation and concentration of salts found in

its inflow. Selenium has been a more recent constituent of interest, due to its implications for aquatic

species. Although selenium levels in the water column

in the sea are less than the federal criterion of 5 ug/l,

this concentration can be exceeded in seabed sediment

and in influent agricultural drainage water. Agricultural drain flows also contribute significant nutrient

loading to the sea, which supports large algal blooms

at some times of the year.

Over the years, USBR and others have considered

potential solutions to stabilize the sea’s salinity and elevation. Most recently, the Salton Sea Authority (a joint

powers authority consisting of Riverside and Imperial

Counties, Imperial Irrigation District, and Coachella

Valley Water District) and others have been performA natural-color infrared satellite image of the Salton Sea (January 1998 Landsat 5). The irrigated areas in Imperial Valley are

clearly visible to the south of the sea, as are the Algodones Dunes to the southeast. The City of Mexicali and irrigated acreage in

the Mexicali Valley can also be seen.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES2-21 CURRENT EVENTS

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Roadrunners are one of the bird species found year-round in

the Salton Sea area.

ing appraisal level evaluations of some of the frequently

suggested alternatives. Maintaining a viable Salton Sea

has several water management implications. First will

be the actions needed to stabilize the sea’s salinity in

the near-term, such as the authority’s diking proposal.

Eventually, a long-term solution will need to be developed. A wide range of costs has been mentioned for a

long-term solution, including amounts in the billiondollar range. Some of the possible long-term solutions

suggested would entail constructing facilities in

Mexico, bringing a greater level of complexity to their

implementation.

Other water management programs in the region,

such as proposals to transfer conserved agricultural

water supplies, will have to be evaluated in terms of

their impacts on the sea. Recent proposals to desalt

water in the Alamo or New Rivers and to transport

that water in the Colorado River Aqueduct to the South

Coast for urban water supply have raised concerns

about maintaining the sea’s environmental productivity. Such proposals might be implemented as part of

the second phase of CRB’s draft 4.4 Plan.

Congressional legislation introduced in 1998

would authorize expenditure of federal funds for a

multi-year study of the sea’s resources and potential

solutions for managing its salinity.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-1 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The SWP’s

California Aqueduct

is the only conveyance

facility that moves

water from the

Central Valley to

Southern California.

Water Supplies

This chapter describes how water supplies are calculated and summarized

within a water budget framework. A description of California’s existing

supplies–surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and desalted water–and

how a portion of these supplies are reallocated through water marketing follows. This chapter

concludes with a review of water quality considerations that influence how the State’s water

supplies are used.

Water Supply Calculation

Bulletin 160-98 calculates existing water supply and demand, then balances forecasted

demand against existing supply and future water management options. The balance, or

water budget, with existing supply is presented on a statewide basis in Chapter ES5 and on

a regional basis in Appendix ES5A. The water budget with future water management options

is also presented in Chapter ES5.

Definition of Bulletin 160 Water Supplies

The Bulletin 160 water budgets do not account for the State’s entire water supply and

use. In fact, less than one-third of the State’s precipitation is quantified in the

water budgets. Precipitation provides California with nearly 200 maf of total

water supply in average years. Of this renewable supply, about 65 percent

is depleted through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants.

This large volume of water is excluded from the Bulletin 160 water supply

Executive Summary

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES ES3-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions

Chapters ES3 and ES4 introduce California’s water supplies

and urban, agricultural, and environmental water uses.

Certain key concepts, defined below, provide an essential

foundation for presenting and analyzing water supplies and

water use.

Applied Water: The amount of water from any source needed

to meet the demand of the user. It is the quantity of water

delivered to any of the following locations:

• The intake to a city water system or factory.

• The farm headgate or other point of measurement.

• A managed wetland, either directly or by drainage flows.

 For instream use, applied water is the quantity of stream

flow dedicated to instream use (or reserved under federal or

State wild and scenic rivers legislation) or to maintaining flow

and water quality in the Bay-Delta pursuant to the SWRCB’s

Order WR 95-6.

Net Water: The amount of water needed in a water service

area to meet all demands. It is the sum of evapotranspiration

of applied water in an area, the irrecoverable losses from the

distribution system, and agricultural return flow or treated

urban wastewater leaving the area.

Irrecoverable Losses: The amount of water lost to a salt sink,

lost by evapotranspiration, or lost by evaporation from a

conveyance facility, drainage canal, or fringe areas.

Evapotranspiration: ET is the amount of water transpired

(given off), retained in plant tissues, and evaporated from

plant tissues and surrounding soil surfaces.

Evapotranspiration of Applied Water: ETAW is the portion

of the total ET which is provided by 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 certain environmental (i.e., wetlands) water use,

depletion is the sum of irrecoverable losses and the ETAW due

to crops, wetland vegetation, and flooded water surfaces. For

urban water use, depletion is the ETAW due to landscaping and

gardens, wastewater effluent that flows to a salt sink, and

incidental ET losses. For environmental instream use, depletion

is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds to a salt sink.

and water use calculations. The remaining 35 percent

stays in the State’s hydrologic system as runoff. (Figure

ES3-1.)

Over 30 percent of the State’s runoff is not explicitly designated for urban, agricultural, or

environmental uses. This water is depleted from the

State’s hydrologic system as outflow to the Pacific

Ocean or other salt sinks. (Some of this non-designated runoff is captured by reservoirs, but is later

released for flood control.) Similar to precipitation

depletions by vegetation, non-designated runoff is excluded from the Bulletin 160 water supply and water

use calculations.

The State’s remaining runoff is available as

renewable water supply for urban, agricultural, and

environmental uses in the Bulletin 160 water budgets. In addition to this supply, Bulletin 160 water

budgets include a few supplies that are not generated

by intrastate precipitation. These supplies include imports from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers and new

supplies generated by water recycling and desalting.

Applied Water Methodology

Bulletin 160-98 water supplies are computed using applied water data. As defined in the sidebar,

applied water refers to the amount of water from any

source employed to meet the demand of the user. Previous editions of Bulletin 160 computed water supplies

using net water data. Bulletin 160-98 switched from a

net water methodology to an applied water methodology in response to public comments on Bulletin

160-93. Because applied water data are analogous to

agency water delivery data, water supply data based

on an applied water methodology are easier for local

water agencies to review. Net water supply values are

smaller than applied water supply values because they

exclude that portion of demand met by reapplication of surface and groundwater supplies.

Reapplication can be a significant source of water

in many hydrologic regions of California. An applied

water budget explicitly accounts for this source. However, because of reapplication, applied water budgets do

not translate directly into the supply of water needed to

meet future demands. The approach used to compute

the new water required to meet future demands with

applied water budgets is presented in Chapter ES5.

Normalized Data

Water budget data used to represent the base planning year do not necessarily match the historical

conditions observed in 1995. Instead, Bulletin 160-

98’s base year applied water budget data are developed

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-3 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

from “normalized” water supply, land use, and water

use data. Through the normalizing process, year-toyear fluctuations caused by weather and market

abnormalities are removed from the data. For example,

water year 1998 would greatly underestimate average

annual water use, as rainfall through May and early

June provided the necessary moisture needed to meet

crop and landscape water demands. In most years,

much of California would require applied water supplies during May and early June. The procedures used

to normalize water supply and water use data are described in the sidebar on page ES3-4.

Water Supply Scenarios

California is subject to a wide range of hydrologic

conditions and water supply variability. Knowledge of

water supplies under a range of hydrologic conditions

is necessary to evaluate reliability needs that water managers must meet. Two water supply scenarios—average

year conditions and drought year conditions—were

selected from among a spectrum of possible water supply conditions to represent variability in the regional

and statewide water budgets.

The average year supply scenario represents the

average annual supply of a system over a long planning horizon. Average year supplies from the CVP and

SWP are defined by operations studies for a base

(1995) level of development and for a future (2020)

level of development. Project delivery capabilities are

defined over a 73-year hydrologic sequence. For other

water supply projects, historical data are normalized

to represent average year conditions. For required environmental flows, average year supply is estimated

for each of its components. Wild and scenic river flow

is calculated from long-term average unimpaired flow

data. Instream flow requirements are defined for an

average year under specific agreements, water rights,

court decisions, and congressional directives. BayDelta outflow requirements are estimated from

operations studies.

For many local water agencies, and especially

urban agencies, drought water year supply is the critical

factor in planning for water supply reliability. Traditional

drought planning often uses a design drought hydrology

to characterize project operations under future conditions.

For a planning region with the size and hydrologic complexity of California, selecting an appropriate statewide

design drought presents a challenge. The 1990-91 water

years were selected to represent the drought year supply

scenario for Bulletin 160-98. (The 1990-91 water years

were also used to represent the drought year scenario in

Bulletin 160-93.)

Evapotranspiration by

Trees and Other Plants

Other

Runoff

Designated Runoff

(Bulletin 160

Water Supply)

Environmental Agricultural Urban

FIGURE ES3-1.

Disposition of California’s Average Annual Precipitation

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES ES3-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The 1990-91 drought year scenario has a recurrence interval of about 20 years, or a 5 percent

probability of occurring in any given year. This is

typical of the drought level used by many local agencies for routine water supply planning. For extreme

events such as the 1976-77 drought, many agencies

would implement shortage contingency measures

such as mandatory rationing. Another important

consideration in selecting water years 1990-91 was

that, because of their recent occurrence, local agency

water demand and supply data were readily available.

The statewide occurrence of dry conditions during the 1990-91 water years was another key

consideration in selecting them as a representative

drought. Because of the size of California, droughts

may or may not occur simultaneously throughout

the entire state.

Sources of Water Supply

Table ES3-1 shows California’s estimated water supply, for average and drought years under 1995 and 2020

levels of development, with existing facilities and programs. Facility operations in the Delta are assumed to be

in accordance with Order WR 95-6. The State’s 1995-

level average year water supply is about 77.9 maf,

including about 31.4 maf of dedicated flows for environmental uses. As previously discussed, this supply is

based on an applied water methodology and therefore

includes considerable amounts of reapplication within

hydrologic regions.

Even with a reduction in Colorado River supplies

to California’s 4.4 maf basic apportionment, annual

average statewide supply is projected to increase about

0.2 maf by 2020 without implementation of new water supply options. While the expected increase in

average year water supplies is due mainly to higher CVP

and SWP deliveries (in response to higher 2020-level

demands), new water production will also result from

groundwater and from recycling facilities currently under construction.

The State’s 1995-level drought year water supply

is about 59.6 maf, of which about 16.6 maf is dedicated for environmental uses. Annual drought year

supply is expected to increase slightly by 2020 without implementation of new water supply options. The

expected increase would come from higher CVP

Procedures for Normalizing Water Supply

and Water Use Data

On the supply side, normalized water project delivery

values are computed by averaging historical delivery data.

Normalized “average year” project supplies are typically

computed from 3 to 5 recent non-deficient water years.

Normalized “drought year” project supplies are computed by

averaging historical delivery data from 1990 and 1991. A

notable exception to the above procedure is the development

of normalized CVP and SWP project deliveries. Supplies from

these projects are developed from operations studies rather

than from historical data. Operations studies provide an

average project delivery capability over a multi-year sequence

of hydrology under SWRCB Order WR 95-6 Bay-Delta

standards.

On the demand side, base year urban per capita water

use data are normalized to account for factors such as residual

effects of the 1987-92 drought. In any given year, urban

landscape and agricultural irrigation requirements will vary

with precipitation, temperature, and other factors. Base year

water use data are normalized to represent ETAW

requirements under average and drought year water supply

conditions. Land use data are also normalized. The

Department collects land use data through periodic surveys;

however, the entire State is not surveyed in any given year

(such as 1995). To arrive at an estimate of historical statewide

land use for a specific year, additional sources of data are

consulted to interpolate between surveys. After a statewide

historical land use base is constructed, it is evaluated to

determine if it was influenced by abnormal weather or crop

market conditions and is normalized to remove such

influences.

Normalizing allows Bulletin 160-98 to define an existing

level of development (i.e., the 1995 base year) that is

compatible with a forecasted level of development (i.e., the

2020 forecast year). Future year shortage calculations

implicitly rely on a comparison between future water use and

existing water supply, as water supplies do not change

significantly (without implementation of new facilities and

programs) over the planning horizon. Therefore, the

normalizing procedure is necessary to provide an appropriate

future year shortage calculation. Normalizing also permits

more than one water supply condition to be evaluated for a

given level of development. If historical data were used to

define the base year, only one specific hydrologic condition

would be represented. (Historical data for 1995 would

represent a wet year.) But through normalizing, a base level

of development can be evaluated under a range of hydrologic

conditions.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-5 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

and SWP deliveries and new production from surface

water, groundwater, and recycling facilities currently

under construction.

Surface Water Supplies

Surface water includes developed supplies from the

CVP, SWP, Colorado River, other federal projects, and

local projects. Figure ES3-2 shows the location of the

State’s major water projects. Surface water also includes

the supplies for required environmental flows. Required

environmental flows are comprised of undeveloped

supplies designated for wild and scenic rivers, supplies

used for instream flow requirements, and supplies used

for Bay-Delta water quality and outflow requirements.

Finally, surface water includes supplies available for

reapplication downstream. Urban wastewater discharges and agricultural return flows, if beneficially

used downstream, are examples of reapplied surface

water.

Groundwater Supplies

In an average year, about 30 percent of California’s

urban and agricultural applied water is provided by

groundwater extraction. In drought years when surface supplies are reduced, groundwater supports an

even larger percentage of use. The amount of water

stored in California’s aquifers is far greater than that

stored in the State’s surface water reservoirs, although

only a portion of California’s groundwater resources

can be economically and practically extracted for use.

Bulletin 160-98 excludes long-term basin extractions in excess of long-term basin inflows in its definition of groundwater supply. This long-term average

annual difference between extractions and recharge,

defined in the Bulletin as overdraft, is not a sustainable

source of water and is thus excluded from the base year

and forecast year groundwater supply estimates. (In response to public comments on the Bulletin 160-93,

Bulletin 160-98 is the first water plan update to exclude overdraft from the base year groundwater

supply estimate.)

In wet years, recharge into developed groundwater basins tends to exceed extractions. Conversely,

in dry years, groundwater basin recharge tends to be

less than groundwater basin extraction. By definition,

overdraft is not a measure of these annual fluctuations

in groundwater storage volume. Instead, overdraft is a

measure of the long-term trend associated with these

annual fluctuations. The period of record used to evaluate overdraft must be long enough to produce data

that, when averaged, approximate the long-term average hydrologic conditions for the basin. Table ES3-2

shows the Department’s estimates of 1995 and 2020-

level groundwater overdraft by hydrologic region.

Within some regions, overdraft occurs in some welldefined subareas, while additional groundwater

development potential may exist in other subareas.

For the 1995 base year, Bulletin 160-98 estimates

a statewide increase in groundwater overdraft (160 taf)

above the 1990 base year reported in Bulletin 160-93.

Most of the statewide increase in overdraft occurred in

the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Regions, two regions

TABLE ES3-1

California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programsa (taf)

Supply 1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Surface

CVP 7,004 4,821 7,347 4,889

SWP 3,126 2,060 3,439 2,394

Other Federal Projects 910 694 912 683

Colorado River 5,176 5,227 4,400 4,400

Local Projects 11,054 8,484 11,073 8,739

Required Environmental Flow 31,372 16,643 31,372 16,643

Reapplied 6,441 5,596 6,449 5,575

Groundwaterb 12,493 15,784 12,678 16,010

Recycled and Desalted 324 333 415 416

Total (rounded) 77,900 59,640 78,080 59,750

a

 Bulletin 160-98 presents water supply data as applied water, rather than net water. This distinction is explained in a previous section. Past editions of

Bulletin 160 presented water supply data in terms of net supplies.

b Excludes groundwater overdraft

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES ES3-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

FIGURE ES3-2.

California’s Major Water Projects

State

Federal

Local

Trinity

Lake

Shasta

Lake

Lake

Oroville

Tehama-Colusa

Canal

Folsom

Lake

Folsom South

Canal

Mokelumne

Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy

Aqueduct

Delta-Mendota

Canal

Madera

Canal

Millerton

Lake

Friant-Kern

Canal

South Bay

Aqueduct

North Bay

Aqueduct

San Luis

Reservoir

Coalinga

Canal

Cross Valley

Canal

Los Angeles

Aqueduct California

Aqueduct

Colorado River

Aqueduct

Coachella

Canal

San Diego

Aqueducts

All American

Canal

Lake

Almanor

Corning

Canal

Black Butte

Reservoir

Stony Gorge

Reservoir

East Park

Reservoir

Tule

Lake

Clear

Lake

Indian Valley

Reservoir

Lake

Berryessa

Lake

Mendocino

Lake

Sonoma

Glenn Colusa

Canal

Contra Costa

Canal

San

New Bullards Bar

Reservoir

Englebright

Reservoir

Camanche

Reservoir New Melones

Lake

Lake

McClure

New Don

Pedro Lake Lake

Crowley

Pine Flat

Lake

Lake

Kaweah

Nacimiento

Reservoir

San Antonio

Reservoir

Success

Lake

Twitchell

Reservoir

Isabella

Lake

Castaic

Lake Lake

Casitas

Cachuma

Reservoir

Lake

Perris

Silverwood

Lake

Lake

Mathews

Henshaw

Reservoir

San Vicente

Reservoir

Grant

Lake

Lower

Otay

Reservoir

Red Bluff

Diversion Dam

Luis

Canal

Santa Clara

Conduit

Hollister

Conduit

Lake

Clear Tahoe

Lake

Whiskeytown

Lake

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-7 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

where surface water supplies have been reduced in recent years by Delta export restrictions, CVPIA

implementation, and ESA requirements. CVP contractors in these regions who rely on Delta exports for their

surface water supply have experienced supply deficiencies of up to 50 percent subsequent to implementation

of export limitations and CVPIA requirements. Many

of these contractors have turned to groundwater pumping for additional water supplies. This long-term

increase in groundwater extractions exacerbated a

short-term decline in water levels as a result of the 1987-

92 drought.

As shown in Table ES3-2, groundwater overdraft

is expected to decline from 1.5 maf/yr to 1.1 maf/yr

statewide by 2020. Overdraft in the Central Coast

Region is expected to decline as demand shifts from

groundwater to imported SWP supplies, provided

through the recently completed Coastal Branch of the

California Aqueduct. The reduction in irrigated acreage in drainage problem areas on the west side of the

San Joaquin Valley, as described in the 1990 report of

the San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program,

is expected to reduce groundwater demands in the San

Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions by 2020. Some

increases in groundwater overdraft are expected in Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties of the

Sacramento River Region.

Water Marketing

In recent years, water marketing has received increasing attention as a tool for addressing statewide

imbalances between water supply and water use. Experiences with water markets during and since the

1987-92 drought bolstered interest in using marketing as a local and statewide water supply augmentation option. While water marketing does allow water

agencies to purchase additional water supply reliability during both average and drought years, water

marketing does not create new water. Therefore, water markets alone cannot meet California’s long-term

water supply needs.

In this update of the California Water Plan, water

marketing may include:

• A permanent sale of a water right by the water

right holder.

• A lease from the water right holder (who retains

the water right), allowing the lessee to use the water

under specified conditions over a specified period

of time.

• A sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. Under this arrangement, the ability of the

holder to transfer a contractual water right is usually contingent upon receiving approval from the

supplier. An example of this type of arrangement

is a sale or lease by a water agency that receives its

supply from the CVP, SWP, or other water wholesaler.

Water marketing is not an actual statewide source

of water, but rather is a means to reallocate existing

supplies. Therefore, marketing is not explicitly itemized as a source of water supply from existing facilities

and programs in the Bulletin 160 water budgets. (Water marketing agreements in place by 1995 are

considered to be existing programs and are implicitly

part of the water budgets.) Water marketing is identified as a potential water supply augmentation option

in the Bulletin 160 water budgets. Potential water marketing options have several characteristics that must

TABLE ES3-2

1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 0 0 0 0

San Francisco Bay 0 0 0 0

Central Coast 214 214 102 102

South Coast 0 0 0 0

Sacramento River 33 33 85 85

San Joaquin River 239 239 63 63

Tulare Lake 820 820 670 670

North Lahontan 0 0 0 0

South Lahontan 89 89 89 89

Colorado River 69 69 61 61

Total (rounded) 1,460 1,460 1,070 1,070

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER SUPPLIES ES3-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

be captured in the water budgets incorporating supplies from future management options. For example,

through changes in place of use, water marketing options can reallocate supplies from one hydrologic region

to another. And through changes in type of use, water

marketing options can reallocate supplies from one

water use sector to another. Finally, for a given place

and type of use, water marketing options can reallocate supplies among average years and drought years.

While several long-term agreements have been completed in recent years (see Table ES3-3), short-term

agreements have made up the majority of water marketing. Short-term agreements, with terms less than one year,

can be an effective means of alleviating the most severe

drought year impacts. Short-term agreements can be executed on the spot market; however, water purveyors are

increasingly interested in negotiating longer-term agreements for drought year transfers. In such future agreements,

specific water supply conditions may be the triggers to determine whether water would be transferred in a specific

year.

Two examples of programs for acquiring water

through short-term agreements are the Drought Water Bank and the CVPIA interim water acquisition

program. Beyond these programs, data on shortterm water marketing arrangements are difficult to

locate and verify. Agreements executed for less than

one year do not need SWRCB approval (unless there

is a change in place of use or point of diversion)

and thus are not tracked by outside entities. Data

are also difficult to evaluate, as it is often difficult

to distinguish between exchanges and marketing arrangements.

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies

Water recycling is the intentional treatment and

management of wastewater to produce water suitable

for reuse. Several factors affect the amount of wastewater treatment plant effluent that local agencies are

able to recycle, including the size of the available market and the seasonality of demands. Local agencies must

plan their facilities based on the amount of treatment

plant effluent available and the range of expected service area demands. In areas where irrigation uses

constitute the majority of recycled water demands,

winter and summer demands may vary greatly. (Where

recycled water is used for groundwater recharge, seasonal demands are more constant throughout the year.)

Also, since water recycling projects are often planned

to supply certain types of customers, the proximity of

these customers to each other and to available pipeline

distribution systems affects the economic viability of

potential recycling projects.

Technology available today allows many municipal wastewater treatment systems to produce water

supplies at competitive costs. More stringent treatment

requirements for disposal of municipal and industrial

wastewater have reduced the incremental cost for

higher levels of treatment required for recycled water.

The degree of additional treatment depends on the

intended use. Recycled water is used for agricultural

and landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and

industrial and environmental uses. Some uses are required to meet more stringent standards for public

health protection. An example is the City of San Diego’s

planned 18 mgd wastewater repurification facility. This

water project would produce about 16 taf/yr of

repurified water to augment local municipal supplies.

If implemented, the project would be California’s first

planned indirect potable reuse project that discharges

repurified water directly into a surface reservoir.

The use of recycled water can lessen the demand

for new water supply. However, not all water recycling

produces new water supply. Bulletin 160 counts water

TABLE ES3-3

Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements

Participants Region(s)

Westside Water District, Colusa County Water District Sacramento River

Semitropic Water Storage District, Santa Clara Valley Water District Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Alameda County Water District Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Zone 7 Water Agency Tulare Lake, San Francisco Bay

Semitropic Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Tulare Lake, South Coast

Kern County Water Agency, Mojave Water Agency Tulare Lake, South Lahontan

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Tulare Lake, South Coast

Mojave Water Agency, Solano County Water Agency South Lahontan, San Francisco Bay

Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Colorado River, South Coast

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-9 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

that would otherwise be lost to the State’s hydrologic

system (i.e., water discharged directly to the ocean or

to another salt sink) as recycled water supply. If water

recycling creates a new demand which would not otherwise exist, or if it treats water that would have

otherwise been reapplied by downstream entities or

recharged to usable groundwater, it is not considered

new water supply. Water recycling provides multiple

benefits such as reduced wastewater discharge and

improved water quality.

The Department, in coordination with the

WateReuse Association of California, conducted a

1995 survey to update the Association’s 1993 survey

of local agencies’ current and planned water recycling.

By 2020, total water recycling is expected to increase

from 485 taf/yr to 577 taf/yr, due to greater production at existing treatment plants and new production

at plants currently under construction. This base production is expected to increase new recycled supplies

from 323 taf/yr to 407 taf/yr. All new recycled water is

expected to be produced in the San Francisco Bay,

Central Coast, and South Coast Regions. Table ES3-4

shows future potential options for water recycling.

budget, 8 taf of seawater desalting is included as a

drought year supply. In the 2020-level water budget,

8 taf of seawater desalting is included as average and

drought year supplies.

Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region

Table ES3-5 summarizes average year water supplies by hydrologic region assuming 1995 and 2020

levels of development and existing facilities and programs. Similarly, Table ES3-6 summarizes drought year

water supplies by hydrologic region for existing and

future levels of development. Regional water supplies,

along with water demands presented in the following

chapter, provide the basis for the statewide water budget developed in Chapter ES5 and regional water

budgets developed in Appendices ES5A and ES5B.

Water Quality

A critical factor in determining the usability and

reliability of any particular water source is water quality. The quality of a water source will significantly affect

the beneficial uses of that water. Water has many potential uses, and the water quality requirements for each

use vary. Sometimes, different water uses may have

conflicting water quality requirements. For example,

water temperatures ideal for irrigation of some crops

may not be suitable for fish spawning.

The establishment and enforcement of water quality standards for water bodies in California fall under the

authority of SWRCB and the nine regional water quality

control boards. The RWQCBs protect water quality

through adoption of region-specific water quality control plans, commonly known as basin plans. In general,

water quality control plans designate beneficial uses of

water and establish water quality objectives designed to

protect them. The designated beneficial uses of water may

vary between individual water bodies.

Water quality objectives are the limits or levels of

water quality constituents or characteristics which are

established to protect beneficial uses. Because a particular water body may have several beneficial uses,

the water quality objectives established must be protective of all designated uses. When setting water

quality objectives, several sources of existing water

quality limits are used, depending on the uses designated in a water quality control plan. When more than

one water quality limit exists for a water quality constituent or characteristic (e.g., human health limit vs.

aquatic life limit), the more restrictive limit is used as

TABLE ES3-4

2020 Level Total Water Recycling and

New Water Supply (taf)

Projects Total New Water

Water Recycling Supply

Base 577 407

Options 835 655

Total 1,412 1,062

By 2020, water recycling options could bring total water recycling potential to over 1.4 maf/yr,

potentially generating as much as 1.1 maf/yr of new

supply, if water agencies implemented all projects identified in the survey.

The capacity of California’s existing desalting

plants totals about 66 taf annually; feedwater sources

are brackish groundwater, wastewater, and seawater.

Total seawater desalting capacity is currently about 8

taf/yr statewide. Most existing plants are small (less

than 1 taf/yr) and have been constructed in coastal

communities with limited water supplies. The Santa

Barbara desalting plant, with capacity of 7.5 taf/yr, is

currently the only large seawater desalting plant. The

plant was constructed during the 1987-92 drought and

is now on long-term standby. In the 1995-level water

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-10

WATER SUPPLIES

TABLE ES3-5

California Average Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region (with existing facilities and programs, 

1995 2020

Region Surface Groundwatera Recycled & Total Surface Groundwatera Re

Desalted (rounded) D

North Coast 20,331 263 13 20,610 20,371 288 

San Francisco Bay 7,011 68 35 7,110 7,067 72 Central Coast 318 1,045 18 1,380 368 1,041 South Coast 3,839 1,177 207 5,220 3,625 1,243 Sacramento River 11,881 2,672 0 14,550 12,196 2,636 

San Joaquin River 8,562 2,195 0 10,760 8,458 2,295 

Tulare Lake 7,888 4,340 0 12,230 7,791 4,386 

North Lahontan 777 157 8 940 759 183 

South Lahontan 322 239 27 590 437 248 

Colorado River 4,154 337 15 4,510 3,920 285 Total (rounded) 65,090 12,490 320 77,900 64,990 12,680 

a Excludes groundwater overdraft.

TABLE ES3-6

California Drought Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region (with existing facilities and programs, 

1995 2020

Region Surface Groundwatera Recycled & Total Surface Groundwatera Re

Desalted (rounded) D

North Coast 10,183 294 14 10,490 10,212 321 San Francisco Bay 5,285 92 35 5,410 5,417 89 Central Coast 160 1,142 26 1,330 180 1,159 South Coast 3,196 1,371 207 4,780 3,130 1,462 Sacramento River 10,022 3,218 0 13,240 10,012 3,281 San Joaquin River 6,043 2,900 0 8,940 5,986 2,912 Tulare Lake 3,693 5,970 0 9,660 3,593 5,999 North Lahontan 557 187 8 750 557 208 South Lahontan 259 273 27 560 326 296 Colorado River 4,128 337 15 4,480 3,909 284 Total (rounded) 43,530 15,780 330 59,640 43,320 16,010 

a Excludes groundwater overdraft.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES3-11 WATER SUPPLIES

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

the water quality objective.

Drinking water standards for a total of 81 individual drinking water constituents are in place under

the mandates of the 1986 SDWA amendments. By

the new SDWA standard setting process established

in the 1996 amendments, EPA will select at least five

new candidate constituents to be considered for regulation every five years. Selection of the new constituents

for regulation must be geared toward contaminants

posing the greatest health risks.

Occasionally, drinking water regulatory goals may

conflict. For example, concern over pathogens such as

Cryptosporidium spurred a proposed rule requiring

more rigorous disinfection. At the same time, there

was considerable regulatory concern over

trihalomethanes and other disinfection by-products

resulting from disinfecting drinking water with chlorine. However, if disinfection is made more rigorous,

disinfection by-product formation is increased. Poor

quality source waters with elevated concentrations of

organic precursors and bromides further complicate

the problem of reliably meeting standards for disinfection while meeting standards for disinfection

by-products. The regulatory community will have to

balance the benefits and risks associated with pursuing the goals of efficient disinfection and reduced

disinfection by-products.

EPA promulgated its Information Collection Rule

in 1996 to obtain the data on the tradeoff posed by

simultaneous control of disinfection by-products and

pathogens in drinking water. The ICR requires all large

public water systems to collect and report data on the

occurrence of disinfection by-products and pathogens

(including bacteria, viruses, Giardia, and

Cryptosporidium) in drinking water over an 18-month

period. With this information, an assessment of health

risks due to the presence of disinfection by-products

and pathogens in drinking water can be made. EPA

can then determine the need to revise current drinking water filtration and disinfection requirements, and

the need for more stringent regulations for disinfectants and disinfection by-products.

There has been growing concern over the potential human health threat of pathogens in groundwater.

This concern stems from pathogens such as Giardia,

Cryptosporidium, bacteria, and viruses being found in

water taken from wells. The concern about pathogens

in groundwater has led to regulatory discussions on

disinfection requirements for groundwater. It is currently estimated that the Groundwater Disinfection

Rule will be proposed sometime in 1999 and will become effective in 2002. The data obtained through

the ICR will provide the necessary information to assess the extent and severity of risk.

The SDWA requires states to implement wellhead

protection programs designed to prevent the contamination of groundwater supplying public drinking

water wells. Wellhead protection programs rely heavily

on local efforts to be effective, because communities

have the primary access to information on potential

contamination sources and can adopt locally-based

measures to manage these potential contamination

sources.

CCWD’s Los Vaqueros Dam under construction. The

reservoir does not provide new water supply, but provides

terminal storage for CCWD’s existing supply and improves

service area water quality.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-1 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Nursery products are

California’s third

largest farm product in

gross value. The

nursery industry is

affected by the

availability of both

agricultural and urban

water supplies.

Urban, Agricultural, and

Environmental Water Use

This chapter describes present and forecasted urban, agricultural, and

environmental water use. The chapter is organized into three major

sections, one for each category of water use.

Water use information is presented at the hydrologic region level of detail under

normalized hydrologic conditions. Forecasted 2020-level urban and agricultural water use

have not changed greatly since publication of Bulletin 160-93. Forecasted urban water use

depends heavily on population forecasts. Although the Department of Finance has updated

its California population projections since the last Bulletin, U.S. census data are an important

foundation for the projections, and a new census will not be performed until 2000. The

Department’s forecasts of agricultural water use change relatively slowly in the short-term,

because the corresponding changes in forecasted agricultural acreage are a small percentage

of the State’s total irrigated acreage. Changes in base year and forecasted environmental

water use from the last Bulletin reflect implementation of SWRCB’s Order

WR 95-6 for the Bay-Delta.

Urban Water Use

Forecasts of future urban water use for the Bulletin are based on

population information and per capita water use estimates. Factors influencing

per capita water use include expected demand reduction due to implemenExecutive Summary

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER USE ES4-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

-tation of water conservation programs. The Department has modeled effects of conservation measures

and socioeconomic changes on per capita use in 20

major water service areas to estimate future changes

in per capita use by hydrologic region. An urban water agency making estimates for its own

service area would be able to incorporate more complexity in its forecasting, because the scope of its effort

is narrow. For this reason, and because DOF population projections seldom exactly match population

projections prepared by cities and counties, the

Bulletin’s water use forecasts are expected to be representative of, rather than identical to, those of local

water agencies.

 Population Growth

Data about California’s population—its geographic distribution and projections of future

populations and their distribution—come from several sources. The Department works with base year

and projected year population information developed

by DOF for each county in the State. The decadal census is a major benchmark for population projections.

DOF works from census data to calculate the State’s

population in noncensus years, and to project future

populations. Figure ES4-1 shows DOF’s projected

growth rates by county for year 2020. (State policy

requires that all State agencies use DOF population

projections for planning, funding, and policymaking

activities.)

Population projections used in Bulletin 160-98 are

based on DOF’s Interim County Population Projections

(April 1997). Table ES4-1 shows the 1995 through

2020 population figures for Bulletin 160-98 by hydrologic region.

DOF periodically updates its population forecasts

to respond to changing conditions. Its 2020 population forecast used for Bulletin 160-93 was 1.4 million

higher than the 2020 forecast used in Bulletin 160-

98. The latter forecast incorporated the effects of the

recession of the early 1990s. Small fluctuations in the

forecast do not obscure the overall trend—an increase

in population on the order of 50 percent.

The Department apportioned county population

data to Bulletin 160 study areas based on watershed or

water district boundaries. Factors considered in distributing the data to Bulletin 160 study areas included

population projections prepared by cities, counties, and

local councils of governments, which typically incorporate expected future development from city and

county general plans. The local agency projections indicate which areas within a county are expected to

experience growth, and provide guidance in allocating

DOF’s projection for an entire county into smaller

Bulletin 160 study areas.

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use

Urban per capita water use includes residential,

commercial, industrial, and institutional uses of water. Each of these categories can be examined at a greater

level of detail. Residential water use, for example, includes interior and exterior (e.g., landscaping) water

use. Forecasts of urban water use for an individual community may be separated into components and

forecasted individually. It is not possible to use this

level of detail for each community in the State in Bulletin 160-98. Bulletin 160-98 modeled components

of urban use for representative urban water agencies

in each of the State’s ten hydrologic regions and extrapolated those results to the remainder of each

hydrologic region.

Demand reduction achieved by implementing water conservation measures is important in forecasting per

capita water use. Bulletin 160-98 incorporates demand

reductions from implementation of urban best management practices contained in the 1991 Memorandum of

Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in

California. Bulletin 160-98 assumes implementation of

the urban MOU’s BMPs by 2020, resulting in a demand

reduction of about 1.5 maf over the year 2020 demand

forecast without BMP implementation.

The relationship of water pricing to water consumption, and the role of pricing in achieving water

conservation, has been a subject of discussion in recent years. Elected board members of public water

TABLE ES4-1

California Population by Hydrologic Region

(in thousands)

Region 1995 2020

North Coast 606 835

San Francisco Bay 5,780 7,025

Central Coast 1,347 1,946

South Coast 17,299 24,327

Sacramento River 2,372 3,813

San Joaquin River 1,592 3,025

Tulare Lake 1,738 3,296

North Lahontan 84 125

South Lahontan 713 2,019

Colorado River 533 1,096

Total (rounded) 32,060 47,510

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-3 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

0 - 20%

20 - 40%

40 - 60%

60 - 80%

80 - 100%

Over 100%

Legend Legend

FIGURE ES4-1.

Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995-2020

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER USE ES4-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

agencies ultimately have the responsibility for balancing desires to achieve demand reduction through water

pricing with desires to provide affordable water rates

to consumers. Urban water rates in California vary

widely and are affected by factors such as geographic

location, source of supply, and type of water treatment

provided. Water rates are set by local agencies to recover costs of providing water service, and are highly

site-specific. According to several price elasticity studies for urban water use, residential water demand is

usually inelastic, i.e., water users were relatively insensitive to changes in price for the price ranges evaluated.

Water price currently plays a small role in relation to

other factors affecting water use—public education,

plumbing retrofit programs, etc.

Urban Water Use Forecasting

The Department forecasted change in per capita

water use by 2020 in each hydrologic region to estimate 2020 urban applied water by hydrologic region.

Variables included changes in population, income,

economic activity, water price, and conservation measures (implementation of urban BMPs and changes to

State and federal plumbing fixture standards). The

general forecasting procedure was to determine 1995

base per capita water use, estimate the effects of conservation measures and socioeconomic change on

future use for 20 major representative water service

areas in California, and calculate 2020 base per capita

water use by hydrologic region from the results of service area forecasts. (See Table ES4-2.)

Summary of Urban Water Use

Table ES4-3 summarizes Bulletin 160-98 urban

applied water use by hydrologic region. Statewide urHigh efficiency horizontal axis washing machines (front loading

washers) are being used in commercial applications, but are just

becoming available for home use. A check of large appliance

dealers in 1998 showed that two brands of horizontal axis

washers are commonly in stock, at prices ranging from $700 to

$1,100. Comparable standard washers cost from $100 to $600

less. Some utilities are offering their customers rebates on the order

of $100 to $150 for purchasing the horizontal axis machines.

TABLE ES4-2

Effects of Conservation on Per Capita Water Usea by Hydrologic Region

(gallons per capita per day)

Region 1995 2020

without conservation with conservation

North Coast 249 236 215

San Francisco Bay 192 188 166

Central Coast 179 188 166

South Coast 208 219 191

Sacramento River 286 286 264

San Joaquin River 310 307 274

Tulare Lake 298 302 268

North Lahontan 411 390 356

South Lahontan 282 294 268

Colorado River 564 626 535

Statewide 229 243 215

a

 Includes residential, commercial, industrial, and landscape use supplied by public water systems and self-produced surface and groundwater. Does not

include recreational use, energy production use, and losses from major conveyance facilities. These are normalized data.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-5 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

ban use at the 1995 base level is 8.8 maf in average

water years and 9.0 maf in drought years. (Drought

year demands are slightly higher because less precipitation is available to meet exterior urban water uses,

such as landscape watering.) Projected 2020 use increases to 12.0 maf in average years and 12.4 maf in

drought years. Full implementation of urban BMPs is

estimated to result in demand reduction of 1.5 maf in

average year water use by 2020. Without implementation of urban BMPs, average year use would have

increased to 13.5 maf.

As indicated in the Table ES4-3, the South Coast

and San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Regions together

amount to over half of the State’s total urban water

use. The table also illustrates that precipitation plays a

small role in meeting urban outdoor water needs (landscape water needs) in arid regions such as the Tulare

Lake, South Lahontan, and Colorado River Regions.

Agricultural Water Use

The Department’s estimates of agricultural water use are derived by multiplying water use

requirements for different crop types by their corresponding statewide irrigated acreage, and

summing the results to obtain a total for irrigated

crops in the State. This section begins by covering

crop water use requirements. A description of the

process for estimating future irrigated acreage, and

factors affecting acreage forecasts, follows.

Forecasted 2020 agricultural water demands are

summarized at the end of the section.

Crop Water Use

The water requirement of a crop is directly related

to the water lost through evapotranspiration. The

amount of water that can be consumed through ET

depends in the short term on local weather and in the

long term on climatic conditions. Energy from solar

radiation is the primary factor that determines the rate

of crop ET. Also important are humidity, temperature,

wind, stage of crop growth, and the size and aerodynamic roughness of the crop canopy. Irrigation

frequency affects ET after planting and during early

growth, because evaporation increases when the soil

surface is wet and is exposed to sunlight. Growing season ET varies significantly among crop types,

depending primarily on how long the crop actively

grows.

Direct measurement of crop ET requires costly

investments in time and in sophisticated equipment.

There are more than 9 million acres of irrigated crop

land in California, encompassing a wide range of climate, soils, and crops. Even where annual ET for two

areas is similar, monthly totals may differ. For example,

average annual ET for Central Coast interior valleys is

similar to that in the Central Valley. Central Valley ET

is lower than that in coastal valleys during the winter

fog season, and higher during hot summer weather.

Obtaining actual measurements for every combination

of environmental variables would be prohibitively difficult and expensive. A more practical approach is to

estimate ET using methods based on correlation of

measured ET with observed evaporation, temperature,

and other climatologic conditions. Such methods can

TABLE ES4-3

Applied Urban Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 169 177 201 212

San Francisco Bay 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,428

Central Coast 286 294 379 391

South Coast 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612

Sacramento River 766 830 1,139 1,236

San Joaquin River 574 583 954 970

Tulare Lake 690 690 1,099 1,099

North Lahontan 39 40 50 51

South Lahontan 238 238 619 619

Colorado River 418 418 740 740

Total (rounded) 8,770 9,010 12,020 12,360

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER USE ES4-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

be used to transfer the results of measured ET to other

areas with similar climates.

The Department uses the ET/evaporation correlation method to estimate growing season ET.

Concurrent with field measurement of ET rates, the

Department developed a network of agroclimate stations to determine the relationship between measured

ET rates and pan evaporation. Data from agroclimatic

studies show that water evaporation from a standard

water surface (the Department uses the U.S. Weather

Bureau Class A evaporation pan) closely correlates to

crop evapotranspiration. The ET/evaporation method

estimates crop water use to within ± 10 percent of measured seasonal ET.

Crop coefficients are applied to pan evaporation

data to estimate evapotranspiration rates for specific

crops. (Crop coefficients vary by crop, stage of crop

growth, planting and harvest dates, and growing season duration.) The resulting data, combined with

information on effective rainfall and water use efficiency, form the basis for calculating ETAW and

applied water use. Crop applied water use includes the

irrigation water required to meet crop ETAW and cultural water requirements.

The amount of water applied to a given field for

crop production is influenced by considerations such

as crop water requirements, soil characteristics, the

ability of an irrigation system to distribute water uniformly on a given field, and irrigation management

practices. In addition to ET, other crop water requirements can include water needed to leach soluble salts

below the crop root zone, water that must be applied

for frost protection or cooling, and water for seed germination. The amount required for these uses depends

upon the crop, irrigation water quality, and weather

conditions.

Part of a crop’s water requirements can be met by

rainfall. The amount of rainfall beneficially used for

crop production is called effective rainfall. Effective

rainfall is stored in the soil and is available to satisfy

crop evapotranspiration or to offset water needed for

special cultural practices such as leaching of salts. Irrigation provides the remainder of the crop water

requirement. Irrigation efficiency influences the

amount of applied water needed, since a portion of

each irrigation goes to system leaks and deep percolation of irrigation water below the crop root zone.

The Bulletin’s 1995 base applied agricultural water use values were computed from normalized data to

account for variation in annual weather patterns and

water supply. Normalizing entails applying crop coefficients to long-term average evaporative demand data.

Actual applied crop water use during 1995 was less

than the Bulletin 160-98 base in many areas due to

wet hydrologic conditions that increased effective rainfall, thus decreasing crop ETAW. Likewise, applied

water use during a dry year (assuming no constraints

on water supplies) would likely exceed the base due to

less than average effective rainfall with an attendant

increase in crop ETAW.

Bulletin 160-98 quantifies agricultural water conservation based on assumed statewide implementation

of the 1996 agricultural MOU. This conservation is

expected to reduce agricultural applied water demands

by about 800 taf annually by 2020.

Quantifying Base Year Irrigated Acreage

Forecasts of agricultural acreage start with land use

data that characterize existing crop acreage. The Department has performed land use surveys since the

1950s to quantify acreage of irrigated land and corresponding crop types, and currently maps irrigated

acreage in six to seven counties per year. The base data

for land use surveys are obtained from aerial photography or satellite imagery, which is superimposed on a

cartographic base. Site visits are used to identify or

verify crop types growing in the fields. From this information, maps showing locations and acreage of crop

types are developed.

The Department’s land use surveys focus on quantifying irrigated agricultural acreage. Although fields

of dry-farmed crops are mapped in the land use surveys, their acreage is not tabulated for calculating water

use. In certain areas of the State, climate and market

conditions are favorable for producing multiple crops

per year on the same field (for example, winter vegetables followed by a summer field crop). In these cases,

annual irrigated acreage is counted as the sum of the

acreage of the individual crop types. In the years between county land use surveys, the Department

estimates crop types and acreage using data collected

from county agricultural commissioners, local water

agencies, University of California Cooperative Extension Programs, and the California Department of Food

and Agriculture.

The starting point for determining Bulletin 160-

98 1995 base acreage was normalized 1990 irrigated

acreage from Bulletin 160-93. Changes in crop acreage between 1990 and 1995 were evaluated to

determine if they were due to short-term causes (e.g.,

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-7 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

drought or abnormal spring rainfall), or if there was

an actual change in cropping patterns. Base year acreage was normalized to represent the acreage that would

most likely occur in the absence of weather and market related abnormalities.

Crop acreage by region for the normalized 1995

base is presented in Table ES4-4. The 1995 base irrigated land acreage is about 9.1 million acres, which,

when multiple cropped areas are tabulated, becomes a

base irrigated cropped acreage of about 9.5 million

acres.

Forecasting Future Irrigated Acreage

The Department’s 2020 irrigated acreage forecast

was derived from staff research, a crop market outlook

study, and results from the Central Valley Production

Model. As with any forecast of future conditions, there

are uncertainties associated with each of these approaches. The Department’s integration of the results

from three independent approaches is intended to represent a best estimate of future acreage, absent major

changes from present conditions. It is important to

emphasize that many factors affecting future cropped

acreage are based on national (federal Farm Bill programs) or international (world export markets)

circumstances. California agricultural products compete with products from other regions in the global

economy, and are affected by trade policies and market conditions that reach far beyond the State’s

boundaries.

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996, for example, affects agricultural markets

nationwide, by changing federal price supports for

specified agricultural commodities. Under the terms

of that act, federal payments to growers will be reduced

by 2002, and prior farm bill provisions that required

growers to reduce planted acreage of regulated commodities are no longer in force. (Commodities with

significant federal price support include wheat, feed

grains, rice, cotton, dairy products, sugar, and peanuts.)

The overall impact of the act to California, however,

may be less than its impact to states whose agriculture

is less diversified and who are less active in export

markets. In 1994, for example, federal farm bill production payments to California growers represented

about one percent of California’s agricultural revenue.

The potential impacts of FAIRA to California’s agricultural market are considered in Bulletin 160-98 by

the crop market outlook study.

Intrastate factors considered in making acreage

forecasts included urban encroachment onto agricultural land and land retirement due to drainage

problems. Urbanization on lands presently used for

irrigated agriculture is a significant consideration in

the South Coast Region and in the San Joaquin Valley, based on projected patterns of population growth.

DOF 2020 population forecasts, along with information gathered from local agency land use plans, were

used to identify irrigated lands most likely to be affected by urbanization. Local water agencies and county

farm advisors were interviewed to assess their perspective on land use changes affecting agricultural acreage.

For example, urbanization may eliminate irrigated acreage in one area, but shift agricultural development onto

lands presently used as non-irrigated pasture. Soil types

and landforms are important constraints in agricultural land development. If urbanization occurs on

prime Central Valley farmland, some agricultural production may be able to shift to poorer quality soils on

hilly lands adjoining the valley floor. A consequent shift

in crop types and irrigation practices would likely result—for example, from furrow-irrigated row crops to

vineyards on drip irrigation.

 The Department’s crop market outlook, a form

of Delphi analysis, was developed using information

and expert opinions gathered from interviews with

more than 130 University of California farm advisors,

agricultural bankers, commodity marketing specialists,

Factors that influence the conversion of irrigated lands to

urban use include the lands’ proximity to existing urban

areas and transportation corridors, and local agency land use

planning and zoning policies.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-8

WATER USE

TABLE ES4-4

California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 1995 Level

(thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop NC SF CC SC SR SJ TL NL SL Grain 72 2 26 11 270 180 260 7 2 

Rice 0 0 0 0494 22 0 1 0 

Cotton 0 0 0 0 9185 1,026 0 0 

Sugar beets 6 0 3 054 47 30 0 0

Corn 1 1 3 492 212 116 0 0 

Other field 3 1 16 4 155 120 97 0 1 Alfalfa 53 0 21 10 149 231 296 44 34 Pasture 122 5 18 20 352 199 49 107 18 Tomatoes 0 0 10 7 138 82 111 0 0 Other truck 23 11 382 87 56 130 194 2 3 Almond/pistachios 0 0 0 0106 251 177 0 0 Other deciduous 7 6 18 3 219 154 191 0 3 Subtropical 0 0 19 161 28 8 202 0 0 Grapes 36 39 56 6 17 184 378 0 0 

Total Crop Area 323 65 572 313 2,139 2,005 3,127 161 61 Multiple Crop 0 0 142 30 52 56 63 0 0 

Irrigated Land Area 323 65 430 283 2,087 1,949 3,064 161 61 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-9 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

managers of cooperatives, and others. Three basic factors guided the CMO: current and future demand for

food and fiber by the world’s consumers; the share

California could produce to meet this worldwide demand; and technical factors, such as crop yields, pasture

carrying capacities, and livestock feed conversion ratios that affect demand for agricultural products. (Milk

and dairy products are California’s largest agricultural

product, in terms of gross value. The demand for these

products is reflected in the markets for alfalfa, grains,

and other fodder used by dairies.) The CMO forecasts

a statewide crop mix and estimates corresponding irrigated acreage. The major findings of the CMO for

year 2020 were that grain and field crop acreage would

decrease, while acreage of truck crops and permanent

crops would increase.

The Central Valley Production Model is a mathematical programming model that simulates farming

decisions by growers. Inputs include detailed information about production practices and costs as well as

water availability and cost by source. The model also

uses information on the relationship between production levels of individual crops and crop market prices.

The model’s geographic coverage is limited to the Central Valley, which represents about 80 percent of the

State’s irrigated agricultural acreage. The CVPM results also indicated future crop shifting, from grains

and field crops to vegetables, trees, and vines. The

CVPM forecast showed a small reduction in crop acreage from 1995 to 2020.

One factor not included in Bulletin 160-98 irrigated acreage forecasts is the potential large-scale

conversion of agricultural land to wildlife habitat

for reasons other than westside San Joaquin Valley

problems. The CALFED program represents the

largest pending example of potential conversion of

irrigated agricultural lands to habitat, as described

in CALFED’s March 1998 first draft programmatic

EIR/EIS and supporting documents. CALFED’s potential land conversion amounts have not been

included in the Bulletin 160-98 irrigated acreage

forecast because they are preliminary at this time (a

site-specific environmental document with an implementation schedule for land conversion has not yet

been prepared), and because CALFED’s preliminary

numbers are so large relative to the Bulletin’s market-based forecast of irrigated acreage that they

would negate the results of the forecast. Overall,

CALFED program activities as presently planned

could convert up to 290,000 irrigated acres to habitat and other uses, an amount almost as great as the

325,000-acre reduction in irrigated acreage forecast

in the Bulletin. Water use implications of large-scale

land conversions are not included in the Bulletin

160-98 forecast. Impacts of such land conversions

are expected to be addressed in the next water plan

update, when CALFED’s program may be better

defined.

The difficulty in estimating impacts from large-scale

land conversion programs stems from the domino effect

that changes in acreage in one location have on acreage

and crop types in other areas, and how crop markets determine which crop shifts are feasible. For example,

CALFED’s preliminary reports suggest that up to 190,000

irrigated acres in the Delta could be converted to other

land uses. This amount represents about 40 percent of

Delta irrigated acreage, whose principal crops are corn,

alfalfa, tomatoes, grain, orchard crops, and truck crops

(e.g., asparagus). Some land conversion in the Delta might

result in production on new agricultural lands—most

likely, rolling hills on the edge of the valley floor which

are only suitable for limited crop types (orchards and vineyards). Some of the land conversion might result in

increased demand in other areas for the affected crops,

such as increased demand for asparagus from the Imperial and Salinas Valleys.

Table ES4-5 shows the 2020 irrigated acreage foreThere is a perception that only drip irrigation is an efficient

agricultural water use technology. High efficiencies are

possible with a variety of irrigation techniques.

Considerations such as soil type, field configuration, and crop

type influence the choice of irrigation technique.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-10

WATER USE

TABLE ES4-5

California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Level

(thousands of acres)

Irrigated Crop NC SF CC SC SR SJ TL NL SL Grain 66 1 21 5 249 152 201 8 0 

Rice 0 0 0 0484 15 0 1 0 

Cotton 0 0 0 015 171 888 0 0

Sugar beets 6 0 2 052 18 13 0 0Corn 2 0 3 290 188 101 1 0 

Other field 3 1 14 1 154 139 110 0 0 Alfalfa 62 0 20 6 147 181 238 50 24 Pasture 123 5 16 6 316 165 26 103 18 Tomatoes 0 0 8 4141 93 130 0 0

Other truck 28 11 373 43 79 197 300 2 1 Almond/pistachios 0 0 0 0127 270 198 0 0 

Other deciduous 7 6 20 3 234 153 199 0 2 Subtropical 0 0 18 117 33 10 215 0 0 

Grapes 38 41 75 3 29 183 366 0 0 Total Crop Area 335 65 570 190 2,150 1,935 2,985 165 45 Multiple Crop 0 0 150 10 70 80 100 0 0 

Irrigated Land Area 335 65 420 180 2,080 1,855 2,885 165 45 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-11 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

cast. The total irrigated crop acreage is forecasted to

decline by 325,000 acres from 1995 to 2020, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast areas.

Reductions in crop acreage are due to urban encroachment, drainage problems in the westside San Joaquin

Valley, and a more competitive economic market for

California agricultural products. Grain and field crops

are forecasted to decline by about 631,000 acres. Truck

crops and permanent crops are forecasted to increase

by about 238,000 and 68,000 acres, respectively. Acreage with multiple cropping is forecasted to increase by

108,000 acres, reflecting the expected increased production of truck crops. These statewide findings are

used in developing the base year and forecasted agricultural water demands.

Summary of Agricultural Water Use

Crop water use information and irrigated acreage

data are combined to generate the 2020 agricultural

water use by hydrologic region shown in Table ES4-6.

As previously noted, the 2020 forecasted values take

into account EWMP implementation, which results

in a 2020 applied water reduction of about 800 taf.

Environmental Water Use

Bulletin 160-98 defines environmental water as

the sum of:

• Dedicated flows in State and federal wild and

scenic rivers

• Instream flow requirements established by water

right permits, DFG agreements, court actions, or

other administrative documents

• Bay-Delta outflows required by SWRCB

• Applied water demands of managed freshwater

wildlife areas

This definition recognizes that certain quantities

of water have been set aside or otherwise managed

for environmental purposes, and that these quantities cannot be put to use for other purposes in the

locations where the water has been reserved or otherwise managed. This definition also recognizes that

these uses of environmental water can be quantified.

Unlike urban and agricultural water use, much of this

environmental water use is brought about by legislative or regulatory processes. Certainly the

environment uses more water than is encompassed

in this definition—the rainfall that sustains the forests of the Sierra Nevada and the North Coast, the

winter runoff that supports flora and fauna in numerous small streams, the shallow groundwater that

supports riparian vegetation in some ephemeral

streams—but the Bulletin’s definition captures uses

of water that are managed (in one fashion or another)

and quantifiable. As described earlier, average annual

statewide precipitation over California’s land surface

amounts to about 200 maf. About 65 percent of this

precipitation is consumed through evaporation and

transpiration by the State’s forests, grasslands, and

other vegetation. The remaining 35 percent comprises

the State’s average annual runoff of about 71 maf.

The environmental water demands discussed in this

section are demands that would be met through a

designated portion of that average annual runoff. As

with urban and agricultural water use, environmental water use is shown on an applied water basis.

TABLE ES4-6

Applied Agricultural Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 894 973 927 1,011

San Francisco Bay 98 108 98 108

Central Coast 1,192 1,279 1,127 1,223

South Coast 784 820 462 484

Sacramento River 8,065 9,054 7,939 8,822

San Joaquin River 7,027 7,244 6,450 6,719

Tulare Lake 10,736 10,026 10,123 9,532

North Lahontan 530 584 536 594

South Lahontan 332 332 257 257

Colorado River 4,118 4,118 3,583 3,583

Total (rounded) 33,780 34,540 31,500 32,330

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER USE ES4-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Wild and Scenic River Flows

Flows in wild and scenic rivers constitute the largest environmental water use in the State. Figure ES4-2

is a map of California’s State and federal wild and scenic rivers.

The 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,

codified to preserve the free-flowing characteristics of

rivers having outstanding natural resources values, prohibited federal agencies from constructing, authorizing,

or funding the construction of water resources projects

having a direct or adverse effect on the values for which

the river was designated. (This restriction also applies

to rivers designated for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system.) There are two

methods for having a river segment added to the federal system—congressional legislation, or a state’s

petition to the Secretary of the Interior for federal designation of a river already protected under state statutes.

No new federal designations have been made since

publication of Bulletin 160-93.

A number of river systems within lands managed

by federal agencies are being studied as candidates. For

example, USFS draft environmental documentation

in 1994 and 1996 recommended designation of five

streams (129 river miles) in Tahoe National Forest and

160 river miles in Stanislaus National Forest. These

waterways drain to the Central Valley where their flows

are used for other purposes, and wild and scenic designation would not affect the existing downstream uses.

The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972

prohibited construction of any dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment on a designated river.

As shown on Figure ES4-2, some rivers are included in

both federal and State systems. No new State designations have been made since Bulletin 160-93, although

the Mill and Deer Creeks Protection Act of 1995 (Section 5093.70 of the Public Resources Code) gave

portions of these streams special status similar to wild

and scenic designation by restricting construction of

dams, reservoirs, diversions, or other water impoundments.

Table ES4-7 shows the wild and scenic river flows

used in Bulletin 160-98 water budgets by hydrologic

region. The flows shown are based on the rivers’ unimpaired flow. (The unimpaired flow in a river is the

flow measured or calculated at some specific location

that would be unaffected by stream diversions, storage, imports or exports, and return flows.) For the

average year condition, the long-term unimpaired flow

from the Department’s Bulletin 1 was used. The estimated average unimpaired flow for the 1990-91 water

years was used for the drought condition.

Instream Flows

Instream flow is the water maintained in a stream

or river for instream beneficial uses such as fisheries,

wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and navigation. Instream

flow is a major factor influencing the productivity and

diversity of California’s rivers and streams.

Instream flows may be established in a variety of

ways—by agreements executed between DFG and a

water agency, by terms and conditions in a water right

permit from SWRCB, by terms and conditions in a

FERC hydropower license, by a court order, or by an

agreement among interested parties. Required flows

on most rivers vary by month and year type, with wet

year requirements generally being higher than dry year

requirements. Converting from net water use analyses

performed for prior editions of Bulletin 160 to the

TABLE ES4-7

Wild and Scenic River Flows by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 17,800 7,900 17,800 7,900

San Francisco Bay 0 0 0 0

Central Coast 98 28 98 28

South Coast 69 51 69 51

Sacramento River 1,733 736 1,733 736

San Joaquin River 1,974 939 1,974 939

Tulare Lake 1,614 751 1,614 751

North Lahontan 271 154 271 154

South Lahontan 0 0 0 0

Colorado River 0 0 0 0

Total (rounded) 23,560 10,560 23,560 10,560

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-13 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Redding Federal and State Designation

State Designation Only

Federal Designation Only

E. Fork Carson River

W. Walker River

KingsRiver

Eel

River

S. Fork

Van S. Fork

Trinity

Smith

River

Klamath

River Duzen

River

M. Fork Feather River

American River

N. Fork American

River

Tuolumne River

Merced River

S. Fork

M. Fork

S . Fork

S. Fork

River Kern Sisquoc River Sespe Creek

Big Sur River

River

FIGURE ES4-2.

California Wild and Scenic Rivers

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
WATER USE ES4-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

applied water budgets used in Bulletin 160-98 created

a challenge in properly accounting for multiple

instream flows within a river basin. Bulletin 160-98

used a simplified approach in which only the largest

downstream flow requirement was included in the

water budgets. This simplified approach undercounts

applied instream flow requirements on streams having

multiple requirements. The Department is developing a new modeling approach for the next water plan

update that will more accurately quantify applied

instream flows.

Since the determination of 1990-level instream

flow values used as base conditions in Bulletin 160-

93, subsequent agreements or decisions have increased

or added instream flow requirements for the Trinity

River, Mokelumne River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne

River, Owens River, Putah Creek, and Mono Lake

tributaries. In addition, ten new waterways have been

added to the Bulletin 160-98 instream flow water budgets—the Mad River, Eel River, Russian River, Truckee

River, East Walker River, Nacimiento River, San

Joaquin River (at Vernalis), Walker Creek, Lagunitas

Creek, and Piru Creek.

Table ES4-8 shows instream flows used in Bulletin 160-98 water budgets by hydrologic region. The

drought year scenario shown in the tables represents

the minimum annual required flow volume. For average water years, the annual required flow volume is

computed by combining the expected number of years

in each year type (wet, above normal, normal, below

normal, and/or dry, as specified in existing agreements

or orders).

Bay-Delta Outflow

Environmental water use for Bay-Delta outflow is

computed by using operations studies to quantify

SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements. Order WR

95-6 established numerical objectives for salinity, river

flows, export limits, and Delta outflow. Operations

studies were used to translate these numerical objectives into Delta outflow requirements for average and

drought year scenarios. The studies computed outflow

requirements of approximately 5.6 maf in average years

and 4.0 maf in drought years.

Wetlands

The wetlands component of environmental water

use is based on water use at freshwater managed wetlands, such as federal national wildlife refuges and State

wildlife management areas. In general, wetlands can

be divided into saltwater and brackish water marshes

(usually located in coastal areas) and freshwater wetlands (generally located in inland areas).

Five areas of California contain the largest remaining wetlands acreage in the State—the Central Valley,

Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh, and

Klamath Basin. The majority of the State’s wetland

protection and restoration efforts are occurring in these

areas. Nontidal wetlands usually depend on a supplemental water supply, and protecting or restoring them

may create demands for freshwater supplies.

Bulletin 160-98 quantifies applied water needs

only for managed wetlands, because other wetlands

types such as vernal pools or coastal wetlands use

naturally-occurring water supply (precipitation or

tidal action). Managed wetlands are defined for the

Bulletin as impounded freshwater and nontidal

brackish water wetlands. Managed wetlands may be

State and federal wildlife areas or refuges, private

wetland preserves owned by nonprofit organizations,

TABLE ES4-8

Instream Flow Requirements by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 1,410 1,285 1,410 1,285

San Francisco Bay 17 9 17 9

Central Coast 20 9 20 9

South Coast 4 4 4 4

Sacramento River 3,397 2,784 3,397 2,784

San Joaquin River 1,169 712 1,169 712

Tulare Lake 0 0 0 0

North Lahontan 85 84 85 84

South Lahontan 107 81 107 81

Colorado River 0 0 0 0

Total (rounded) 6,210 4,970 6,210 4,970

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-15 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

private duck clubs, or privately owned agricultural

lands flooded for cultural practices such as rice straw

decomposition. Some of the largest concentrations

of privately owned wetlands are the duck clubs in

the Suisun Marsh and the flooded rice fields in the

Sacramento Valley. (Acreage of rice fields flooded

to enhance decomposition of stubble remaining after harvest and to provide habitat for overwintering

waterfowl was identified by Department land use

surveys.) Table ES4-9 shows wetlands water demands by region.

Summary of Environmental Water Use

Table ES4-10 shows base 1995 and forecasted

2020 environmental water use by hydrologic region.

The large values in the North Coast Region illustrate

the magnitude of demands for wild and scenic rivers

in comparison to other environmental water demands.

Water Use Summary by

Hydrologic Region

Tables ES4-11 and ES4-12 summarize California’s

average and drought year applied water use by hydrologic region. The tables combine the urban, agricultural,

and environmental water use described in this chapter.

Also included are related minor uses such as conveyance losses and self-supplied industrial and powerplant

cooling water. These demands, together with the water

supply information presented in Chapter ES3, are used

to prepare the statewide water balance shown in Chapter ES5 and the regional water balances shown in

Appendix ES5A.

TABLE ES4-9

Wetlands Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 325 325 325 325

San Francisco Bay 160 160 160 160

Central Coast 0 0 0 0

South Coast 27 27 31 31

Sacramento River 632 632 632 632

San Joaquin River 230 230 240 240

Tulare Lake 50 50 53 53

North Lahontan 18 18 18 18

South Lahontan 0 0 0 0

Colorado River 39 38 44 43

Total (rounded) 1,480 1,480 1,500 1,500

TABLE ES4-10

Applied Environmental Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Average Drought Average Drought

North Coast 19,544 9,518 19,545 9,518

San Francisco Bay 5,762 4,294 5,762 4,294

Central Coast 118 37 118 37

South Coast 100 82 104 86

Sacramento River 5,833 4,223 5,839 4,225

San Joaquin River 3,396 1,904 3,411 1,919

Tulare Lake 1,672 809 1,676 813

North Lahontan 374 256 374 256

South Lahontan 107 81 107 81

Colorado River 39 38 44 43

Total (rounded) 36,940 21,240 36,980 21,270

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-16

WATER USE

TABLE ES4-11

California Average Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Urban Agricultural Environmental Total Urban Agricultural Envi

(rounded) 

North Coast 169 894 19,544 20,610 201 927 1

San Francisco Bay 1,255 98 5,762 7,110 1,317 98 Central Coast 286 1,192 118 1,600 379 1,127 

South Coast 4,340 784 100 5,220 5,519 462 Sacramento River 766 8,065 5,833 14,660 1,139 7,939 

San Joaquin River 574 7,027 3,396 11,000 954 6,450 

Tulare Lake 690 10,736 1,672 13,100 1,099 10,123 

North Lahontan 39 530 374 940 50 536 

South Lahontan 238 332 107 680 619 257 

Colorado River 418 4,118 39 4,570 740 3,583 Total (rounded) 8,770 33,780 36,940 79,490 12,020 31,500 3

TABLE ES4-12

California Drought Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region (taf)

1995 2020

Region Urban Agricultural Environmental Total Urban Agricultural Envir

(rounded) 

North Coast 177 973 9,518 10,670 212 1,011 

San Francisco Bay 1,358 108 4,294 5,760 1,428 108 Central Coast 294 1,279 37 1,610 391 1,223 South Coast 4,382 820 82 5,280 5,612 484 Sacramento River 830 9,054 4,223 14,110 1,236 8,822 

San Joaquin River 583 7,244 1,904 9,730 970 6,719 Tulare Lake 690 10,026 809 11,530 1,099 9,532 

North Lahontan 40 584 256 880 51 594 

South Lahontan 238 332 81 650 619 257 

Colorado River 418 4,118 38 4,570 740 3,583 Total (rounded) 9,010 34,540 21,240 64,790 12,360 32,330 2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES4-17 WATER USE

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-1 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

The 1848

discovery of gold at

 Sutter’s Mill on the

American River led

to California’s

statehood in 1850.

California celebrates

its sesquicentennial

in 2000.

Miners in the Sierra,

Detail of painting by Charles Nahl

and Frederick Wenderoth, 1851.

Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution

This chapter assesses California’s water future, based on today’s conditions

and on options being considered by California’s water purveyors. The

Department’s Bulletin 160 series does not forecast a particular vision for the

future, but instead attempts to forecast the future based on today’s data, economic conditions,

and public policies.

Although no forecast of the future can be perfect, several key trends appear inevitable.

California’s population will increase dramatically by 2020. How growth is accommodated

and the land use planning decisions made by cities and counties have important implications

for future urban and agricultural water use. California’s agricultural acreage is forecasted to

decline slightly by 2020 (reflecting the State’s increasing urbanization), as is its agricultural

water use. (California agriculture is still anticipated to lead the nation’s

agricultural production because of advantages such as climate and proximity

to domestic and export markets.) As the State’s population expands, greater

attention will be directed to preserving and restoring California ecosystems

and to maintaining the natural resources which have attracted so many people

to California.

Balancing Supply and Demand

Executive Summary

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

This chapter begins by reviewing water supply and

demand information and the statewide applied water

budget with existing facilities and programs. Water

management options identified as likely to be implemented are then tabulated and included in a statewide

applied water budget with options. The chapter ends

with an evaluation of how actions planned by water

purveyors statewide would affect forecasted water

shortages, and then summarizes key findings.

Future with Existing Facilities and

Programs

Table ES5-1 shows the California water budget

with existing facilities and programs. Regional water

budgets with existing facilities and programs are shown

in Appendix ES5A.

Water Supply

As described in Chapter ES3, average annual statewide precipitation over California’s land surface is about

200 maf. About 65 percent of this precipitation is consumed through evaporation and transpiration by

California’s forests, grasslands, and vegetation. The

remaining 35 percent comprises the State’s average

annual intrastate runoff of about 71 maf. Over 30 percent of this runoff is not explicitly designated for urban,

agricultural, or environmental uses.

The State’s 1995-level average water year applied

water supply—from intrastate sources, interstate

sources, and return flows—is about 78 maf. Even assuming a reduction in Colorado River supplies to

California’s 4.4 maf basic apportionment, average year

statewide supply is projected to increase 0.2 maf by

2020 without additional water supply options. This

projected increase in water supply is due mainly to

higher CVP and SWP deliveries in response to higher

2020 level demands. Additional groundwater extraction and facilities now under construction will also

provide new supplies. The State’s 1995-level drought

year supply is about 60 maf. Drought year supply is

projected to increase slightly by 2020 without future

water supply options, for the same reasons that average year supplies are expected to increase.

Bulletin 160-98 estimates statewide groundwater

overdraft of about 1.5 maf/yr at a 1995 level of development. Increasing overdraft in the 1990s reverses the

trend of basin recovery seen in the 1980s. Most increases are occurring in the San Joaquin and Tulare

Lake regions, due primarily to Delta export restrictions associated with the SWRCB Order WR 95-6,

ESA requirements, and reductions in CVP supplies.

Water recycling is a small, yet growing, element of

California’s water supply. At a 1995 level of development, water recycling and desalting produce about 0.3

maf/yr of new water (reclaiming water that would otherwise flow to the ocean or to a salt sink), up

significantly from the 1990 annual supply of new water. The California Water Code urges wastewater

treatment agencies located in coastal areas to recycle as

much of their treated effluent as possible, recognizing

that this water supply would otherwise be lost to the

State’s hydrologic system. Greater recycled water production at existing treatment plants and additional

production at plants now under construction are exTABLE ES5-1

California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (maf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 8.8 9.0 12.0 12.4

Agricultural 33.8 34.5 31.5 32.3

Environmental 36.9 21.2 37.0 21.3

Total 79.5 64.7 80.5 66.0

Supplies

Surface Water 65.1 43.5 65.0 43.4

Groundwater 12.5 15.8 12.7 16.0

Recycled and Desalted 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Total 77.9 59.6 78.1 59.8

Shortage 1.6 5.1 2.4 6.2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-3 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

pected to increase new recycled and desalted supplies

by nearly 30 percent to 0.4 maf/yr by 2020.

Water Demand

California’s estimated demand for water at a 1995

level of development is about 80 maf in average years

and 65 maf in drought years. California’s water demand in 2020 is forecasted to reach 81 maf in average

years and 66 maf in drought years. California’s increasing population is a driving force behind increasing

water demands.

California’s population is forecasted to increase to

47.5 million people by 2020 (about 15 million people

more than the 1995 base). Forty-six percent of the

State’s population increase is expected to occur in the

South Coast Region. Even with extensive water conservation, urban water demand will increase by about

3.2 maf in average years. (Bulletin 160-98 assumes that

all urban and agricultural water agencies will implement BMPs and EWMPs by 2020, regardless of

whether they are cost-effective for water supply purposes.)

Irrigated crop acreage is expected to decline by

325,000 acres—from the 1995 level of 9.5 million acres

to a 2020 level of 9.2 million acres. Reductions in forecasted irrigated acreage are due primarily to urban

encroachment and to impaired drainage on lands in

the western San Joaquin Valley. Increases in water use

efficiency combined with reductions in irrigated acreage are expected to reduce average year agricultural

water demand by about 2.3 maf by 2020. Shifts from

lower to higher value crops are expected to continue,

with an increase in permanent plantings such as orchards and vineyards. This trend would tend to harden

agricultural demands associated with permanent

plantings, making it less likely that this acreage would

be temporarily fallowed during droughts.

Average and drought year water needs for environmental use are forecasted to increase by about 0.1

maf by 2020. Drought year environmental water needs

are considerably lower than average year environmental water needs, reflecting the variability of unimpaired

flows in wild and scenic rivers. North Coast wild and

scenic rivers constitute the greatest component of environmental water demands. CVPIA implementation,

Bay-Delta requirements, new ESA restrictions, and

FERC relicensing could significantly modify environmental demands within the Bulletin 160-98 planning

period.

Water Shortages

The shortage shown in Table ES5-1 for 1995 average water year conditions reflects the Bulletin’s

assumption that groundwater overdraft is not available as a supply. Forecasted water shortages vary widely

from region to region, as presented in Figure ES5-1.

For example, the North Coast and San Francisco Bay

Regions are not expected to experience future shortages during average water years but are expected to see

shortages in drought years. Most of the State’s remaining regions experience average year and drought year

shortages now, and are forecasted to experience increased shortages in 2020. The largest future shortages

are forecasted for the Tulare Lake and South Coast

Regions, areas that rely heavily on imported water supplies. These regions of the State are also where some of

the greatest increases in population are expected to

occur.

The shortages shown in Figure ES5-1 highlight

the need for future water management actions to reduce the gap between forecasted supplies and demands.

As Californians experienced during the most recent

drought (especially in 1991 and 1992), drought year

shortages are large. Urban residents faced cutbacks in

supply and mandatory rationing, some small rural communities saw their wells go dry, agricultural lands were

fallowed, and environmental water supplies were reduced. By 2020, without additional facilities and

programs, these conditions will worsen.

Future water shortages have direct and indirect

economic consequences. Direct consequences include

costs to residential water users to replace landscaping

lost during droughts, costs to businesses that experience water supply cutbacks, or costs to growers who

fallow land because supplies are not available. Indirect

consequences include decisions by businesses and growers not to locate or to expand their operations in

California, and reductions in the value of agricultural

lands. Other consequences of shortages are less easily

measured in economic terms—loss of recreational activities or impacts to environmental resources, for

example.

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process

At an appraisal level of detail, the Bulletin draws

upon integrated resources planning techniques to

evaluate alternatives for meeting California’s future

water needs. IRP evaluates water management options—both demand reduction options and supply

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

AVERAGE YEAR

DROUGHT YEAR

North Coast

South Coast

North

Lahontan

South

Lahontan

Sacramento

River

San

Francisco

Bay

San Joaquin

River

Central

Coast

Tulare Lake

Colorado River

0

194

85

989

63

711

10

128

270

308

720

1,851

172

270

 0

 287

147

158

944

1,317

FIGURE ES5-1.

2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-5 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

augmentation options—against a fixed set of criteria

and ranks the options based on costs and other factors. Although the IRP process includes economic

evaluations, it also incorporates environmental, institutional, and social considerations which cannot be

expressed easily in monetary terms.

The development of likely regional water management options uses information prepared by local

agencies. The regional water management options

evaluations are not intended to replace local planning

efforts, but to complement them by showing the relationships among regional water supplies and water

needs and the statewide perspective. Local water management options form the basis of the regional

summaries which are combined into the statewide

options evaluation.

Major Steps in Planning Process

The major steps involved in the Bulletin 160-98

water management options evaluation process included:

• Identify water demands and existing water supplies

on a regional basis.

• Compile comprehensive lists of regional and

statewide water management options.

• Use initial evaluation criteria to either retain or

defer options from further evaluation. For options

retained for further evaluation, some were grouped

by categories and others were evaluated

individually.

• Identify characteristics of options or option

categories, including costs, potential demand

reduction or supply augmentation, environmental

considerations, and significant institutional issues.

• Evaluate each regional option or category of

options in light of identified regional characteristics

using criteria established for this Bulletin. If local

agencies have performed their own evaluation,

review and compare their evaluation criteria with

those used for the Bulletin.

• Evaluate statewide water management options.

• Develop tabulation of likely regional water

management options.

• Develop a statewide options evaluation by

integrating the regional results.

The first step in evaluating the regional water

management options was to prepare applied water

budgets for the study areas to identify the magnitude

of potential water shortages for average and drought

year conditions. In addition to identifying shortages,

other water supply reliability issues in the region were

identified. Once the shortages were identified, a list of

local water management options was prepared. Where

possible, basic characteristics of these options (e.g.,

yields, cost data, significant environmental or institutional concerns) were identified.

After the options were identified, they were compared with the initial screening criteria shown in the

sidebar. For options deferred from further evaluation,

the major reasons for deferral were given. Options retained for further evaluation were categorized (some

options within each category were further combined

into groups based upon their estimated costs) and were

evaluated and scored against the set of fixed criteria

shown in the options category evaluation sidebar.

The Bulletin 160-98 options evaluation process

relied heavily upon locally developed information.

Initial Screening Criteria

The criteria used for initial screening of water

management options were:

• Engineering—an option was deferred from further

evaluation if it was heavily dependent on the

development of technologies not currently in use, it used

inappropriate technologies given the regional

characteristics (e.g., desalting in the North Lahontan

Region), or it did not provide new water (e.g., water

recycling in the Central Valley).

 • Economic—an option was deferred from further

evaluation if its cost estimates (including environmental

mitigation costs) were extraordinarily high given the

region’s characteristics.

 • Environmental—an option was deferred from further

evaluation if it had potentially significant unmitigable

environmental impacts or involved use of waterways

designated as wild and scenic.

 • Institutional/Legal—an option was deferred from

further evaluation if it had potentially unresolvable water

rights conflicts or conflicts with existing statutes.

 • Social/Third Party—an option was deferred from further

evaluation if it had extraordinary socioeconomic impacts,

either in the water source or water use areas.

 • Health—an option was deferred from further evaluation

if it would violate current health regulations or would

pose significant health threats.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Options Category Evaluation

Evaluation What is Measured? How is it Measured? Score

Criteria

Engineering Engineering feasibility Increase score for greater reliance upon current

technologies

Operational flexibility Increase score for operational flexibility with

existing facilities and/or other options

Drought year supply Increase score for greater drought year yield/

reliability

Implementation date Increase score for earlier implementation date

Water quality limitations Increase score for fewer water quality constraints

Engineering Score 0 - 4

Economics Project financial feasibility Increase score for lower overall costs and the

ability to finance

Project unit cost Increase score for lower overall unit cost

(including mitigation costs)

Economics Score 0 - 4

Environmental Environmental risk Increase score for least amount of environmental

risk

Irreversible commitment of resources Increase score for least amount of irreversible

commitment of resources

Collective impacts Increase score for least amount of collective impacts

Proximity to environmentally Increase score for little or no proximity to

sensitive resources sensitive resources

Environmental Score 0 - 4

Institutional/Legal Permitting requirements Increase score for least amount of permitting

requirements

Adverse institutional/legal effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse

water source areas institutional/legal effects

Adverse institutional/legal effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse

water use areas institutional/legal effects

Stakeholder consensus Increase score for greater amount of stakeholder

consensus

Institutional/Legal Score 0 - 4

Social/Third Party Adverse third party effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse third

water source areas party effects

Adverse third party effects upon Increase score for least amount of adverse third

water use areas party effects

Adverse social and community effects Increase score for least amount of adverse social

and community effects

Social/Third Party Score 0 - 4

Other Benefits Ability to provide benefits in addition Increase score for environmental benefits

to water supply

Increase score for flood control benefits

Increase score for recreation benefits

Increase score for energy benefits

Increase score for additional benefits

Increase score for improved compliance with

health and safety regulations

Other Benefits Score 0 - 4

Total Score 0 - 24

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-7 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Methods used to develop this information vary from

one local agency to the next, thus making direct comparisons between cost estimates difficult. To make cost

information comparable, a common approach for estimating unit cost (cost per acre-foot) was developed

for this Bulletin. Where project information was readily

available, costs were normalized using this approach.

However, due to time constraints and lack of detailed

information, not all option costs were normalized.

Option unit cost estimates took into account capital

costs associated with construction and implementation, including any needed conveyance facilities, and

annual operations, maintenance, and replacement

costs.

Water management options can serve purposes

other than water supply; they can also provide flood

control, hydroelectric power generation, environmental enhancement, water quality enhancement, and

recreation. In recognition of the multipurpose benefits provided by some water management options, the

options evaluation scoring process assigned a high value

to multipurpose options, as shown in the sidebar.

However, since the focus of the Bulletin 160 series is

water supply, cost estimates were based solely on the

costs associated with water supply.

Once options had been evaluated and scored, they

were ranked according to their scores. This ranking

was used to prepare a tabulation of likely regional water management options, taking into account options

that might be mutually exclusive or could be optimized

if implemented in conjunction with other options. Depending on a region’s characteristics, its potential

options, and its ability to pay for new options, the tabulation of likely options might not meet all of a region’s

water shortages (especially in drought years). In regions

where options do not meet all shortages, the economic

costs of accepting shortages would be less than the costs

of acquiring additional water supplies through the

options identified in this Bulletin.

This appraisal-level evaluation of options at a statewide level of detail is based on the information presently

available. The ultimate implementability of any water

management option is dependent on factors such as

the sponsoring entity’s ability to complete the appropriate environmental documentation, obtain the

necessary permits, and finance the proposed action.

Shortage Management

Water agencies may choose to accept less than 100

percent water supply reliability, especially under

drought conditions, depending on the characteristics

of their service areas. Shortage contingency measures,

such as restrictions on residential outdoor watering or

deficit irrigation for agricultural crops, can be used to

help respond to temporary shortages. However, demand hardening is an important consideration in

evaluating shortage contingency measures. Implementing water conservation measures such as plumbing

retrofits and low water use landscaping reduces the ability of water users to achieve future drought year water

savings through shortage contingency measures.

The impacts of allowing planned shortages to occur in water agency service areas are necessarily

site-specific, and must be evaluated by each agency on

an individual basis. In urban areas where conservation

measures have already been put into place to reduce

landscape water use, imposing rationing or other restrictions on landscape water use can create significant

impacts to homeowners, landscaping businesses, and

entities that manage large turf areas such as parks and

golf courses. Drought year cutbacks in the agricultural

sector create economic impacts not only to individual

growers and their employees, but also to local businesses that provide goods and services to the growers.

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate

New Water Needs

Some municipal wastewater discharges, agricultural return flows, and required environmental instream

flows are reapplied several times before finally being

depleted from the State’s hydrologic system. An applied water budget explicitly accounts for this

unplanned reuse of water. Because reapplication has

the potential to account for a substantial portion of a

region’s water supply, applied water budgets may overstate the supply of water actually needed to meet future

water demands. Therefore, shortages calculated from

an applied water budget must be interpreted with caution to determine new water needs for a region.

The amount of new water required to meet a

region’s future needs depends on several factors, including the region’s applied water shortage,

opportunities to reapply water in the region, and the

types of water management options that are implemented in the region. If no water reapplication

opportunities exist, then the region’s new water need

is equivalent to its applied water shortage. In this extreme case, the new water need would be independent

of the types of water management options that are

implemented. However, if opportunities are available

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-8

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

to reapply water in a region, then the region’s new water

need is less than its applied water shortage. In this case,

the new water need depends on the types of water management options that are implemented.

Not all water management options are created

equal in their ability to meet new water needs. Because supply augmentation options provide new water

to a region, the opportunity exists for the options’ effectiveness to be multiplied through reapplication. For

example, a supply augmentation option may provide

100 taf of new water to a region. But through reapplication within the region, the option effectively meets

applied water demands in excess of 100 taf. Demand

reduction options, on the other hand, do not provide

new water to a region. Hence, the opportunity does

not exist to multiply the options’ effectiveness through

reapplication. To satisfy an applied water shortage of

100 taf, a demand reduction option must conserve 100

taf of water.

Based on the above discussion, calculation of regional and statewide new water needs is more complex

than computing regional and statewide applied water

shortages—new water needs also depend on reapplication and implemented water management options.

An applied water shortage provides an upper bound

on the new water need. A lower bound on the new

water need can be estimated for each region by assuming that new water supplies are reapplied in the same

proportion that existing supplies are reapplied.

The tabulations of likely regional water management options utilize minimum new water needs (rather

than applied water shortages) as target values for selecting the appropriate number of regional options. If

a region is unable to meet minimum new water needs

as a result of regional characteristics, lack of potential

options, or inability to pay for potential options, specifying minimum new water needs rather than applied

water shortages as regional target values has no impact

on options selection. On the other hand, if a region is

able to meet its minimum new water needs, this does

not necessarily guarantee that all applied water shortages would be met. The remaining applied water

shortages would depend on the selected option mix—

the more water conservation selected, the greater the

remaining applied water shortages would be (as water

conservation options do not provide reapplication

opportunities.) This approach is consistent with Bulletin 160-93, which used net water shortages as target

values for selecting regional options. Because data in

net water budgets factor out reapplied water, net water shortages are essentially the same as minimum new

water needs.

Summary of Options Likely to be

Implemented

The options summarized in this section represent

water purveyors’ strategies for meeting future needs.

This information relies heavily on actions identified

by local water agencies, which collectively provide

about 70 percent of the State’s developed water supply. As described earlier, water management options

likely to be implemented were selected based on a ranking process that evaluated factors such as technical

feasibility, cost, and environmental considerations. This

process is most effective in hydrologic regions where

local agencies have prepared plans for meeting future

needs in their service areas. Affordability is a key factor for local agencies in deciding the extent to which

they wish to invest in alternatives to improve their water

service reliability. Water agencies must balance costs

and quantity of supply (and sometimes quality of supply) based on their service area needs.

The Bulletin 160 series focuses on water supply.

The statewide compilation of likely options has not

been tailored to meet other water-related objectives

such as flood control, hydropower generation, recreation, or nonpoint source pollution control. The

evaluation process used to select likely options rated

the options based on their ability to provide multiple

benefits, as described in the previous section.

Options shown in Table ES5-2 include demand

reduction beyond BMP and EWMP implementation

included in Table ES5-1. Future demand reduction

options are options that would produce new water

supply through reduction of depletions. For these optional water conservation measures to have been

identified as likely, they must be competitive in cost

with water supply augmentation options.

Local supply augmentation options comprise the

largest potential new source of drought year water for

California. (Local options include implementation of

the draft CRB 4.4 Plan to reduce California’s use of

Colorado River water.) In Table ES5-2 and in the water budgets, only water marketing options that result

in a change of place of use of the water (from one hydrologic region to another), or a change in type of use

(e.g., agricultural to urban) have been included. Considerably more marketing options are described in the

Bulletin than are shown in the water budgets, reflecting local agencies’ plans to purchase future supplies

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-9 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

from sources yet to be identified. Where the participants in a proposed transfer are known, the selling

region’s average year or drought year supply has been

reduced in the water budgets. Presently, the only transfers with identified participants that are large enough

to be visible in the water budgets are those associated

with the draft CRB 4.4 Plan. Water agencies’ plans to

acquire water through marketing arrangements will

depend on their ability to find sellers and on the level

of competition for water purchases among water agencies and environmental restoration programs (such as

CVPIA’s AFRP or CALFED’s ERP).

Possible statewide options include actions that

could be taken by CALFED to develop new water supplies. The timing and extent of new water supplies that

CALFED might provide are uncertain at the time of

the Bulletin’s printing, since CALFED has not identified a draft preferred alternative and a firm schedule

for its implementation. CALFED’s current schedule

calls for a first phase of program implementation spanning seven to ten years, at the end of which time a

final decision would be made about the extent of any

storage and conveyance facilities that might be constructed. Given the long lead time required for

implementing large storage projects, no CALFED facilities may be in service within the Bulletin’s 2020

planning horizon.

Bulletin 160-98 uses a placeholder analysis for new

CALFED water supply development to illustrate the

potential magnitude of new water supply the program

might provide. The placeholder does not address specifics of which surface storage facilities might be selected, since this level of detail is not available.

Other statewide options include specific projects

to improve SWP water supply reliability, the State’s

drought water bank, and two multipurpose reservoirs.

A third potential multipurpose reservoir option, an

enlarged Shasta Lake, was recommended for further

study because additional work is needed to quantify

benefits and costs associated with different reservoir

sizes.

The two multipurpose reservoir projects included

as statewide options—Auburn Reservoir and enlarged

Millerton Lake—were included to emphasize the interrelationship between water supply needs and the

Central Valley’s flood protection needs. Each reservoir

would offer significant flood protection benefits. Both

projects have controversial aspects, and neither of them

is inexpensive. However, they merit serious consideration.

The potential future water management options

summarized in this section are still being planned. Their

implementation is subject to completion of environmental documents, permit acquisition, and compliance

with regulatory requirements such as those of ESA.

These processes will address mitigating environmental impacts and resolving third-party impacts. If water

management options are delayed or rendered infeasible as a result of these processes, or if their costs are

increased to the point that the options are no longer

affordable for the local sponsors, statewide shortages

will be correspondingly affected.

TABLE ES5-2

Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type (taf)

Option Type Average Drought

Local Demand Reduction Options 507 582

Local Supply Augmentation Options

Surface Water 110 297

Groundwater 24 539

Water Marketing 67 304

Recycled and Desalted 423 456

Statewide Supply Options

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 100 175

SWP Improvements 117 155

Water Marketing (Drought Water Bank) — 250

Multipurpose Reservoir Projects 710 370

Expected Reapplication 141 433

Total Options 2,199 3,561

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-10

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Implementing Future Water

Management Options

Table ES5-3 was developed by combining the regional and statewide analyses of water management

options with the water budget with existing facilities

and programs (Table ES5-1). Table ES5-3 illustrates

the effect these options would have on forecasted future shortages. (Appendix ES5B shows regional water

budgets with option implementation.) The table indicates that water management options now under

consideration by water purveyors throughout the State

will not reduce shortages to zero in 2020. The difference between average water year and drought year water

shortages is significant. Water purveyors generally consider shortages in average years as basic deficiencies

that should be corrected through long-term demand

reduction or supply augmentation measures. Shortages

in drought years may be managed by such long-term

measures in combination with short-term actions used

only during droughts. Short-term measures could include purchases from the State’s drought water bank,

urban water rationing, or agricultural land fallowing.

Agencies may evaluate the marginal costs of developing new supplies and conclude that the cost of their

development exceeds that of shortages to their service

areas, or exceeds the cost of implementing contingency

measures such as transfers or rationing. As water agencies implement increasing amounts of water

conservation in the future (especially plumbing fixture changes), there will be a correspondingly lessened

ability to implement short-term drought response actions such as rationing. Demand hardening will

influence agencies’ decisions about their future mix of

water management actions.

Ability to pay is another consideration. Large urban water agencies frequently set high water service

reliability goals and are able to finance actions necessary to meet the goals. Agencies supplying small rural

communities may not be able to afford expensive

projects. Small communities have limited populations

over which to spread capital costs and may have difficulty obtaining financing. If local groundwater

resources are inadequate to support expected growth,

these communities may not be able to afford projects

such as pipelines to bring in new surface water supplies. Small rural communities that are geographically

isolated from population centers cannot readily interconnect with other water systems.

Agricultural water agencies may be less able to pay

for capital improvements than urban water agencies.

Much of the State’s earliest large-scale water development was for agriculture, and irrigation works were

constructed at a time when water development was

inexpensive by present standards. Agricultural users

today may not be able to compete with urban users

for development of new supplies. Some agricultural

water users have historically been willing to accept

lower water supply reliability in return for less expensive water supplies. It may be less expensive for some

agricultural users to idle land in drought years rather

Floodflows on the

American River in

1986 breached the

cofferdam that USBR

had constructed

when it began its

initial work at the

Auburn damsite.

This flood event

produced record

flows in the American

River through

metropolitan

Sacramento.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-11 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

than to incur capital costs of new water supply development. This can be particularly true for regions faced

with production constraints such as short growing seasons or lower quality lands—areas where the dominant

water use may be irrigated pasture. In areas such as the

North Lahontan Region, for example, local agencies

generally do not have plans for new programs or facilities to reduce agricultural water shortages in drought

years. Figure ES5-2 shows forecasted shortages by hydrologic region to illustrate the effects of option

implementation on a regional basis.

Local agencies that expect to have increased future demands generally do more water supply planning

than do agencies whose demands remain relatively level.

Most agricultural water agencies are not planning for

greater future demands, although some agencies are

examining ways to improve reliability of their existing

supplies. Cost considerations limit the types of options

available to many agricultural users. The agricultural

sector has thus developed fewer options that could be

evaluated in statewide water supply planning. Many

options have been generated from planning performed

by urban agencies, reflecting Urban Water Management Planning Act requirements that urban water

suppliers with 3,000 or more connections, or that deliver over 3 taf/yr, prepare plans showing how they will

meet service area needs.

Geography plays a role in the feasibility of implementing different types of options, and not solely with

respect to the availability of surface water and groundwater supplies. Water users in the Central Valley, Bay

Area, and Southern California having access to major

regional conveyance facilities have greater opportunities to rely on water marketing arrangements and

conjunctive use options than do water users isolated

from the State’s main water infrastructure.

Bulletin 160-98 Findings

Bulletin 160-98 forecasts water shortages in California by 2020, as did the previous water plan update.

The water management options identified in the Bulletin as likely to be implemented by 2020 would reduce,

but not completely eliminate future shortages. Water

agencies faced with meeting future needs must determine how those needs can be met within the statutory

and regulatory framework affecting water use decisions,

including how the needs can be met in a manner equitable to existing water users. Land use planning

decisions made by cities and counties—locations where

TABLE ES5-3

California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented (maf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 8.8 9.0 11.8 12.1

Agricultural 33.8 34.5 31.3 32.1

Environmental 36.9 21.2 37.0 21.3

Total 79.5 64.7 80.1 65.5

Supplies

Surface Water 65.1 43.5 66.4 45.4

Groundwater 12.5 15.8 12.7 16.5

Recycled and Desalted 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.9

Total 77.9 59.6 79.9 62.8

Shortage 1.6 5.1 0.2 2.7

Options identified as likely are still in the planning stages.

Agencies implementing the options must complete

environmental documentation and obtain the necessary

permits. The permitting and environmental documentation

process must consider impacts to listed species such as this

San Joaquin Valley kit fox.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-12

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

AVERAGE YEAR

DROUGHT YEAR

North Coast

South Coast

North

Lahontan

South

Lahontan

Sacramento

River

San

Francisco

Bay

San Joaquin

River

Central

Coast

Tulare Lake

Colorado River

0

176

0

722

0

658

10

128

0

0

202

868

0

100

0

 0

0

0

0

0

FIGURE ES5-2.

2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5-13 BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

future growth will or will not be allowed, housing densities, preservation goals for open space or agricultural

reserves—will have a significant influence on

California’s future water demands. Good coordination

among local land use planning agencies and water agencies, as well as among water agencies themselves at a

regional level, will facilitate finding solutions to meeting future needs.

Bulletin 160-98 makes no specific recommendations regarding how California water purveyors should

meet the needs of their service areas, because it is the

water purveyors who are responsible for meeting those

needs. The purpose of Bulletin 160-98 is to predict

future water needs based on today’s conditions. Clearly,

different agencies and individuals have different perspectives about how the future should be shaped. The

CALFED discussions, for example, illustrate conflicting values among individuals and agencies.

There is not one magic bullet for meeting

California’s future water needs—not new reservoirs,

not new conveyance facilities, not more groundwater

extraction, not more water conservation, not more

water recycling. Each of these options has its place.

The most frequently used methods of providing new

water supplies have changed with the times, reflecting

changing circumstances. Much of California’s early

water development was achieved by constructing reservoirs and diverting surface water. Advances in

technology, in the form of deep well turbine pumps,

subsequently allowed substantial groundwater development. More recent improvements in water treatment

technology have made water recycling and desalting

feasible options. Today, water purveyors have an array

of water management options available to meet future

water supply reliability needs. The magnitude of potential shortages, especially drought year shortages,

demonstrates the urgency of taking action. The donothing alternative is not an alternative that will meet

the needs of 47.5 million Californians in 2020.

California water agencies have made great strides

in water conservation since the 1976-77 drought. Bulletin 160-98 forecasts substantial demand reduction

from implementing presently identified urban BMPs

and agricultural EWMPs, and assumes a more rigorous level of implementation than water agencies are

now obligated to perform. Presently, about half of

California’s urban population is served by retailers that

have signed the urban memorandum of understanding for water conservation measures. Less than

one-third of California’s agricultural lands are served

by agencies that have signed the corresponding agricultural MOU. Bulletin 160-98 assumes that all water

purveyors statewide will implement BMPs and

EWMPs by 2020, even if the actions are not cost-effective from a water supply perspective. Water

conservation offers multipurpose benefits such as reduced urban water treatment costs and potential

reduction of fish entrainment at diversion structures.

The Bulletin also identifies as likely additional demand

reduction measures that would create new water and

would be cost-competitive with supply augmentation

options. These optional demand reductions are almost

as large as the average year water supply augmentation

options planned by local agencies.

California water agencies have also made great

strides in water recycling. As discussed earlier, the new

water supply produced from recycling has almost

doubled between 1990 and 1995. By 2020, recycling

could potentially contribute almost 1.4 maf of total

water to the State’s supplies, which would exceed the

goal expressed in Section 13577 of the Water Code

that total recycling statewide be 1 maf by 2010. (The

potential 2020 recycling of 1.4 maf would represent

about 2 percent of the State’s 2020 water supply.) Water

recycling offers multipurpose benefits, such as reduction of treatment plant discharges to waterbodies. Cost

is a limiting factor in implementing recycling projects.

Bulletin 160-98 forecasts that projects implemented

by local agencies by 2020 will increase the State’s new

water supply from recycling to about 0.8 maf.

Clearly, conservation and recycling alone are not

sufficient to meet California’s future needs. Bulletin

160-98 has included all of the conservation and recycling measures likely to be implemented by 2020.

Adding supply augmentation options identified by

California’s water purveyors still leaves a shortfall in

meeting forecasted future demands. Review of local

agencies’ likely supply augmentation options shows that

relatively few larger-scale or regional programs are in

active planning, especially among small and mid-size

water agencies. This outcome reflects local agencies’

concerns about perceived implementability constraints

associated with larger-scale options, and their

affordability.

In the interests of maintaining California’s vibrant

economy, it is important that the State take an active

role in assisting water agencies in meeting their future

needs. New storage facilities are an important part of

the mix of options needed to meet California’s future

needs. Just as water conservation and recycling proEE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES5-14

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

vide multiple benefits, storage facilities offer flood control, power generation, and recreation in addition to

water supply benefits. The devastating January 1997

floods in the Central Valley emphasized the need for

increased attention to flood control. It is important

for small and mid-size water agencies who could not

develop such facilities on their own to have access to

participation in regional projects. The more diversified water agencies’ sources of supply are, the better

their odds of improved water supply reliability.

An appropriate State role would be for the Department to take the lead in performing feasibility

studies of potential storage projects—not on behalf of

the SWP, but on behalf of all potentially interested

water agencies. State funding support is needed to identify likely projects, so that local agencies may determine

how those projects might benefit their service areas.

In concept, the Department could use State funding

to complete project feasibility studies, permitting, and

environmental documentation for likely new storage

facilities, removing uncertainties that would prevent

smaller water agencies from funding planning studies

themselves. Agencies wishing to participate in projects

shown to be feasible would repay their share of the

State planning costs as a condition of participation in

a project. Feasible projects would likely be constructed

by a consortium of local agencies acting through a joint

powers agreement or other contractual mechanism.

Meeting California’s future needs will require cooperation among all levels of government—federal,

State, and local. Likewise, all three of California’s water-using sectors—agricultural, environmental, and

urban—must work together to recognize each others’

legitimate needs and to seek solutions to meeting the

State’s future water shortages. When the Bay-Delta

Accord was signed in 1994, it was hailed as a truce in,

if not an end to, one of the State’s longstanding water

wars. The Accord, and the efforts by California agencies to negotiate a resolution to interstate and intrastate

Colorado River water issues, represent a new spirit of

fostering cooperation and consensus rather than competition and conflict. Such an approach will be

increasingly necessary, given the magnitude of the water

shortages facing California. Mutual accommodation

of each others’ needs is especially important in drought

years, when water purveyors face the greatest water

supply challenges. With continued efforts to prepare

for the future, California can have safe and reliable

water supplies for urban areas, adequate long-term

water supplies to maintain the State’s agricultural

economy, and restoration and protection of fish and

wildlife habitat.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5A-1 APPENDIX ES5A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

5A

Regional Water Budgets

with Existing Facilities and Programs

The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State’s ten hydrologic regions

with existing facilities and programs. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum

due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5A ES5A-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5A-2

San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,428

Agricultural 98 108 98 108

Environmental 5,762 4,294 5,762 4,294

Total 7,115 5,760 7,176 5,830

Supplies

Surface Water 7,011 5,285 7,067 5,417

Groundwater 68 92 72 89

Recycled and Desalted 35 35 37 37

Total 7,115 5,412 7,176 5,543

Shortage 0 349 0 287

TABLE ES5A-1

North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 169 177 201 212

Agricultural 894 973 927 1,011

Environmental 19,544 9,518 19,545 9,518

Total 20,607 10,668 20,672 10,740

Supplies

Surface Water 20,331 10,183 20,371 10,212

Groundwater 263 294 288 321

Recycled and Desalted 13 14 13 14

Total 20,607 10,491 20,672 10,546

Shortage 0 177 0 194

TABLE ES5A-3

Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 286 294 379 391

Agricultural 1,192 1,279 1,127 1,223

Environmental 118 37 118 37

Total 1,595 1,610 1,624 1,652

Supplies

Surface Water 318 160 368 180

Groundwater 1,045 1,142 1,041 1,159

Recycled and Desalted 18 26 42 42

Total 1,381 1,328 1,452 1,381

Shortage 214 282 172 270

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5A-3 APPENDIX ES5A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5A-4

South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612

Agricultural 784 820 462 484

Environmental 100 82 104 86

Total 5,224 5,283 6,084 6,181

Supplies

Surface Water 3,839 3,196 3,625 3,130

Groundwater 1,177 1,371 1,243 1,462

Recycled and Desalted 207 207 273 273

Total 5,224 4,775 5,141 4,865

Shortage 0 508 944 1,317

TABLE ES5A-5

Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 766 830 1,139 1,236

Agricultural 8,065 9,054 7,939 8,822

Environmental 5,833 4,223 5,839 4,225

Total 14,664 14,106 14,917 14,282

Supplies

Surface Water 11,881 10,022 12,196 10,012

Groundwater 2,672 3,218 2,636 3,281

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 14,553 13,239 14,832 13,293

Shortage 111 867 85 989

TABLE ES5A-6

San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 574 583 954 970

Agricultural 7,027 7,244 6,450 6,719

Environmental 3,396 1,904 3,411 1,919

Total 10,996 9,731 10,815 9,609

Supplies

Surface Water 8,562 6,043 8,458 5,986

Groundwater 2,195 2,900 2,295 2,912

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 10,757 8,943 10,753 8,898

Shortage 239 788 63 711

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5A ES5A-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5A-7

Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 690 690 1,099 1,099

Agricultural 10,736 10,026 10,123 9,532

Environmental 1,672 809 1,676 813

Total 13,098 11,525 12,897 11,443

Supplies

Surface Water 7,888 3,693 7,791 3,593

Groundwater 4,340 5,970 4,386 5,999

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 12,228 9,663 12,177 9,592

Shortage 870 1,862 720 1,851

TABLE ES5A-8

North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 39 40 50 51

Agricultural 530 584 536 594

Environmental 374 256 374 256

Total 942 880 960 901

Supplies

Surface Water 777 557 759 557

Groundwater 157 187 183 208

Recycled and Desalted 8 8 8 8

Total 942 752 950 773

Shortage 0 128 10 128

TABLE ES5A-9

South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 238 238 619 619

Agricultural 332 332 257 257

Environmental 107 81 107 81

Total 676 651 983 957

Supplies

Surface Water 322 259 437 326

Groundwater 239 273 248 296

Recycled and Desalted 27 27 27 27

Total 587 559 712 649

Shortage 89 92 270 308

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5A-5 APPENDIX ES5A

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5A-10

Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 418 418 740 740

Agricultural 4,118 4,118 3,583 3,583

Environmental 39 38 44 43

 Total 4,575 4,574 4,367 4,366

Supplies

Surface Water 4,154 4,128 3,920 3,909

Groundwater 337 337 285 284

Recycled and Desalted 15 15 15 15

 Total 4,506 4,479 4,221 4,208

Shortage 69 95 147 158

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5A ES5A-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5A

Executive Summary

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5B-1 APPENDIX ES5B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

5B

Regional Water Budgets with

 Options Likely to be Implemented

The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State’s ten hydrologic regions

with options likely to be implemented. Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum

due to rounding.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5B ES5B-2

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5B-2

San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 1,255 1,358 1,317 1,371

Agricultural 98 108 98 108

Environmental 5,762 4,294 5,762 4,294

Total 7,115 5,760 7,176 5,773

Supplies

Surface Water 7,011 5,285 7,067 5,607

Groundwater 68 92 72 96

Recycled and Desalted 35 35 37 70

Total 7,115 5,412 7,176 5,773

Shortage 0 349 0 0

TABLE ES5B-1

North Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 169 177 201 194

Agricultural 894 973 927 1,011

Environmental 19,544 9,518 19,545 9,518

Total 20,607 10,668 20,672 10,722

Supplies

Surface Water 20,331 10,183 20,371 10,212

Groundwater 263 294 288 321

Recycled and Desalted 13 14 13 14

Total 20,607 10,491 20,672 10,546

Shortage 0 177 0 176

TABLE ES5B-3

Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 286 294 347 359

Agricultural 1,192 1,279 1,127 1,223

Environmental 118 37 118 37

Total 1,595 1,610 1,592 1,620

Supplies

Surface Water 318 160 477 287

Groundwater 1,045 1,142 1,043 1,161

Recycled and Desalted 18 26 71 71

Total 1,381 1,328 1,592 1,519

Shortage 214 282 0 100

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5B-3 APPENDIX ES5B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5B-4

South Coast Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 4,340 4,382 5,435 5,528

Agricultural 784 820 455 477

Environmental 100 82 104 86

Total 5,224 5,283 5,993 6,090

Supplies

Surface Water 3,839 3,196 4,084 3,832

Groundwater 1,177 1,371 1,243 1,592

Recycled and Desalted 207 207 667 667

Total 5,224 4,775 5,994 6,090

Shortage 0 508 0 0

TABLE ES5B-5

Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 766 830 1,139 1,236

Agricultural 8,065 9,054 7,939 8,822

Environmental 5,833 4,223 5,839 4,225

Total 14,664 14,106 14,917 14,282

Supplies

Surface Water 11,881 10,022 12,282 10,279

Groundwater 2,672 3,218 2,636 3,281

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 14,553 13,239 14,918 13,560

Shortage 111 867 0 722

TABLE ES5B-6

San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 574 583 954 970

Agricultural 7,027 7,244 6,448 6,717

Environmental 3,396 1,904 3,411 1,919

Total 10,996 9,731 10,813 9,607

Supplies

Surface Water 8,562 6,043 8,497 6,029

Groundwater 2,195 2,900 2,317 2,920

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 10,757 8,943 10,814 8,949

Shortage 239 788 0 658

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5B ES5B-4

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5B-7

Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 690 690 1,099 1,099

Agricultural 10,736 10,026 10,106 9,515

Environmental 1,672 809 1,676 813

Total 13,098 11,525 12,880 11,426

Supplies

Surface Water 7,888 3,693 8,292 4,167

Groundwater 4,340 5,970 4,386 6,391

Recycled and Desalted 0 0 0 0

Total 12,228 9,663 12,678 10,558

Shortage 870 1,862 202 868

TABLE ES5B-8

North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 39 40 50 51

Agricultural 530 584 536 594

Environmental 374 256 374 256

Total 942 880 960 901

Supplies

Surface Water 777 557 759 557

Groundwater 157 187 183 208

Recycled and Desalted 8 8 8 8

Total 942 752 950 773

Shortage 0 128 10 128

TABLE ES5B-9

South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 238 238 568 568

Agricultural 332 332 252 252

Environmental 107 81 107 81

Total 676 651 927 901

Supplies

Surface Water 322 259 651 578

Groundwater 239 273 248 296

Recycled and Desalted 27 27 27 27

Total 587 559 926 901

Shortage 89 92 0 0

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ES5B-5 APPENDIX ES5B

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98 Appendix ES5A

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

TABLE ES5B-10

Colorado River Region Water Budget with Options (taf)

1995 2020

Average Drought Average Drought

Water Use

Urban 418 418 715 715

Agricultural 4,118 4,118 3,393 3,393

Environmental 39 38 44 43

Total 4,575 4,574 4,152 4,151

Supplies

Surface Water 4,154 4,128 3,852 3,852

Groundwater 337 337 285 284

Recycled and Desalted 15 15 15 15

Total 4,506 4,479 4,152 4,151

Shortage 69 95 0 0

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
APPENDIX ES5B ES5B-6

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 5B

Executive Summary

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
i

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA

WATER PLAN UPDATE

BULLETIN 160-98

Volume 1

November 1998

Pete Wilson

Governor

Douglas P. Wheeler

Secretary for Resources

The Resources Agency

David N. Kennedy

Director

Department of Water Resources

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 1998

Copies of Bulletin 160-98 may be purchased for $25 from:

California Department of Water Resources

P. O. Box 942836

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Make checks payable to: Department of Water Resources

California residents add current sales tax

C

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
iii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

I

n 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was

followed by the Bulletin 160 series, published six times between 1966 and 1993, updating

the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the

Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in the series. The

Bulletin 160 series assesses California’s water needs and evaluates water supplies, to quantify the

gap between future water demands and water supplies. The series presents a statewide overview

of current water management activities and provides water managers with a framework for

making decisions.

In response to public comments on the last update, Bulletin 160-93, this 1998 update

evaluates water management options that could improve California’s water supply reliability.

Water management options being planned by local agencies form the building blocks for evaluations performed for each of the State’s ten major hydrologic regions. Local options are integrated

into a statewide overview that illustrates potential progress in reducing the State’s expected

future water shortages.

When the previous water plan update was released, California was just emerging from a sixyear drought. This update follows the largest and most extensive flood disaster in California’s

history, the January 1997 floods. These two hydrologic events fittingly illustrate the complexity

of water management in the State.

The Department appreciates the assistance provided by the Bulletin 160-98 public advisory committee, which met with the Department over a three-year period as the Bulletin was

being prepared. The Department also appreciates the assistance provided by the many local

water agencies who furnished information about their planned water management activities.

David N. Kennedy

Director

Foreword . . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
iv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
v

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Chapter 1. Introduction

California—An Overview..................................................................................................................... 1-2

Bulletin 160-98 Hydrologic Regions .................................................................................................... 1-8

Some Trends in California Water Management Activities ................................................................... 1-10

Changes Since the Last California Water Plan Update ........................................................................ 1-12

Changes in Response to Bulletin 160-93 Public Comments......................................................... 1-13

Changes in Future Demand/Shortage Forecasts ........................................................................... 1-13

Preparation of Bulletin 160-98 ........................................................................................................... 1-14

Public Comments on Draft.......................................................................................................... 1-14

Works in Progress and Uncertainties ............................................................................................ 1-16

Presentation of Data in Bulletin 160-98....................................................................................... 1-16

Organization of Bulletin 160-98 ........................................................................................................ 1-16

Appendix 1A. Comparison of 2020 Average Year Forecasts Between Bulletin 160-93

and Bulletin 160-98 ..................................................................................................................................1A-1

Appendix 1B. Summary of Public Comments on Draft Bulletin 160-98 ...................................................1B-1

Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water

Infrastructure Update ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

Legislative Update ................................................................................................................................ 2-3

State Statutes ................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Federal Statutes .............................................................................................................................. 2-5

State and Federal Programmatic Actions ............................................................................................... 2-7

SWP Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments ........................................................................ 2-7

CVPIA Implementation................................................................................................................. 2-8

Title Transfer of Reclamation Projects .......................................................................................... 2-11

FERC Relicensing ........................................................................................................................ 2-12

Recent ESA Listings ..................................................................................................................... 2-12

San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta .............................................................. 2-14

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED .................................................................................................. 2-14

Suisun Marsh ............................................................................................................................... 2-16

Delta Protection Commission ...................................................................................................... 2-16

San Francisco Estuary Project....................................................................................................... 2-17

Coordinated Operation Agreement Renegotiation ....................................................................... 2-17

Interstate Issues .................................................................................................................................. 2-18

Truckee-Carson River System ...................................................................................................... 2-18

Walker River ................................................................................................................................ 2-18

Klamath River ............................................................................................................................. 2-19

Contents . . .

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
vi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Colorado River ............................................................................................................................ 2-19

Regional and Local Programs ............................................................................................................. 2-20

Local Agency Groundwater Management Programs ..................................................................... 2-20

Watershed-Based Planning ........................................................................................................... 2-20

Implementation of Urban Water Conservation MOU ................................................................. 2-24

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices MOU............................. 2-24

Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating and Managing Water Resources

in California .............................................................................................................................................2A-1

Chapter 3. Water Supplies

Climate and Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

Geographic Variability ................................................................................................................... 3-2

Seasonal Variability ........................................................................................................................ 3-5

Climatic Variability ........................................................................................................................ 3-6

Water Supply Calculation ................................................................................................................... 3-12

Definition of Bulletin 160 Water Supplies ................................................................................... 3-12

Water Supply Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 3-18

California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs .................................................. 3-23

Surface Water Supplies ....................................................................................................................... 3-24

Surface Water Development Projects............................................................................................ 3-24

Reservoir and River Operations ................................................................................................... 3-42

Impacts of Recent Events on Surface Water Supplies .................................................................... 3-45

Impacts of Reservoir Reoperation on Surface Water Supplies ....................................................... 3-47

Groundwater Supplies ........................................................................................................................ 3-48

Base Year Supplies ........................................................................................................................ 3-48

Groundwater Basin Yield ............................................................................................................. 3-49

Groundwater Management Programs .......................................................................................... 3-51

Water Marketing ................................................................................................................................ 3-53

Definition of Water Marketing .................................................................................................... 3-53

Short-Term Agreements ............................................................................................................... 3-56

Long-Term Agreements ............................................................................................................... 3-57

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies ............................................................................................. 3-59

Water Recycling Status................................................................................................................. 3-59

Water Recycling Potential ............................................................................................................ 3-60

Seawater Desalting ....................................................................................................................... 3-60

Water Quality..................................................................................................................................... 3-60

Overview of Pollutants and Stressors Causing Water Quality Impairment .................................... 3-61

Establishing and Meeting Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 3-66

Drinking Water Standards ........................................................................................................... 3-66

Source Water Protection/Watershed Management Activities ........................................................ 3-67

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
vii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Groundwater Quality................................................................................................................... 3-71

Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region................................................................................... 3-72

Appendix 3A. Survey of Planned Water Recycling.....................................................................................3A-1

Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use

Water Use Calculation .......................................................................................................................... 4-2

Land Use Considerations...................................................................................................................... 4-2

Urban Water Use .................................................................................................................................. 4-4

Population Growth ........................................................................................................................ 4-4

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use ............................................................................... 4-7

Urban Water Use Planning Activities ........................................................................................... 4-12

Urban Water Use Forecasting ....................................................................................................... 4-13

Summary of Urban Water Use ..................................................................................................... 4-16

Agricultural Water Use ....................................................................................................................... 4-17

Crop Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 4-17

Factors Influencing Agricultural Water Use .................................................................................. 4-19

Agricultural Acreage Forecasting .................................................................................................. 4-22

Summary of Agricultural Water Use............................................................................................. 4-33

Environmental Water Use................................................................................................................... 4-34

Flows in Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................. 4-34

Instream Flows............................................................................................................................. 4-36

Bay-Delta Outflow ...................................................................................................................... 4-39

Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................... 4-46

Summary of Environmental Water Use ........................................................................................ 4-51

Water Use Summary by Hydrologic Region ....................................................................................... 4-51

Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing ................................................................................4A-1

Appendix 4B. BMP Revisions and Water Savings Assumptions ................................................................. 4B-1

Appendix 4C. Normalizing Urban Water Use Data.................................................................................. 4C-1

Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management

Demand Reduction Technologies ......................................................................................................... 5-1

Landscape Irrigation Technology.................................................................................................... 5-2

Residential Indoor Water Use Technology ...................................................................................... 5-2

Interior CII Water Use Technology ................................................................................................ 5-3

Agricultural Water Use Technology ................................................................................................ 5-4

Water Treatment Technologies ............................................................................................................ 5-10

Description of Water Treatment Technologies .............................................................................. 5-10

Application of Water Treatment Technologies .............................................................................. 5-13

Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater ................................................................................... 5-18

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
viii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Water Supply/Flood Control Technologies ......................................................................................... 5-19

Inflatable Dams ........................................................................................................................... 5-19

Weather Modification .................................................................................................................. 5-21

Long-Term Weather Forecasting .................................................................................................. 5-22

Environmental Water Use Technologies.............................................................................................. 5-23

Wetlands Management ................................................................................................................ 5-23

Real-Time Water Quality Management ....................................................................................... 5-23

Fish Screen Technologies .............................................................................................................. 5-23

Temperature Control Technology ................................................................................................ 5-27

Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective

Statewide Water Budget .............................................................................................................................. 6-2

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process ........................................................................................................ 6-2

Major Steps in Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 6-4

Shortage Management .......................................................................................................................... 6-6

Using Applied Water Budgets to Calculate New Water Needs .............................................................. 6-6

Demand Reduction Options ....................................................................................................................... 6-8

Urban Water Conservation Options ..................................................................................................... 6-9

Outdoor Water Use ....................................................................................................................... 6-9

Residential Indoor Water Use ...................................................................................................... 6-10

Interior CII Water Use ................................................................................................................. 6-10

Distribution System Losses .......................................................................................................... 6-11

Agricultural Water Conservation Options .......................................................................................... 6-11

Irrigation Management (Options 1, 2, and 3) .............................................................................. 6-12

Water Delivery Flexibility (Option 4) .......................................................................................... 6-13

Canal Lining and Piping (Option 5) ............................................................................................ 6-13

Tailwater and Spill Recovery Systems (Option 6) ......................................................................... 6-13

Environmental Water Conservation Options ...................................................................................... 6-13

Water Supply Augmentation Options ....................................................................................................... 6-14

Conveyance Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 6-14

SWP Interim South Delta Program ............................................................................................. 6-14

CALFED Delta Conveyance ........................................................................................................ 6-14

Mid-Valley Canal ......................................................................................................................... 6-16

Surface Storage Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 6-16

Area of Origin Protections ........................................................................................................... 6-16

CALFED Surface Storage ............................................................................................................ 6-16

Multipurpose Storage Facilities .................................................................................................... 6-20

Groundwater and Conjunctive Use .................................................................................................... 6-22

Potential for Conjunctive Use in the Central Valley ..................................................................... 6-22

Recent Groundwater Studies with Statewide Scope ...................................................................... 6-23

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
ix

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

 Water Marketing ............................................................................................................................... 6-25

Sources of Water for Marketing ................................................................................................... 6-26

Prospects for Water Marketing ..................................................................................................... 6-27

Drought Year Marketing .............................................................................................................. 6-29

Every Year Marketing ................................................................................................................... 6-31

Water Recycling and Desalting ........................................................................................................... 6-32

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 6-32

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 6-33

Weather Modification ........................................................................................................................ 6-35

Other Supply Augmentation Options................................................................................................. 6-36

Importing Water from Out of State ............................................................................................. 6-36

Gray Water .................................................................................................................................. 6-36

Watershed Management on National Forest Lands ...................................................................... 6-36

Long-Range Weather Forecasting ................................................................................................. 6-37

Summary of Statewide Supply Augmentation Options ....................................................................... 6-37

CALFED ..................................................................................................................................... 6-37

Other Statewide Options ............................................................................................................. 6-38

Allocating Options Yield Among Hydrologic Regions ................................................................. 6-38

Uncertainties in the Bulletin Planning Process ............................................................................. 6-38

Options for Future Environmental Habitat Enhancement ........................................................................ 6-41

Central Valley Project Improvement Act ............................................................................................. 6-41

Category III Program ......................................................................................................................... 6-45

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program ......................................................................... 6-46

Other Environmental Enhancement Options ..................................................................................... 6-47

SWP’s Sherman and Twitchell Islands Wildlife Management Plans .............................................. 6-47

Fish Protection Agreements.......................................................................................................... 6-47

Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Restoration Program ............................. 6-47

Financing Local Water Management Options ........................................................................................... 6-47

Sources of Revenues ........................................................................................................................... 6-48

Financing Methods............................................................................................................................. 6-48

Self-Financing .............................................................................................................................. 6-49

Short-Term Debt Financing ......................................................................................................... 6-49

Conventional Long-Term Debt Financing ................................................................................... 6-49

Innovative Long-Term Debt Financing ........................................................................................ 6-49

Credit Substitution and Enhancement ......................................................................................... 6-50

State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs........................................................................... 6-51

Relationship Between Financing and Water Agency Ownership and Size ........................................... 6-51

Public Water Agencies .................................................................................................................. 6-51

Investor-Owned Water Utilities ................................................................................................... 6-51

Mutual Water Companies ............................................................................................................ 6-52

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
x

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Appendix 6A. Regional Water Budgets with Existing Facilities and Programs............................................6A-1

Appendix 6B. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities and Programs ....... 6B-1

Appendix 6C. Estimating a Water Management Option’s Unit Cost ........................................................ 6C-1

Appendix 6D. Calculation of Minimum New Water Needs ..................................................................... 6D-1

Appendix 6E. Net Water Budgets ............................................................................................................. 6E-1

Appendix 6F. Land Retirement Analysis in Drainage-Impaired Areas ........................................................ 6F-1

Appendix 6G. Review and Evaluation of Statewide-Level Storage Facilities That Could Be Included in

CALFED Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 6G-1

Chapter 7. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in

Coastal Regions of California

North Coast Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................................. 7-3

Description of the Area ........................................................................................................................ 7-3

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................... 7-3

Local Water Resources Management Issues ........................................................................................... 7-5

Klamath River Fishery Issues.......................................................................................................... 7-5

Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Management Program ................................................................... 7-5

Water Supplies of Small Coastal Communities .............................................................................. 7-6

Russian River Environmental Restoration Actions ......................................................................... 7-7

City of Santa Rosa Long-Term Wastewater Project ........................................................................ 7-8

SCWA Water Supply and Transmission Project .............................................................................. 7-8

Potter Valley Project ....................................................................................................................... 7-8

Water Management Options for the North Coast Region .................................................................... 7-8

Water Conservation ....................................................................................................................... 7-8

Modifying Existing Reservoirs or Operations ............................................................................... 7-10

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities ................................................................................... 7-10

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 7-11

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 7-11

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 7-11

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 7-11

Options Likely to be Implemented in North Coast Region ................................................................ 7-11

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ....................................................................................................... 7-15

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-15

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 7-15

North Bay .................................................................................................................................... 7-15

South Bay .................................................................................................................................... 7-17

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 7-20

Bay-Delta Estuary ........................................................................................................................ 7-20

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Suisun Marsh ............................................................................................................................... 7-20

Local Water Agency Issues ........................................................................................................... 7-20

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program ............................................................................... 7-24

Water Management Options for the San Francisco Bay Region .......................................................... 7-24

Conservation ............................................................................................................................... 7-24

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations ........................................................................................ 7-24

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities ................................................................................... 7-27

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 7-28

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 7-28

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 7-28

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 7-29

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 7-29

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 7-29

Options Likely to be Implemented in San Francisco Bay Region ........................................................ 7-29

Central Coast Hydrologic Region ............................................................................................................. 7-33

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-33

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 7-34

Northern PSA .............................................................................................................................. 7-34

Southern PSA .............................................................................................................................. 7-34

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 7-35

Seawater Intrusion ....................................................................................................................... 7-35

Local Water Agency Issues ........................................................................................................... 7-36

Seawater Desalting ....................................................................................................................... 7-37

Water Management Options for the Central Coast Region ................................................................ 7-37

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 7-40

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations .................................................................................... 7-40

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities ................................................................................... 7-40

Groundwater Development and Conjunctive Use ........................................................................ 7-41

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 7-41

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 7-42

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 7-42

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 7-42

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 7-42

Options Likely to be Implemented in Central Coast Region .............................................................. 7-42

South Coast Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................................ 7-47

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 7-47

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 7-47

Los Angeles Aqueduct .................................................................................................................. 7-48

Colorado River Aqueduct ............................................................................................................ 7-48

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

State Water Project....................................................................................................................... 7-49

Local Surface Water Supplies ....................................................................................................... 7-50

Groundwater Supplies ................................................................................................................. 7-52

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 7-54

Water Supply Reliability .............................................................................................................. 7-54

Management of California’s Colorado River Water ...................................................................... 7-56

Mono Basin ................................................................................................................................. 7-57

Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries ............................................................................. 7-57

Flood Control .............................................................................................................................. 7-58

Salinity Management Actions ...................................................................................................... 7-59

Groundwater Issues...................................................................................................................... 7-60

Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study ................................... 7-61

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 7-61

New Conveyance Facilities from Colorado River Region to South Coast Region ......................... 7-62

Mexican Border Environmental Quality Issues ............................................................................ 7-62

Water Management Options for South Coast Region ......................................................................... 7-62

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 7-63

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations .................................................................................... 7-63

New Reservoirs ............................................................................................................................ 7-63

Groundwater Development and Conjunctive Use ........................................................................ 7-67

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 7-67

Implementing the CRB’s Draft 4.4 Plan ...................................................................................... 7-68

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 7-68

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 7-70

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 7-71

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 7-71

Options Likely to be Implemented in South Coast Region ................................................................. 7-71

Appendix 7A. Options Evaluations for Coastal Regions ............................................................................7A-1

Chapter 8. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs

in Interior Regions of California

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................................... 8-3

Description of the Area ........................................................................................................................ 8-3

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................... 8-3

CVP Water Supply ........................................................................................................................ 8-4

Supply from Other Federal Water Projects ..................................................................................... 8-5

SWP Water Supply ........................................................................................................................ 8-5

Local Surface Water Supply............................................................................................................ 8-5

Groundwater Supply...................................................................................................................... 8-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xiii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Local Water Resources Management Issues ........................................................................................... 8-6

Sierra Nevada Foothills Water Supply ............................................................................................ 8-6

Foothill Area Water Supply from American River Basin ................................................................. 8-7

Sacramento Area Water Forum ...................................................................................................... 8-8

Colusa Basin Drainage District ...................................................................................................... 8-9

Groundwater Management Actions ............................................................................................... 8-9

American River Flood Protection ................................................................................................. 8-10

Yuba River Flood Protection ........................................................................................................ 8-11

Sacramento River Mainstem Flood Protection and Water Supply................................................. 8-12

Putah Creek Adjudication ............................................................................................................ 8-12

Fish Passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam ..................................................................................... 8-12

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen ............................................................................... 8-13

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Activities in the Sacramento Valley ................................................ 8-13

Water Needs for Rice Field Flooding............................................................................................ 8-15

Water Management Options for the Sacramento River Region ........................................................... 8-15

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 8-15

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations ........................................................................................ 8-15

New Reservoirs ............................................................................................................................ 8-17

New Conveyance Facilities ........................................................................................................... 8-19

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 8-19

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 8-19

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 8-19

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 8-19

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 8-20

Options Likely to be Implemented in the Sacramento River Region................................................... 8-20

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region ....................................................................................................... 8-23

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 8-23

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 8-24

Surface Water............................................................................................................................... 8-24

Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 8-26

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 8-27

Cosumnes River Flood Management ........................................................................................... 8-27

Integrity of Delta Levees .............................................................................................................. 8-27

Interim South Delta Program and Temporary Barriers Project ..................................................... 8-28

San Joaquin County Groundwater Overdraft ............................................................................... 8-29

 Penn Mine Remediation ............................................................................................................. 8-29

Conservation Storage in Farmington Reservoir ............................................................................ 8-29

New Melones Reservoir Water Supply and Operations ................................................................ 8-30

Urban Growth Pressures from San Francisco Bay Area ................................................................. 8-30

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xiv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

East County Water Supply Study ................................................................................................. 8-31

Los Banos Grandes Reservoir Studies ........................................................................................... 8-31

Merced Area Conjunctive Use Study............................................................................................ 8-32

Agricultural Drainage .................................................................................................................. 8-32

Enlargement of Friant Dam ......................................................................................................... 8-33

Instream Flow Requirements Below Friant Dam .......................................................................... 8-33

Environmental Restoration Activities in the San Joaquin River Basin ........................................... 8-33

San Joaquin River Parkway Development .................................................................................... 8-34

January 1997 San Joaquin River Region Flood Event ................................................................... 8-34

Water Management Options for the San Joaquin River Region .......................................................... 8-35

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 8-35

Modify Existing Reservoirs .......................................................................................................... 8-35

New Reservoirs ............................................................................................................................ 8-35

New Conveyance Facilities ........................................................................................................... 8-37

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 8-38

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 8-38

Desalting ..................................................................................................................................... 8-38

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 8-38

Options Likely to be Implemented in the San Joaquin River Region .................................................. 8-38

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................................. 8-43

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 8-43

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 8-44

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 8-45

Groundwater Overdraft ............................................................................................................... 8-45

Groundwater Banking Programs .................................................................................................. 8-46

Agricultural Drainage .................................................................................................................. 8-46

Arroyo Pasajero and Other Westside Cross-Drainages .................................................................. 8-47

Kings River Fishery Restoration Actions ...................................................................................... 8-47

Water Management Options for the Tulare Lake Region .................................................................... 8-47

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 8-47

Modifying Existing Reservoirs and New Reservoirs ...................................................................... 8-49

New Conveyance Facilities ........................................................................................................... 8-50

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 8-50

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 8-51

Water Recycling and Desalting .................................................................................................... 8-52

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 8-52

Options Likely to be Implemented in the Tulare Lake Region ............................................................ 8-52

Appendix 8A. Options Evaluations for Interior Regions............................................................................8A-1

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Chapter 9. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Eastern Sierra and Colorado

River Regions of California

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................... 9-3

Description of the Area ........................................................................................................................ 9-3

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................... 9-3

Local Water Resources Management Issues ........................................................................................... 9-7

Truckee River Operating Agreement .............................................................................................. 9-7

Walker River .................................................................................................................................. 9-8

Lake Tahoe .................................................................................................................................... 9-8

Leviathan Mine.............................................................................................................................. 9-9

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project .................................................................................................... 9-9

January 1997 Flood Event ............................................................................................................. 9-9

Water Management Options for the North Lahontan Region .............................................................. 9-9

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-11

New Reservoirs or Conveyance Facilities ...................................................................................... 9-11

Groundwater Development or Conjunctive Use .......................................................................... 9-11

Options Likely to be Implemented in the North Lahontan Region .................................................... 9-12

South Lahontan Hydrologic Region.......................................................................................................... 9-15

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 9-15

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 9-16

Los Angeles Aqueduct .................................................................................................................. 9-16

State Water Project....................................................................................................................... 9-17

Local Surface Water Supplies ....................................................................................................... 9-18

Groundwater Supplies ................................................................................................................. 9-18

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 9-19

Owens Valley Area ....................................................................................................................... 9-19

Mono Basin ................................................................................................................................. 9-20

Mojave River Adjudication .......................................................................................................... 9-21

Antelope Valley Water Management ............................................................................................ 9-21

Interstate Groundwater Basins ..................................................................................................... 9-22

Water Management Options for South Lahontan Region ................................................................... 9-22

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-22

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations .................................................................................... 9-23

New Reservoirs or Conveyance Facilities ...................................................................................... 9-24

Water Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 9-24

Water Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 9-24

Other Local Options.................................................................................................................... 9-24

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 9-24

Options Likely to be Implemented in the South Lahontan Region ..................................................... 9-24

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xvi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Colorado River Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................... 9-27

Description of the Area ...................................................................................................................... 9-27

Water Demands and Supplies ............................................................................................................. 9-28

Supplies from the Colorado River ................................................................................................ 9-28

Supplies from Other Sources........................................................................................................ 9-32

Local Water Resources Management Issues ......................................................................................... 9-33

Management of California’s Colorado River Water ...................................................................... 9-33

Tribal Water Rights ...................................................................................................................... 9-35

Water Conservation Programs...................................................................................................... 9-35

Salton Sea .................................................................................................................................... 9-35

Coachella Valley Groundwater Overdraft ..................................................................................... 9-38

Lower Colorado River Environmental Water Issues ..................................................................... 9-39

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program........................................................ 9-40

Water Management Options for the Colorado River Region .............................................................. 9-40

Water Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 9-40

Potential Sources of Water for Intrastate Marketing ..................................................................... 9-42

Intrastate Groundwater Recharge or Banking............................................................................... 9-44

Interstate Banking/Conservation.................................................................................................. 9-45

Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs ............................................................................ 9-45

Weather Modification .................................................................................................................. 9-45

Options for Coachella Valley ....................................................................................................... 9-46

Statewide Options ....................................................................................................................... 9-46

Options Likely to be Implemented in the Colorado River Region ...................................................... 9-46

Appendix 9A. Options Evaluations for Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Regions...................................9A-1

Chapter 10. Conclusions

Future with Existing Facilities and Programs ...................................................................................... 10-2

Water Supply ............................................................................................................................... 10-2

Water Demand ............................................................................................................................ 10-3

Water Shortages ........................................................................................................................... 10-4

Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented ................................................................................. 10-6

Implementing Future Water Management Options ............................................................................ 10-8

Bulletin 160-98 Findings.................................................................................................................. 10-11

Appendix 10A. Regional Water Budgets with Likely Options .................................................................10A-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................... A-1

Glossary ................................................................................................... G-1

Tables

Table 1A-1. 2020 Average Year Forecasts ...................................................................................................1A-1

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xvii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 2-1. Large Dams Under Construction or Recently Completed .......................................................... 2-2

Table 2-2. Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 .......................................................................... 2-2

Table 2-3. Large Structural Fishery Restoration Projects .............................................................................. 2-2

Table 2-4. Sample Restoration Projects Funded in Part by the SWP’s 4-Pumps Program............................. 2-3

Table 2-5. Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown ......................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-6 California Hydropower Projects—License Years 2000-2010 ...................................................... 2-13

Table 2-7. Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities Identified for the

Watershed Management Initiative ............................................................................................................. 2-21

Table 3-1. Severity of Extreme Droughts in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys .................................. 3-7

Table 3-2. Major Floods Since the 1950s .................................................................................................. 3-10

Table 3-3. California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs ............................................... 3-23

Table 3-4. Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs .................................................................................... 3-25

Table 3-5. Major State Water Project Reservoirs ........................................................................................ 3-30

Table 3-6. Major Reservoirs of USBR’s Klamath Project ........................................................................... 3-38

Table 3-7. Other USBR Projects in California .......................................................................................... 3-38

Table 3-8. Major Reservoirs in the Los Angeles Aqueduct System ............................................................. 3-39

Table 3-9. Major Reservoirs in the Tuolumne River Basin ......................................................................... 3-39

Table 3-10. Mokelumne Aqueduct System Reservoirs ............................................................................... 3-40

Table 3-11. Major Reservoirs on the Yuba and Bear River Systems ............................................................ 3-42

Table 3-12. Federal Flood Control Storage in Major Central Valley Reservoirs.......................................... 3-43

Table 3-13. Major Changes in Delta Criteria from D-1485 to WR 95-6 .................................................. 3-47

Table 3-14. Estimated 1995 Level Groundwater Supplies by Hydrologic Region ...................................... 3-48

Table 3-15. 1995 and 2020 Level Overdraft by Hydrologic Region .......................................................... 3-50

Table 3-16. California Adjudicated Groundwater Basins and Watermasters .............................................. 3-55

Table 3-17. Drought Water Bank Purchases and Allocations ..................................................................... 3-57

Table 3-18. CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program Purchases ............................................................... 3-58

Table 3-19. Recently Completed Long-Term Water Marketing Agreements .............................................. 3-58

Table 3-20. 1995 and 2020 Level Water Recycling by Hydrologic Region with Existing Facilities

and Programs ............................................................................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3-21. 1995 Level Total Water Recycling by Category ....................................................................... 3-61

Table 3-22. 2020 Level Total Water Recycling and New Water Supply...................................................... 3-61

Table 3-23. Significant Cryptosporidium Outbreaks ................................................................................... 3-63

Table 3-24. Some Waterborne Diseases of Concern in the United States ................................................... 3-63

Table 3-25. Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products ........................................................................... 3-64

Table 3-26. A Partial List of Potential Beneficial Uses of Water ................................................................. 3-66

Table 3-27. A Partial List of Existing Water Quality Limits ....................................................................... 3-66

Table 3-28. A Partial List of Water Quality Constituents or Characteristics for

Which Water Quality Objectives May Be Established ............................................................................... 3-66

Table 3-29. Constituents Regulated Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act ...................................... 3-67

Table 3-30. Potential Sources and Causes of Water Quality Impairment ................................................... 3-69

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xviii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 3-31. SWP Sanitary Survey Update Recommendations ................................................................... 3-70

Table 3-32. Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks Associated with Groundwater

Used as a Drinking Water Source, 1993-94............................................................................................... 3-71

Table 3-33. California Average Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region ............................................... 3-73

Table 3-34. California Drought Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region .............................................. 3-73

Table 3A-1. Planned Water Recycling for North Coast Region .................................................................3A-2

Table 3A-2. Planned Water Recycling for San Francisco Bay Region .........................................................3A-3

Table 3A-3. Planned Water Recycling for Central Coast Region ...............................................................3A-5

Table 3A-4. Planned Water Recycling for South Coast Region ..................................................................3A-6

Table 3A-5. Planned Water Recycling for Sacramento River Region........................................................3A-11

Table 3A-6. Planned Water Recycling for San Joaquin River Region .......................................................3A-12

Table 3A-7. Planned Water Recycling for Tulare Lake Region .................................................................3A-13

Table 3A-8. Planned Water Recycling for North Lahontan Region .........................................................3A-13

Table 3A-9. Planned Water Recycling for South Lahontan Region ..........................................................3A-14

Table 3A-10. Planned Water Recycling for Colorado River Region .........................................................3A-14

Table 4-1. California Population by Hydrologic Region .............................................................................. 4-7

Table 4-2. Comparison Between Department of Finance and Councils of Governments

Population Projections ................................................................................................................................ 4-7

Table 4-3. Summary of California and Federal Plumbing Fixture Requirements ......................................... 4-9

Table 4-4. Annual Reductions in Applied Water and Depletions Due to BMP

Implementation by 2020 .......................................................................................................................... 4-12

Table 4-5. 1995 Urban Water Management Plans by Hydrologic Region .................................................. 4-13

Table 4-6. Urban Water Use Study Input Variables ................................................................................... 4-14

Table 4-7. Urban Water Use Study Data Sources....................................................................................... 4-15

Table 4-8. Model Study Results—Per Capita Water Use With Economic Growth and

Conservation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 4-15

Table 4-9. 2020 Change in Per Capita Use by Hydrologic Region-Application of Model Results .............. 4-16

Table 4-10. Effects of Conservation on Per Capita Water Use by Hydrologic Region ................................ 4-16

Table 4-11. Applied Urban Water Use by Hydrologic Region ................................................................... 4-17

Table 4-12. Relationship Among Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Measures........................................... 4-20

Table 4-13. 2020 Agricultural Water Use Reductions Due to Conservation .............................................. 4-21

Table 4-14. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 1995 Level .............................. 4-25

Table 4-15. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Level .............................. 4-32

Table 4-16. Applied Agricultural Water Use by Hydrologic Region ........................................................... 4-33

Table 4-17. Wild and Scenic River Flows by Waterway ............................................................................. 4-36

Table 4-18. Wild and Scenic River Flows by Hydrologic Region ............................................................... 4-36

Table 4-19. Proposed Instream Flows, CVPIA PEIS Alternative 4 ............................................................. 4-39

Table 4-20. Instream Flow Requirements by Waterway ............................................................................. 4-41

Table 4-21. Instream Flow Requirements by Hydrologic Region ............................................................... 4-41

Table 4-22. CVPIA Refuge Water Supplies ............................................................................................... 4-48

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xix

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 4-23 . Ranges of Applied Water on Central Valley Managed Wetlands............................................. 4-51

Table 4-24. Wetlands Water Use by Hydrologic Region ............................................................................ 4-51

Table 4-25. Applied Environmental Water Use by Hydrologic Region ...................................................... 4-51

Table 4-26. California Average Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region ...................................................... 4-52

Table 4-27. California Drought Year Water Use by Hydrologic Region ..................................................... 4-52

Table 4A-1. Types of Local Supply Water Agencies in California ...............................................................4A-1

Table 4A-2. Urban Water Demand Price Elasticity Studies........................................................................4A-4

Table 4A-3. DWR Survey of 1996 Agricultural Surface Water Costs .........................................................4A-5

Table 4A-4. Average Water Costs as a Percent of Total Production Costs for Selected Crops

in the Tulare Lake Region .........................................................................................................................4A-6

Table 4A-5. Price Elasticities for Surface Water Irrigation Demand ...........................................................4A-6

Table 4B-1. BMP Revisions ...................................................................................................................... 4B-2

Table 4B-2. BMP Water Savings Assumptions .......................................................................................... 4B-8

Table 5-1. Distribution of Residential Indoor Water Use ............................................................................ 5-2

Table 5-2. Water Recycling Plants with a Capacity of at Least 10 mgd ...................................................... 5-14

Table 5-3. Sample Desalting Plants ........................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-4. Examples of Contaminated Groundwater Treatment Sites ........................................................ 5-19

Table 6-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs................................................... 6-2

Table 6-2. 1991 Urban Water Shortage Management.................................................................................. 6-7

Table 6-3. Urban Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options Beyond BMPs ....... 6-9

Table 6-4. Agricultural Depletion Reduction Potential Due to Water Conservation Options

Beyond EWMPs ....................................................................................................................................... 6-12

Table 6-5. CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options .................................................................. 6-24

Table 6-6. Sample of Potential Water Purchases ........................................................................................ 6-29

Table 6-7. Drought Water Bank Summary ................................................................................................ 6-30

Table 6-8. 2020 Level Water Recycling Options and Resulting New Water Supply ................................... 6-32

Table 6-9. Potential 2020 Water Recycling Options by Hydrologic Region ............................................... 6-33

Table 6-10. Statewide Supply Augmentation Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020 ........................ 6-38

Table 6-11. Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Average Year ... 6-39

Table 6-12. Likely Statewide Supply Augmentation Options by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Drought Year . 6-39

Table 6-13. Effects of Alternative Assumptions on 2020 Applied Water Shortages .................................... 6-40

Table 6-14. Environmental Restoration Funding ...................................................................................... 6-42

Table 6-15. Sample Projects Funded by Category III Program .................................................................. 6-45

Table 6-16. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ............................... 6-48

Table 6-17. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size ................................ 6-48

Table 6-18. Major State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs .......................................................... 6-50

Table 6-19. Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ................................. 6-51

Table 6-20. Financing Methods Typically Available to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size .................... 6-52

Table 6-21. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership ................. 6-52

Table 6A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..............................6A-2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xx

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 6A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-2

Table 6A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............................6A-2

Table 6A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ...............................6A-3

Table 6A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-3

Table 6A-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................6A-3

Table 6A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................................6A-4

Table 6A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................6A-4

Table 6A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs .........................6A-4

Table 6A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................6A-5

Table 6B-1. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 1995-Level Average Year ............................. 6B-2

Table 6B-2. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 1995-Level Drought Year............................6B-2

Table 6B-3. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 2020-Level Average Year ............................. 6B-3

Table 6B-4. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 2020-Level Drought Year............................6B-3

Table 6C-1. Sample Cost Computation ................................................................................................... 6C-2

Table 6D-1. Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Average Year .............................. 6D-2

Table 6D-2. Minimum New Water Needs by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Drought Year ............................ 6D-2

Table 6E-1. North Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs........................ 6E-2

Table 6E-2. San Francisco Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ...................... 6E-2

Table 6E-3. Central Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs...................... 6E-2

Table 6E-4. South Coast Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ........................ 6E-3

Table 6E-5. Sacramento River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................ 6E-3

Table 6E-6. San Joaquin River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ............... 6E-3

Table 6E-7. Tulare Lake Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ......................... 6E-4

Table 6E-8. North Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs.................. 6E-4

Table 6E-9. South Lahontan Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs .................. 6E-4

Table 6E-10. Colorado River Region Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ................. 6E-5

Table 6E-11. California Net Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs ..................................... 6E-5

Table 6F-1. Agricultural Depletion Reductions Due to Land Retirement .................................................. 6F-2

Table 6F-2. Costs of Land Retirement ...................................................................................................... 6F-2

Table 6F-3. Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 1 Economic Impacts .................................................... 6F-3

Table 6F-4. Land Retirement Analysis—Scenario 2 Economic Impacts .................................................... 6F-3

Table 6G-1. Onstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta ............................................................... 6G-2

Table 6G-2. Retained Onstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues............................................ 6G-4

Table 6G-3. Offstream Storage Options Upstream of the Delta ............................................................... 6G-5

Table 6G-4. Retained Offstream Storage Options and Environmental Issues ........................................... 6G-6

Table 6G-5. Watersheds Identified for South of the Delta Storage Options ............................................ 6G-10

Table 6G-6. South of the Delta Off-Aqueduct Storage Size Categories................................................... 6G-10

Table 6G-7. Ranking of Off-Aqueduct Storage Options South of the Delta ........................................... 6G-11

Table 6G-8. Retained Off-Aqueduct Storage Option South of the Delta................................................ 6G-12

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 7-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 7-3

Table 7-2. North Coast Region Water Budget ............................................................................................. 7-4

Table 7-3. North Coast Region List of Water Management Options ........................................................... 7-9

Table 7-4. Options Ranking for North Coast Region ................................................................................ 7-12

Table 7-5. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, North Coast Region............................................ 7-12

Table 7-6. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 7-15

Table 7-7. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget .................................................................................. 7-16

Table 7-8. Major North Bay Water Suppliers ............................................................................................ 7-17

Table 7-9 . Local Agency Reservoirs Serving the North Bay ...................................................................... 7-17

Table 7-10. Major South Bay Water Suppliers ........................................................................................... 7-18

Table 7-11. Local Surface Reservoirs Serving the South Bay ...................................................................... 7-18

Table 7-12. San Francisco Bay Region List of Water Management Options .............................................. 7-25

Table 7-13. Options Ranking for San Francisco Bay Region ..................................................................... 7-30

Table 7-14. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, San Francisco Bay Region ................................. 7-31

Table 7-15. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 7-34

Table 7-16. Central Coast Region Water Budget ....................................................................................... 7-34

Table 7-17. Central Coast Region List of Water Management Options ..................................................... 7-38

Table 7-18. Options Ranking for Central Coast Region ............................................................................ 7-43

Table 7-19. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Central Coast Region........................................ 7-44

Table 7-20. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 7-47

Table 7-21. South Coast Region Water Budget ......................................................................................... 7-48

Table 7-22. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Member Agencies .................................. 7-49

Table 7-23. State Water Project Contractors in the South Coast Region .................................................... 7-50

Table 7-24. Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Region .......................................................................... 7-51

Table 7-25. Reservoirs Owned by Water Retailers in MWDSC’s Service Area ........................................... 7-51

Table 7-26. San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies ........................................................... 7-52

Table 7-27. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the South Coast Region ................................................. 7-55

Table 7-28. Salinity of South Coast Region Groundwater Supplies ........................................................... 7-59

Table 7-29. South Coast Region List of Water Management Options ....................................................... 7-64

Table 7-30. Options Ranking for South Coast Region .............................................................................. 7-72

Table 7-31. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, South Coast Region .......................................... 7-73

Table 7A-1. Options Evaluation North Coast Region ...............................................................................7A-2

Table 7A-2. Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region .......................................................................7A-3

Table 7A-3. Options Evaluation Central Coast Region .............................................................................7A-5

Table 7A-4. Options Evaluation South Coast Region ................................................................................7A-7

Table 8-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 8-3

Table 8-2. Sacramento River Region Water Budget ..................................................................................... 8-4

Table 8-3. Major Sacramento River CVP Water Users ................................................................................ 8-5

Table 8-4. Sacramento River Region List of Water Management Options ................................................. 8-16

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 8-5. Options Ranking for Sacramento River Region ........................................................................ 8-20

Table 8-6. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Sacramento River Region .................................... 8-21

Table 8-7. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 8-23

Table 8-8. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget .................................................................................. 8-23

Table 8-9. New Melones Releases for CVPIA Environmental Purposes ..................................................... 8-31

Table 8-10. San Joaquin River Region List of Water Management Options............................................... 8-36

Table 8-11. Comparison of Salinity of Water Sources................................................................................ 8-39

Table 8-12. Options Ranking for San Joaquin River Region ..................................................................... 8-40

Table 8-13. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, San Joaquin River Region ................................. 8-41

Table 8-14. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 8-43

Table 8-15. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget .......................................................................................... 8-45

Table 8-16. Tulare Lake Region List of Water Management Options......................................................... 8-48

Table 8-17. Options Ranking for Tulare Lake Region ............................................................................... 8-53

Table 8-18. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Tulare Lake Region ........................................... 8-53

Table 8A-1. Options Evaluation Sacramento River Region .......................................................................8A-2

Table 8A-2. Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region .......................................................................8A-3

Table 8A-3. Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region .................................................................................8A-4

Table 9-1. Population and Crop Acreage ..................................................................................................... 9-3

Table 9-2. North Lahontan Region Water Budget ....................................................................................... 9-4

Table 9-3. Major Reservoirs in the Truckee River Basin in California .......................................................... 9-5

Table 9-4. North Lahontan Region List of Water Management Options ................................................... 9-10

Table 9-5. Options Ranking for North Lahontan Region .......................................................................... 9-12

Table 9-6. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, North Lahontan Region...................................... 9-12

Table 9-7. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................... 9-16

Table 9-8. South Lahontan Region Water Budget ..................................................................................... 9-17

Table 9-9. Los Angeles Aqueduct System Reservoirs.................................................................................. 9-17

Table 9-10. SWP Contractors in the South Lahontan Region ................................................................... 9-17

Table 9-11. South Lahontan Region List of Water Management Options ................................................. 9-23

Table 9-12. Options Ranking for South Lahontan Region ........................................................................ 9-25

Table 9-13. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, South Lahontan Region .................................... 9-25

Table 9-14. Population and Crop Acreage ................................................................................................. 9-27

Table 9-15. Colorado River Region Water Budget .................................................................................... 9-28

Table 9-16. Key Elements of the Law of the River..................................................................................... 9-29

Table 9-17. Annual Apportionment of Use of Colorado River Water ........................................................ 9-30

Table 9-18. Estimated Colorado River Flow and Uses ............................................................................... 9-31

Table 9-19. SWP Contractors in the Colorado River Region .................................................................... 9-32

Table 9-20. Existing Colorado River Region Water Conservation Actions ................................................. 9-36

Table 9-21. Colorado River Region List of Water Management Options................................................... 9-41

Table 9-22. Potential Colorado River Water Conservation Programs......................................................... 9-42

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxiii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Table 9-23. Options Ranking for Colorado River Region ......................................................................... 9-48

Table 9-24. Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, Colorado River Region ..................................... 9-48

Table 9-25. Future Actions Described in Bulletin 160-98 That Could be Part of

Draft CRB 4.4 Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................ 9-48

Table 9A-1. Options Evaluation North Lahontan Region .........................................................................9A-2

Table 9A-2. Options Evaluation South Lahontan Region ..........................................................................9A-3

Table 9A-3. Options Evaluation Colorado River Region ...........................................................................9A-4

Table 10-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs............................................... 10-2

Table 10-2. Applied Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region

With Existing Facilities and Programs ....................................................................................................... 10-4

Table 10-3. Summary of Options Likely to be Implemented by 2020, by Option Type ............................ 10-7

Table 10-4. California Water Budget with Options Likely to be Implemented .......................................... 10-8

Table 10-5. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region With Likely Options ................................................. 10-9

Table 10A-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Options...............................................................10A-2

Table 10A-2. San Francisco Bay Region Water Budget with Options ......................................................10A-2

Table 10A-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Options.............................................................10A-2

Table 10A-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Options ...............................................................10A-3

Table 10A-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Options .......................................................10A-3

Table 10A-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Options ......................................................10A-3

Table 10A-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Options ................................................................10A-4

Table 10A-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options.........................................................10A-4

Table 10A-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Options .........................................................10A-4

Table 10A-10. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Options ........................................................10A-5

Figures

Figure 1-1. California in Relation to the United States ................................................................................ 1-3

Figure 1-2. California’s Expected Population Growth Versus Neighboring States’ Populations ..................... 1-4

Figure 1-3. Relief Map of California ........................................................................................................... 1-5

Figure 1-4. California’s Major Water Projects .............................................................................................. 1-7

Figure 1-5. California’s Hydrologic Regions ................................................................................................ 1-9

Figure 3-1. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff ......................................................... 3-3

Figure 3-2. Regional Imports and Exports, 1995 Level of Development ..................................................... 3-4

Figure 3-3. Northern Sierra Eight Station Precipitation Index ..................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3-4. Sacramento Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff............................................................................. 3-6

Figure 3-5. San Joaquin Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff ............................................................................ 3-7

Figure 3-6. Eight River Index Computed for January 1906-96 ................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3-7. Disposition of California’s Average Annual Precipitation ......................................................... 3-13

Figure 3-8. Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area ......................................... 3-15

Figure 3-9. Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Coastal Area........................................ 3-16

Figure 3-10. Illustration of Applied and Net Water Methodologies: Inland Area

with High Efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 3-17

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxiv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Figure 3-11. Statewide Distribution of Precipitation for Water Years 1990 and 1992 ................................ 3-20

Figure 3-12. Colorado River Unimpaired Runoff at Lee Ferry Compact Point .......................................... 3-21

Figure 3-13. CVP and SWP Deliveries During 1987-92 Drought ............................................................ 3-21

Figure 3-14. Selected Reservoir Storage During 1987-92 Drought ............................................................ 3-22

Figure 3-15. Major Central Valley Project Facilities ................................................................................... 3-26

Figure 3-16. Central Valley Project Service Areas ...................................................................................... 3-28

Figure 3-17. Central Valley Project Deliveries ........................................................................................... 3-29

Figure 3-18. 1995 and 2020 Central Valley Project Delivery Capability South of Delta

with Existing Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 3-29

Figure 3-19. Major State Water Project Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-31

Figure 3-20. State Water Project Service Areas........................................................................................... 3-32

Figure 3-21. State Water Project Deliveries ............................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 3-22. 1995 and 2020 State Water Project Delivery Capability with Existing Facilities .................... 3-33

Figure 3-23. Colorado River Watershed in United States .......................................................................... 3-34

Figure 3-24. Colorado River Service Areas ................................................................................................ 3-36

Figure 3-25. Lake Oroville Flood Control Operating Diagram ................................................................. 3-44

Figure 3-26. 1995 Level Central Valley Project Delivery Capability South of Delta Under

D-1485 and WR 95-6 .............................................................................................................................. 3-45

Figure 3-27. 1995 Level State Water Project Delivery Capability Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 ................ 3-45

Figure 3-28. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins .......................................................................................... 3-54

Figure 4-1. California Applied Water Use and Depletion ............................................................................ 4-3

Figure 4-2. Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995-2020 ........................................................................ 4-5

Figure 4-3. Components of Population Growth, 1940-95 ........................................................................... 4-6

Figure 4-4. Statewide Average Per Capita Urban Water Production Over Time ......................................... 4-12

Figure 4-5. Ranges of Applied Water and Evapotranspiration of Applied Water ........................................ 4-19

Figure 4-6. Typical Land Use Survey Map ................................................................................................. 4-23

Figure 4-7. General Trends in Cropping Patterns Over Time .................................................................... 4-24

Figure 4-8. Changes in Land Use Over Time, DAU 233 ........................................................................... 4-27

Figure 4-9. Areas of Shallow Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley ........................................................ 4-29

Figure 4-10. California Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................... 4-35

Figure 4-11. Annual Delta Inflow and Outflow 1980-96 .......................................................................... 4-43

Figure 4-12. Bay-Delta Estuary ................................................................................................................. 4-44

Figure 4-13. Publicly-Owned Fresh Water Wetlands ................................................................................. 4-50

Figure 4C-1. Sample Urban Water Production Data ................................................................................ 4C-1

Figure 4C-2. Actual and Normalized Production Data ............................................................................. 4C-3

Figure 5-1. Recent Structural Fishery Improvements ................................................................................. 5-25

Figure 6-1. Index to Regional Chapters ....................................................................................................... 6-3

Figure 6G-1. Likely Reservoir Sites Upstream of the Delta ....................................................................... 6G-8

Figure 6G-2. Off-Aqueduct South of the Delta Watershed Sites............................................................. 6G-13

Figure 7-1. Coastal Hydrologic Regions ...................................................................................................... 7-1

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxv

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Figure 7-2. North Coast Hydrologic Region ............................................................................................... 7-2

Figure 7-3. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ..................................................................................... 7-14

Figure 7-4. Central Coast Hydrologic Region. .......................................................................................... 7-32

Figure 7-5. South Coast Hydrologic Region.............................................................................................. 7-46

Figure 7-6. South Coast Groundwater Basins............................................................................................ 7-53

Figure 8-1. Interior Hydrologic Regions...................................................................................................... 8-1

Figure 8-2. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ....................................................................................... 8-2

Figure 8-3. San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region ..................................................................................... 8-22

Figure 8-4. Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region ............................................................................................... 8-42

Figure 9-1. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Hydrologic Regions............................................................. 9-1

Figure 9-2. North Lahontan Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................... 9-2

Figure 9-3. South Lahontan Hydrologic Region........................................................................................ 9-14

Figure 9-4. Colorado River Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................... 9-26

Figure 9-5. Basic Apportionment and Consumptive Use of Mainstem Colorado River in Lower Basin ..... 9-31

Figure 9-6. U.S.-Mexican Border Region .................................................................................................. 9-43

Figure 10-1. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with

Existing Facilities and Programs ................................................................................................................ 10-5

Figure 10-2. 2020 Shortages by Hydrologic Region with Likely Options ................................................ 10-10

Sidebars

Summary of Key Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 1-2

California’s Largest Water Retailers.............................................................................................................. 1-6

California Water Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 1-8

California’s Hydrologic Regions ................................................................................................................ 1-10

A California Water Chronology ................................................................................................................ 1-11

CVPIA’s Dedicated Water ........................................................................................................................... 2-9

CVPIA Waterfowl Habitat Provisions ....................................................................................................... 2-10

An Example of Water Year Classifications ................................................................................................... 3-8

Key Water Supply and Water Use Definitions ........................................................................................... 3-12

Operations Studies .................................................................................................................................... 3-19

Auburn Dam—Planned, But Not Constructed ......................................................................................... 3-24

Colorado River Reservoir Operations ........................................................................................................ 3-37

Federal Flood Control Operating Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-44

Typical Groundwater Production Conditions ........................................................................................... 3-49

Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley ............................................................................................... 3-52

Seawater Intrusion in Orange County ....................................................................................................... 3-53

Summary of Key Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 4-2

Landscape Water Use .................................................................................................................................. 4-8

Urban Best Management Practices (1997 Revision) .................................................................................. 4-10

Highlights of the Urban MOU ................................................................................................................. 4-11

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxvi

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Efficient Water Management Practices for Agricultural Water Suppliers in California ............................... 4-20

California’s Nursery Industry .................................................................................................................... 4-24

Water Use Impacts from Urbanization of Agricultural Lands, a San Joaquin Valley Example .................... 4-26

Agroforestry Research ............................................................................................................................... 4-30

Alfalfa and Market Conditions.................................................................................................................. 4-31

Environmental Water Use—An American River Example ......................................................................... 4-38

CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration Program ........................................................................................ 4-40

Recovery Efforts for Winter-Run Chinook Salmon ................................................................................... 4-42

California Wetlands Conservation Policy .................................................................................................. 4-47

Definition of Irrigation Terms ..................................................................................................................... 5-5

Gravity (Surface) Irrigation Systems ............................................................................................................ 5-6

Pressurized (Piped) Irrigation Systems ......................................................................................................... 5-8

San Diego Water Repurification Program ................................................................................................. 5-16

Seawater Desalting—Marina Coast Water District .................................................................................... 5-18

Remediation of Nitrate Contamination—City of McFarland.................................................................... 5-19

Remediation of Volatile Organics Contamination—McClellan Air Force Base.......................................... 5-20

Remediation of Pesticide and Fertilizer Contamination—Occidental Chemical Manufacturing Facility ... 5-20

Behavioral Barrier Demonstration Projects ................................................................................................ 5-27

Initial Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 6-4

Options Category Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6-5

Data on Urban Landscaping ....................................................................................................................... 6-8

CALFED Water Conservation Planning ................................................................................................... 6-11

Land Retirement in Drainage-Impaired Areas ........................................................................................... 6-13

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Common Programs .................................................................................... 6-15

Prospects for Onstream Surface Storage Upstream of the Delta ................................................................. 6-18

Feasibility Study for American Basin Conjunctive Use Project .................................................................. 6-25

Is That Real Water? ................................................................................................................................... 6-26

Water Code Section 1810 et seq. ............................................................................................................... 6-28

Seawater Desalting as a Future Water Management Option ...................................................................... 6-34

Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project ................................. 6-34

Monterey County Water Resources Agency’s Cloud Seeding Program ....................................................... 6-35

San Diego Area Water Reclamation Programs ........................................................................................... 7-69

Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility................................................................................. 7-70

Sacramento River Flood Control Project ................................................................................................... 8-10

Grasslands Bypass Project Drainage Fee System ........................................................................................ 8-32

Westlands Water District Distribution System .......................................................................................... 8-50

Water Marketing—WaterLink Program .................................................................................................... 8-52

Searles Lake............................................................................................................................................... 9-19

Colorado River Board of California .......................................................................................................... 9-35

Reservoir Reoperation for Flood Control .................................................................................................. 10-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxvii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Pete Wilson, Governor

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

David N. Kennedy, Director

Raymond D. Hart Robert G. Potter Stephen L. Kashiwada

Deputy Director Chief Deputy Director Deputy Director

L. Lucinda Chipponeri Susan N. Weber

Assistant Director for Legislation Chief Counsel

DIVISION OF PLANNING AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

William J. Bennett, Chief

This Bulletin was prepared under the direction of

Jeanine Jones . .......................................................................................................... Chief, Statewide Planning

by

Naser Bateni ...................................................................................Former Chief, Water Resources Evaluation

Paul Hutton ................................................................................................ Chief, Water Resources Evaluation

Waiman Yip ............................................................................................................................. Senior Engineer

Bob Zettlemoyer ......................................................................................................................Senior Engineer

assisted by

Barbara Cross Tom Hawkins Dick Neal

Steve Cowdin Ray Hoagland Virginia Sajac

Dan Fua Scott Matyac Clara Silva

with assistance on special topics or studies by

Manucher Alemi Farhad Farnam Richard Le

Linton Brown Marla Hambright Claire LeFlore

Randy Brown Darryl Hayes Jim Rich

Ed Craddock Dale Hoffman-Floerke Maurice Roos

Baryohay Davidoff Steve Kasower Ray Tom

John Kramer

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxviii

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

Data collection and regional information provided by Department District offices

Northern District

Naser Bateni, Chief

assisted by

X. Tito Cervantes Douglas Denton Glen Pearson

Andrew Corry Todd Hillaire Eugene Pixley

Central District

Karl Winkler, Chief

assisted by

Alan Aguilar Al Lind Doug Osugi

Emil Calzascia Ed Morris James Wieking

Toccoy Dudley

San Joaquin District

Lou Beck, Chief

assisted by

Jack Erickson Brian Smith Ernie Taylor

Robert Polgar Arvey Swanson Iris Yamagata

David Scruggs

Southern District

Charles White, Chief

assisted by

Glenn Berquist Vern Knoop Mark Stuart

Sergio Fierro Kelly Lawler Garret Tam Sing

David Inouye Michael Maisner

Editorial, design, and production services were provided by

Nikki Blomquist Teresa Chaney Joanne Pierce

John Carter Mike Miller Therese Tynan

Photography provided by

Department of Water Resources, Photography Unit

Peter Stoiber, Supervising Photographer

Paul Hames Dale Kolke Stephen Payer

Norm Hughes

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
xxix

The California Water Plan Update BULLETIN 160-98

State of California

The Resources Agency

Department of Water Resources

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION

Daniel F. Kriege Stanley M. Barnes

Chair, Capitola Vice Chair, Visalia

Donald C. Cecil ................................................................................................................................... Willows

George Gowgani, Ph.D........................................................................................................... San Luis Obispo

Homer F. Lundberg ............................................................................................................................ Richvale

Michael D. Madigan ........................................................................................................................ San Diego

Martin A. Matich..................................................................................................................... San Bernardino

Sayre M. Miller ....................................................................................................................................... Clovis

Raymond E. Barsch, Executive Officer

The California Water Commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Director of the Department of Water Resources on all California water resources matters. The nine-member citizen commission provides a water resources forum for the people of the State, acts as a liaison between the

legislative and executive branches of State government, and coordinates federal, State, and local water

resources efforts.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A