**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

SAN LUIS OBISPO

SANTA BARBARA SAN BENITO

MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ Flow in TAF
1998 83 2000 113 2001 152 **San Joaquin River Region**

San Felipe Unit (CVP)

Flow in TAF
1998 25 2000 31 2001 28 **Tulare Lake Region** Coastal Branch California Aqueduct (SWP) Flow in TAF
1998 66 2000 89 2001 133 **San Francisco Bay Region**

San Felipe Unit (CVP)

**Some Statistics** Area - 11,326 square miles (7.1% of State) Average annual precipitation - 18.7 inches Year 2000 population - 1,459,205 2030 population projection - 1,890,390 Total reservoir storage capacity - 1,227 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 603,620 acres .

.

.

.

.

. **Figure 4-1 Central Coast Hydrologic Region**

The Central Coast Hydrologic Region extends from San Mateo to S anta Barbara counties and is within the Coast Range. Arrows ind icate annual flows entering and leaving the region for water years 19 98, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF
1998 328 2000 276 2001 232 **Outflow to Ocean***

*Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows.1 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 4 Central Coast Hydrologic Region

portion is also in San Luis Obispo County. The Salinas and Santa Maria valleys are the premier agricultural production areas of the Central Coast. Other significant interior lowlands include San Benito Valley in the far north, the inland CuyamaValley shared by San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara count ies, and the Lompoc and Santa Ynez valleys in Santa Barbara County. The single largest lowland in the region is the Carrizo Plain in the eastern backcountry of San Luis Obispo County. The Carrizo Plain is a very wide basin on the otherwise fairly narrow but notorious San Andreas Fault Zone, which runs the length of the region.

The Central Coast’s rivers generally have a northwestsoutheast alignment, reflecting the topographic trend of the region’s mountains and hills. The Pajaro, Carmel, and Salinas rivers drain the northern part of this region, the Estrella River and San Juan Creek are in the central portion, and the Cuyama, Santa Maria, and Santa Ynez rivers are in the southern portion. All of the rivers within this hydrologic region drain into the Pacific Ocean.



## Climate
The climate of the Central Coast region remains temperate all year due to its location adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The Central Coast has a Mediterranean climate characterized by mild, wet winters, and warm, dry summers. The regional climate is dominated by a strong and persistent high-pressure system that frequently lies off the Pacific coast. This Pacific high shifts northward or southward in response to seasonal changes or the presence of cyclonic storms. Prevailing winds carry cool,humid marine air onshore. These northwest winds cause frequent fog and low clouds near the coast, particularly at night and in the morning in the late spring and early summer. San Benito County is the only county in the region that does not have a coastline. As a result, temperatures are often higher and fog is prevalent than in the other coastal counties. 

## Setting The Central Coast Hydrologic Region extends from southern
S an Mateo County in the north to Santa Barbara County in the south (see Figure 4-1). The region includes all of Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties and parts of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Ventura counties. Many attributes define the Central Coast region including: the topography, many microclimates, the variety of agricultural products, and the picturesque coastline, valleys and communities that drive a thriving tourism economy.

Most of the Central Coast region is within the coastal mountain ranges, which stretch from the northern part ofthe region into San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. The portion of the Coast Ranges nearest to the ocean is the Santa Lucia Range, where elevations of a few peaks exceed 4,000 feet. Inland Coast Ranges are composed of the Gabilan and Diablo ranges in the north, the Cholame Hills in the center, and the Temblor and La Panza ranges in the south. The San Rafael and Sierra Madre mountains cover nearly three-quarters of Santa Barbara County. The southernmost quarter of Santa Barbara County is covered by the Santa Ynez Mountains, which are a component of another landform, the east-west trending Transverse Ranges.The mountains in eastern Santa Barbara County attain elevations of about 7,000 feet.

L owlands in the region include narrow streambeds winding to the coast, coastal terraces and plains of varying sizes, and a few larger river valleys. The largest lowland near the coast is the Salinas Valley. Although less than 10 miles wide for most of its length, it stretches for 120 miles from the community of Moss Landing on Monterey Bay southeastward to near the community of Santa Margarita in San Luis Obispo County. Pajaro Valley is a smaller coastal valley adjacent to the Salinas Valley on the north side of Monterey Bay. Another large lowland near the coast is Santa Maria Valley, which straddles the Santa Maria River. Most of this valley is in Santa Barbara County, but aCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 2 4 January is the coolest month with an average high temperature of 59 degrees and low temperature of 41 degrees. September is the warmest month with 72 degrees as the average high temperature and 52 degrees lowest. In the northern part of the region, the best weather occurs in September and extends through the middle of November with a few days getting into the 80s and 90s. Summer temperatures are cool along the coast and warmer inland. In the winter, temperatures remaincool along the coast but become cooler inland. The yearround, frost-free climate of the coastal valleys makes them ideal for specialty crops such as strawberries and artichokes.

Annual precipitation—usually rain—in the region ranges from 14 to 45 inches. Most of the rain occurs between late November and mid-April. The average annual precipitation near Salinas is about 14 inches. The southern interior basins usually receive 5 to 10 inches per year, with the mountainareas receiving more rainfall than the valley floors. The vineyard-growing areas throughout the region generally have summers that are long and cool due to the influence of the ocean. High-quality wine grapes thrive in this environment with very moderate climate all summer, with foggy mornings, bright sunshine through the afternoon, and very windy afternoons and early evenings.

The Monterey area, in general, enjoys the mildest climate with the fewest hot and cold days of any place in the continental United States. A prevailing feature of summer weather is the coastal fog or stratus overcast. The low overcast or fog usually burns off in the late morning and moves back in before midnight. During the winter, the coolest areas are inland away from the ocean. Winds are lightest in the winter and strongest in the summer, except for occasional storms.

The most prominent feature in the region is the floor of the Salin as Valley, which is about 7 miles wide at Chualar, 9 miles wide at Greenfield, and 4 miles wide at King City. The microclimatein these coastal areas (Salinas, Pajaro, and Santa Maria valMost of the Central Coast region is within the coastal mountain ranges, which stretch from the northern part of the region into San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. Lone Cypress is a landmark on the Monterey Peninsula. (DWR Photo)3 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

leys) is ideal for growing truck crops and are well known for growing lettuce, broccoli, mushrooms, strawberries, citrus, and several other crops. The microclimate in these coastal areas is also ideal for the fl oral industry and grape vineyards.

At the very southern end of the region is Santa Barbara County. Summers are warm and dry; the winters are cool and often wet. The county has a unique physical orientation, with a series of east-west transverse mountain ranges. This can sometimes produce a profound orographic effect when storms approach the county from the Pacifi c Ocean. Most rain occurs between November and March. For the most part, Santa Barbara County receives relatively gentle but steady rainfall during storm events.
M oist air from the Pacifi c Ocean moderates temperatures in the coastal areas, and somewhat lower winter minimums and higher summer maximums prevail in the inland valleys.



## Population
The population of the Central Coast Region was about1,459,200 in 2000, slightly more than 4 percent of California’s population. About 65 percent of the Central Coast population lives in incorporated cities, which include Salinas (143,800), Santa Barbara (89,600), Santa Maria (77,400), Santa Cruz (54,600), San Luis Obispo (44,200), Lompoc (41,100), Watsonville (44,300), Hollister (34,400), Seaside (33,500), Monterey (29,700), Atascadero (26,400), and Paso Robles (24,300). There are several communities in the region with populations of fewer than 20,000.

Califor nia experienced a population increase approaching 14 percent from 1990 to 2000, while the growth in Central Coast Region was nearly 14 percent. Most of the counties in the Central Coast region reached double-digit population growth rates during these 10 years. The only county with a growth rate below double digits, according to Department of Finance population statistics, was Santa Barbara County, which grew by slightly less than 9 percent. San Benito County exceeded all other counties by recording a 46 percent increase during the decade. The population growth rates for Monterey County, San Luis Obispo County and Santa Cruz County were 13 percent, 14 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. Looking to the future, California Department of Finance estimates that the population of this hydrologic region will grow to roughly 1,890,400 by year 2030, which represents a 30 percent increase from 2000. Figure 4-2 **Figure 4-2 Central Coast Hydrologic Region population**

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000, and population projection for 2030 for the Central Coast region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 4 provides a graphical depiction of the Central Coast Region’s population from year 1960 through 2000, with projections to year 2030.

Population growth in the region is largely constrained byland-use policies, which limits the development of new housing. The cost of homes in most of the region is well above the national average, with the most costly real estate near the Santa Cruz and Monterey bays, Santa Barbara and greater Salinas area. As with most communities facing high real estate prices, there is a lack of entry and mid-level housing. Prices have been driven up by a lack of new development combined with a high demand by people moving into this region. The high cost of housing in the city of Santa Barbara is resulting in a ‘flight to affordability,’ as more workers are commuting into the city from nearby Santa Maria and the Santa Ynez Valley. Likewise, workers also commute to jobs in the major metropolitan areas from communities such as Salinas, Hollister, and some locations in the San Joaquin Valley, including Tracy, Los Banos, Patterson, and Modesto.



## Land Use
The busy topography of the Central Coast Region and distance from California’s major population centers have resulted in a landscape that is primarily pastoral and agricultural. Majoreconomic activities include tourism, agricultural-related proc essing, as well as government and service-sector employment. Oil production and transportation sites onshore and offshore are important to the economy.

Agriculture in the Central Coast region can be divided into two distinct categories. One is irrigated vegetable and specialty crops grown on coastal terraces and valleys and in some inland valleys; and the other category is range pasture and dry-farmed grain in the inland valleys. The acreage planted in wine grape is expanding rapidly and now represents theregion’s highest-value individual agricultural commodity. Viney

ard acreage region-wide grew 34 percent between 1998 and 2001. Although wine grapes are the highest-value individual agricultural commodity in the region, the category of vegetablecrops still generates the highest dollar value. Livestock operations, mainly cattle, also are significant in the region.

T otal irrigated land acreage in the Central Coast region has increased slightly from 422,000 acres in 1990 to 438,800 acres in 2000, or about 4 percent. However, because of the significant increase in the practice of growing multiple crops in a single year on the same piece of land, the total crop acreage increased from 534,400 acres in 1990 to 605,000 acres in 2000, a 13 percent increase. This increase in farm productivity through multi-cropping is a practice that is applied primarily to vegetable crops because of their relatively short growing season.

T he acreage of field crops in the region has been declining for several years. It is now rare to find sugar beets grown in the region, and the two processing plants in Spreckles and Santa Maria that once took delivery of local sugar beets have both closed. Other field crops whose production has declined are corn, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. However, the loss of field crop acreage has been offset by the increases in vegetable and truck crops. According to Monterey County Agricultural Commission statistics, lettuce acreage was 58,000 acres in 1990, and by year 2000 it had increased to 106,000 acres. Value-added products such as packaged salads, baby lettuce mixes, and specialty bag mixes have created a large demand for the many types of lettuce grown in the region, as well as for specialty greens.

The two premier vegetable-growing centers in the Central Coast region are the highly productive Salinas Valley in thenorth and the smaller Santa Maria Valley in the south. Yearround multiple cropping of vegetables is the predominant farm practice in these areas. The results from a multiple cropping field study conducted by the Department of Water Resources in the Salinas Valley in 1997 indicated that more than 100,000 acres was multiple cropped, which is about 40 percent of the irrigated land in the northern half of this hydrologic region.

From 1992 to 1998, the region lost more than 14,400 acres of agricultural land to urban uses (California Department of Conservation figures). However, growers have compensatedfor the loss of agricultural land through increased use of multicropping and the use of nonirrigated pasture lands. In 2001 over 250,000 acres of land was devoted to the production of irrigated vegetables and specialty crops. However, because of multi-cropping practices, over 400,000 acres of specialty crops were harvested.

Citrus and subtropical fruit crops, chiefly avocados and lemons, are grown on nearly 14,000 acres in the southern parts of this region. More than three-quarters of this acreage is near Santa Barbara. Nearly 14,000 acres of irrigated deciduous fruit trees, mostly walnuts, are also grown in the region, primarily in San Luis Obispo and San Benito counties. Vineyard acreage is evenly distributed between the northernand southern parts of the region. However, the vineyard acreage in the southern areas has grown rapidly from 27,1005 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

acres in 1998 to 46,500 acres in 2001. Total grape acreage for the full hydrologic region grew from 68,100 to 95,600 acres between 1998 and 2001. Wineries with tasting rooms have become an important part of the region’s travel and tourism industry.

Publicly owned lands, including military reservations, federally managed areas, and parks, make up about 28 percent of the Central Coast region. One of the main environmental water uses in the region is for the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, which is on 366 acres where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay. The refuge is part of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, headquartered in Fremont. Refuge lands include a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, including coastal dunes and beaches, grasslands, wetlands, and riparian scrub. Because this wildlife refuge is within the Pacific Flyway, itis used by a variety of migratory birds for breeding, wintering, and rest stops during migration. It also provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species.



## Water Supply and Use
Groundwater is the primary source of water in the region, accounting for roughly 75 percent of the annual supply in 2000. Local and some imported surface water supplies make up the rest of the available water for this region. A significant amount of groundwater recharge is provided by the Pajaro, Salinas, and Carmel rivers, and by the Arroyo Seco, whichflows into the Salinas River. Also, some water from local reservoirs is used to recharge groundwater. San Clemente and Los Padres dams on the Carmel River in Monterey County, San Antonio Dam on the San Antonio River, also in Monterey County, and Nacimiento Dam on the Nacimiento River in San Luis Obispo County are the region’s main reservoirs. Figure 4-3 shows all of the water supply sources used to meet developed water uses in the region for 1998, 2000, and 2001 and summarizes all of the dedicated and developed urban, agricultural and environmental water uses within this hydrologic region for those years.

W ater agencies in the northern half of this region includeMonterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peni nsula Water Management District, Marina Coast Water District, California American Water, California Water Service Co., Sunnyslope County Water District, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, the City of Santa Cruz, San Benito County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and a portion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Llagas subbasin). Water agencies in the southern parts of the region include the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and numerous cities,special districts, community services districts, and public utility companies. The Central Coast Water Authority is a larger regional agency that includes many of the individual water entities as members.

H istorically, almost all of the applied irrigation water was developed from groundwater until the San Felipe Unit of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project began importing surface water for irrigation in June 1987. The CVP’s contracts for deliveries to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Benito County Water District from the San Luis Reservoir total 196,300 acre-feet per year, which includes 138,250 acre-feet per year for municipal use and 58,050 acre-feet per year for agricultural uses. There are two other USBR projects in the region. The Cachuma Project provides Santa Ynez River water to the communities of Carpinteria, Goleta, Montecito, Santa Barbara, and Santa Ynez from the 190,000 acre-foot Cachuma Reservoir through the Tecolote Tunnel and South Coast Conduit. The USBR also operates the Santa Maria Project, which provides water from Twitchell Reservoir on the Cuyama River for irrigation purposes in the Santa Maria area. Another federal reservoir, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s 26,000 acre-foot Santa Margarita Lake provides water to the city of San Luis Obispo. The 40,700 acre-foot Whale Rock Reservoir near Cayucos is owned by the Whale Rock Commission and provides water to the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding communities. Surface water is also imported into the region through the State Water Project’s Coastal Branch Aqueduct, which was completed in 1997 and can deliver up to 70,500 acre-feet per year into San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.

C alifornia American Water, which is the primary urban watersupplier to about 100,000 residents on the Monterey Peninsula area, currently (year 2004) obtains about 75 percent of its water from wells in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer. The remaining 25 percent is supplied from wells in Seaside Basin groundwater aquifers. No water is produced by direct diversion from San Clemente Reservoir on the Carmel River as a result of operational changes due to dam seismic safety concerns. In recent years, the State Water Resources Control Board regulation has limited available supplies, such that new water supply sources must be developed before additionalregional growth can be supported. Although CaliforniaAmerican Water Company had previously proposed buildinga new dam on the Carmel River, the company is now studyCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 6 4 **Figure 4-3 Central Coast region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1998 2000 2001**Thousand Acre-Feet** Wild & Scenic R.

Instream Flow

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1998 2000 2001**Thousand Acre-Feet** Dedicated Environ

Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

State Project

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

Three years show a marked change in amount and relative proportions of water delivered to Central Coast region’s urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment (applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much water was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, bottom chart).7 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

ing an alternative plan called the Coastal Water Project. This project proposes an ocean desalination plant in the Monterey Bay region and development of a conjunctive groundwaterstorage program for the aquifer in the Seaside area. Additional planning studies, environmental impact analysis, and regulatory agency approvals must be completed before new water supply facilities can be completed.

D esalination of seawater is another source of water within this region. The 1987-1992 drought resulted in the construction of several small seawater desalting plants. The city of Santa Barbara built an 8-million gallons per day plant that was to provide water during water shortages. However, this plant is now inactive, and most of its equipment has been removed. A small plant also was built for the California Department of Parks and Recreation at the San Simeon Beach State Park to serve the Hearst Castle Visitor’s Center. That plant was removed when a surface water alternative was later acquired. The cityof Morro Bay built a seawater desalting plant and still operates it inter mittently during water shortages.

Today, there are seven small seawater-desalting plants along the Central Coast. Of these, only one, Marina Coast Water District, provides municipal water, but it is currently not being used. The other six provide water for offshore islands or for industrial use. There are several large (greater than 1-milliongallons per day) seawater desalting proposals under consideration by agencies in the Monterey-Santa Cruz area. If approved and constructed, the total capacity of these proposed plants could be about 20,000 acre-feet per year. Farther to the south, there is also a smaller desalting plant under study to supplement water supplies for the Cambria area.

W ater recycling is also becoming a more important water resource. For example, Santa Barbara County has threewastewater treatment plants that recycle wastewater for irrigation, and dust control and compaction at construction sites. In addition, Laguna Sanitation District is designing wastewater treatment and recycled water distribution plants that will be used to serve a golf course and several other irrigation water customers in the city of Santa Maria.

Monterey County has two major wastewater recycling projects.The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project provides approximately 19,000 acre-feet per year to replace coastal groundwater pumping for irrigating vegetables and fruit crops. The Carmel Area Wastewater District/Pebble Beach Community Services District Reclamation Project replaces approximately 700 acre-feet of potable water for golf courses and other open space in Pebble Beach. T able 4-1 provides information about the water and its uses in the region for 1998 (a very wet year), 2000 (a year with slightly above normal precipitation), and 2001 (a below average precipitation year for most of the state, but slightly above average for the Central Coast region). Agriculture is the main user of water in this region, accounting for roughly71 percent of the region’s total water use in year 2000. Environmental water use consists primarily of the river flows from two federally designated wild and scenic rivers, the Big Sur River and the Sisquoc River. Because the flow of these two rivers varies considerably depending on the type of water year, total environmental water use can be as much as 24 percent of all uses in a wetter year (1998), or as little as 5 percent of the total water use in a drier year. Urban water use is about 21 percent of the total developed and dedicated water uses in the Central Coast region.

P er capita urban water use in many parts of the region remains at or below urban usage levels from the late 1980s. This decline can be traced to the aggressive use of water conservation programs and mandatory water use reductions during the 1987-1992 drought. The city of Santa Barbara is a good example. Shortages from one of its major supplies, the Cachuma Reservoir Project, forced the city to intensify its conservation and rationing. In 1988, the average daily per capita water use for Santa Barbara was estimated at 164 gallons per day. That value dropped to 94 gallons per capita day during the worst part of the drought in 1990.More recently, year 2000 estimated water use was 133 gallons per day, which is still about 20 percent lower than per capita usage in 1988. Similar trends toward improved water conservation and lower per capita water use have occurred in many other urban areas of the Central Coast region.



## State of the Region Challenges With the Central Coast’s limited surface water supply and few large surface water storage facilities, the growing demand for water is leading to more dependence on groundwater. In some of the coastal groundwater basins, groundwater is pumped at a higher rate than the underground supply can be replenished, such that seawater has pushed into some coastal freshwater aquifers and is degrading groundwater quality. There are some places, such as the Seaside Groundwater Basin and the Carmel River Groundwater Basin in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, where seawater intrusion has been prevented by rigorous monitoring and management to limit groundwater well production to safe yields. However, inCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 8 4 **Water Entering the Region** Precipitation 25,202 12,596 11,848 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions 108 144 180 **Total 25,310 12,740 12,028 Water Leaving the Region**  Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 622 754 860 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions 66 89 133 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 174 95 49 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 154 181 183 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 24,502 12,362 11,688 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows
Total 25,518 13,481 12,913 Storage Changes in the Region [+] Water added to storage [-] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 401 8 -14 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -609 -749 -871 **Total -208 -741**  **-885**

**Applied Water *** (compare with Consumptive Use) 1,074 1,291 1,442

*Footnote for applied water

Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.

**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation:

GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals

This equation does not include the unknown factors such as nat ural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation) 1998 (225%) 2000 (110%) 2001 (107%) **Table 4-1 Central Coast Hydrologic Region water balance summary - TAF** 
Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in Region9 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

other coastal areas such as the mouth of the Salinas River, seawater intrusion into the groundwater aquifer is a major threat to water quality.

Unique coastal resources, such as Morro Bay and Monterey Bay, as well as the Salinas Valley, are the focus of water quality issues. Sedimentation poses the greatest water quality threat to Morro Bay, one of 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. The bay is also contaminated by pathogens from agriculture, boats, and urban runoff; nutrients from fertilizers,animal wastes, and urban runoff; heavy metals from abandoned mines in the upper watershed; and offshore boatyards that contaminate sediment. Elevated levels of bacteria have closed many of the shellfish growing beds in Morro Bay, and have occasionally closed beaches in Santa Cruz County and southern Santa Barbara County. To protect special areas of biological significance, waste discharges are prohibited or limited in portions of Monterey Bay, a National Marine Sanctuary, and other specific coastal and ocean waters of the region. In its triennial review, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board also identified the need to incorporate new microbiological standards for water-contact recreation in this region.

In the southern portion of Santa Clara County, elevated conc entrations of nitrate and perchlorate have been detected. The Santa Clara Valley Water District continues to implement a Nitrate Management Program to monitor nitrate occurrence,reduce nitrate exposure, and reduce nitrate loading througho ut Santa Clara County. The district also provides in-field technical assistance to the regions agricultural growers about nitrate and irrigation management. In late 2002, perchlorate (a chemical used in the manufacture of rocket fuel, road flares, and fireworks), emerged as a significant groundwater contaminant in the southern end of Santa Clara County. The known extent of this groundwater chemical plume extends 10 miles, and more than 800 water supply wells have been affected. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, local agencies, and affected communities to develop and implement a long-term corrective action plan.

T he Salinas River watershed has significant nitrate contaminat ion related to agriculture, the valley’s main land use. Groundwater overdraft is also a problem in the area, and seawater has now intruded 6 miles inland into the shallow groundwateraquifer around Castroville. The nearby Pajaro River watershed faces a variety of water quality threats, such as erosion (primarily from agricultural practices), urban runoff, sand and gravel mining, flood control projects, off-road vehicles, and historical mercury mining in the Hernandez Lake area. Coastal wetlands in Elkhorn Slough, a tributary to Monterey Bay between the Salinas and Pajaro rivers, suffer from ero

sion on strawberry and other cropped lands in its watershed. Elevated bacterial levels in the slough may be associated with a large dairy and waste operation in the watershed as well as septic tanks. In addition, more than 600 year-round vessels use the Moss Landing Harbor, which increases the waste load to the slough. The accumulated effects of these water qualityproblems, along with the resuspension of pesticides in sediments, have restricted shellfish growing in Elkhor n Slough.

Other regional water quality concerns include one of the nation’s worst oil spills at Unocal’s Guadalupe Oil Field in the Santa Maria River watershed. Nutrients and pathogens impact the San Lorenzo River Basin, from septic systems, horse corrals, and urban runoff, as well as erosion from logging, urban development, and road maintenance. Groundwater basins that are impacted by salinity include the Hollister area, the Carrizo Plain, the Santa Maria and Cuyama valleys, San Antonio Creek Valley, portions of the Santa Ynez Valley, and the Goleta and Santa Barbara areas.

California American Water is the primary water supplier to most of the Monterey Peninsula, and the Carmel River is its primary source of water. In 1995, a major State Water Resources Control Board order ruled that the company did not have a legal right to roughly 70 percent of the surface water it had been diverting from the Carmel River. As a result, California American Water has been forced to take more water from wells that draw from groundwater below the lower valley, in order to keep as much water as possible in the river. Essentially no surface water is now taken from the river’s two reservoirs behind the San Clemente and Los Padres dams for municipal supply purposes. To offset this lack of surface water, California American Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District have each made separate proposals for seawater desalination plants that would produce enough water to satisfy the state order and put a minimum of 8,000 acre-feet of water a year back into the Carmel River. However, as proposed neither project will be able to supply water for future urban growth and in-fill housing needs.


### Accomplishments Many water districts have programs to monitor, evaluate, and better manage their groundwater resources. Watershed programs are under way to reduce nonpoint pollution, reduce stream erosion, and improve riparian vegetation. For example, the Coastal Watershed Council was formed in response toCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 10 4 the declining health of the watersheds of the Monterey Bay. Its mission is to restore the watersheds of the region and teach its residents how to become stewards of their creeks and streams.

The Carmel River Basin, though small compared to other watersheds, supports a key run of steelhead, a federally listed species. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has a program to offset the environmental effects of diversions from the Carmel River that are required to meet the peninsula’s water needs. Activities include steelhead rescues when the river is dry, fish rearing and release, restoring riparian habitat, and protecting riverbanks. MPWMD works with others, including the Carmel River Steelhead Association and the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy.

In January 2003, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency attempted to negotiate a $25 million agreement for water to be acquired from the Central San Joaquin Valley’s Broadview Water District near the city of Firebaugh in FresnoCounty. Because of agricultural drainage and economic problems, Broadview Water District farmers have allowed about one-third of their 9,100 acres to lie fallow in recent years, whileselling part of their contracted CVP water deliveries. The prop osed agreement was intended to implement part of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency’s plan to use imported surface water as an alternative source, which would reduce groundwater over-pumping and, thus, seawater intrusion. The negotiations between Pajaro Valley and Broadview Water District continued into 2004; but unfortunately the deadline to complete an agreement passed without a final pact being negotiated. Subsequently, Westlands Water District initiated discussions with Broadview Water District for the purchase of district lands and the CVP water. In a notice it sent to district landowners in September 2004, Westlands stated that the negotiations had been completed, and it hoped to finalize the agreement by February 2005.

In 1998, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency(RWPCA) completed a $78 million Salinas Valley reclamation project and Castroville seawater intrusion project. These two projects consist of a 19,500 acre-feet per year tertiary treatment plant and a distribution system that provides about13,000 acre-feet of recycled water to 12,000 acres of Castroville area farms. During periods of the low irrigation demand in the winter, early spring and late fall, this recycled water supplies most of the water needed for irrigation. These projects will reduce groundwater pumping in the project area, and thus are expected to reduce seawater intrusion. Another project that will help alleviate Salinas Valley’s seawater intrusion is the $18.8 million Salinas Valley Water Project. The project has two parts: (1) a seasonal rubber dam on the SalinasRiver near Marina to deliver more fresh water to the saltwater-plagued areas near Castroville and (2) the modification of upstream river operations at San Antonio and Nacimiento lakes to provide higher summer flows to recharge Salinas Valley aquifers. Final planning, financing, and permit approvals are being obtained, and it is anticipated that this project will be constructed in year 2005.

A regional approach to water supply development has been evolving in recent years in San Luis Obispo County. By setting aside regional disagreements the City of San Luis Obispo andPaso Robles, as well as the County of San Luis Obispo, Atasc adero Mutual Water Company, and the Templeton Community Services District have agreed to build the Nacimiento Water Project to convey water via pipeline from Lake Nacimiento to the City of San Luis Obispo and locations in between. The county has had rights to 17,500 acre-feet of water per year from Lake Nacimiento since 1959, and recently approachedvarious water agencies and public entities within its boundaries to discuss use of this untapped supply. Currently, the cost of construction for this proposed project is estimated to be about $150 million. Proposed water purchases to fund this project currently anticipate (1) $51 million from Paso Robles for 4,000 acre-feet per year, (2) $ 30 million from Atascadero Mutual for 2,000 acre-feet per year, (3) $ 64 million from City of San Luis Obispo for 3,380 acre-feet peryear, and (4) $ 3.6 million from Templeton CSD for 250 acrefeet per year. The project design is now under way, and the proposed schedule anticipates that construction would start in early 2007 and be completed by the end of year 2009.



## Relationship with Other Regions Historically, the communities of the Central Coast region have relied on local surface water and groundwater supplies to meet their needs. The northern part of the region first received imported water with completion of the San Felipe Unit of the federal CVP in 1987. This facility delivers water to San Benito County users primarily for agricultural purposes from San Luis Reservoir in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. Ten years later, the Coastal Branch of the SWP was completed to import water to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties from the California Aqueduct in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. There are no other water imports into the Central Coast region. Because there is seldom any excess surface water in this region’s watersheds, there are no water exports from this region to other parts of the state.11 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



## Looking to the Future
Local water agencies in the Central Coast Hydrologic Region

a re continually maintaining, servicing, expanding, and updating their water systems (Box 4-1 Ongoing Planning Efforts). Because groundwater is the primary water source for the Central Coast region, water agencies are actively combining groundwater and surface water components into conjunctive use projects. In addition to the implementation of water conservation programs, other water management strategies that are under consideration include recycling, groundwater recovery, water marketing, and desalination.



## Regional Planning
Several water agencies, including Marina Coast Water District and Scotts Valley Water District, are developing groundwater management plans and conducting groundwater studies to fill in information gaps about local groundwater conditions.

In its effort to implement its Basin Management Plan (BMP) Alternative B, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) has purchased rights to CVP water from the Mercy Springs Water District (6,250 acre-feet). The PVWMA has also begun pipeline construction to deliver Harkins Slough Project and supplemental well water to coastal growers whose wells have been contaminated by seawater, and is pursuing more than $50 million in State and federal grants to implement the BMP. The BMP includes new wells, as a supplemental supply and as a source of blend water for wastewater reclamation, and an injection/recovery program for CVP water.

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has carri ed out a multiyear aquifer storage and recovery test program, where excess winter flow from the Carmel River is treated and injected into the Seaside Basin for recovery during dry periods. MPWMD has also funded several hydrogeologic studies of the Seaside Basin, and is in the process of developing a Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. Many projects and studies are under way in the Central Coast Region to enhance water quality and supply. Several new ocean desalination plants, such as the desalination project in the Sand City area being studied by Monterey PeninsulaWater Management District, are being investigated as potential sources of new water supplies. Many agencies are also considering recycled water projects in conjunction with theconstruction of new or expanded municipal wastewater treatm ent plants. Local water users are proposing to raise the height of USBR’s Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir) up to 3 feetto provide more water supply for the enhancement of downstream fish habitat. Additionally, many watershed programs are under way to remediate pollution and sedimentation, to help flood control, and to protect and restore ecosystems.



## Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, **2000, and 2001**

Water Year 1998 California experienced a very wet winter in 1998 related to the El Nino weather pattern. Because of the extensive damage caused by El Nino storms, the winter of 1998-99 ranked as the 10th costliest in California history. Particularly hard hit were the coastal valleys, where many agricultural fields remained wet and soggy for the first six months of 1998. Annual rainfall in the Santa Cruz area exceeded 30 inches (193.5 percent ofnormal), and in the southern part of this region the Santa Barbara NWS station measured almost 47 inches of rainfall (167 percent of normal). For the entire hydrologic region, average annual precipitation was 225 percent of normal amounts, compared to a statewide average of 171 percent of normal annual precipitation.

T otal agricultural production in the region was $3.65 billion (Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties) in 1998 from 564,600 acres of harvested irrigated crops. This is only a modest increase over 1997, but it is significant considering some of the challenges that the agri

## Box 4-1 Ongoing Planning Efforts

• Carmel River Management Plan

• Carmel River Watershed Council

• Coastal Watershed Council

• Pajaro River Watershed Council

• Pajaro Valley Groundwater Management Plan • Salinas Valley Water Plan

• Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater

Management Plan

• Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan

• Upper Salinas River Watershed CRMPCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 12 4 cultural industry faced. Most of the farming along the Central Coast involves vegetable crops, and vegetable crop acreage accounted for 72 percent of all irrigated crop acreage. The next largest crop is grapes comprising 12 percent of irrigated crop acreage. The Salinas Valley area produces the majority of the spring and summer vegetable crops, particularly lettuce.

The impact of the wet El Nino phenomenon on the Central Coast region’s precipitation was very significant. Growers had little need to irrigate crops during the first four to five months of 1998. The very wet conditions prevented the timely planting of many acres of truck crops. Spring rains delayed planting and negatively affected growing conditions, especially for head lettuce production. There was also a decrease in the value of wine grapes due to the cool wet conditions, even though the acreage of grapes planted continued to increase. Strawberryacreage was slightly less than the prior year, but total strawberry crop value rose due to a shortage early in the season, resulting in higher prices once the berries were harvested. The most significant crop increase in 1998 was attributed to value-added salad products, for which the product value increased by about $70 million as consumer demand grew. Head lettuce value significantly dropped, primarily as a result of wet spring conditions.

As shown in Table 4-2 the 1998 total on-farm agricultural applied water use in the Central Coast Region was 816,300 acre-feet while total agriculture water use (including conveyance losses) was 829,000 acre-feet, or 58 percent of all uses, which is lower than normal as a result of the heavy precipitation. On a per acre basis, the average on-farm unit applied water was only 1.4 acre foot per acre in 1998. For comparison, year 1995 applied water was over 2 acre-feet per acre. As would be expected, this information verifies that the amount of water needed to irrigate crops is generally much less than normal during wetter years, due to utilization of the effective rainfall. The total agricultural evapotranspiration of applied water, or ETAW, in 1998 amounted to 556,900 acre-feet. The regional average unit ETAW was one acre-foot per acre.

Total urban applied water, including residential, commercial, industrial, and landscape uses, in the region was 261,500 acre-feet for the year. As shown in Table 4-2, urban water use accounted for roughly 18 percent of the region’s total water use. Based on available water agency information, the average per capita water use was about 164 gallons per day during this wet year. Since a significant portion of urban water is used for outdoor landscapes, parks and golf courses, the per capita water use is lower than normal during a wet year. Total urban ETAW was 64,800 acre-feet. Total environmental water demand, including instream flows, wild and scenic rivers, and refuge water diversions, for the region was about 339,000 acre-feet in 1998. This accounted for about 24 percent of total developed water uses for this year. Within the Central Coast region, most of this environmentalwater is dedicated to the wild and scenic river flow requirements for the Big Sur River and the Sisquoc River

. Total water supplies for the Central Coast region, includinglocal and imported (CVP and SWP) surface water, groundwater , and reuse, amounted to 1.4 million acre-feet.



### Water Year 2000 The weather and rainfall amounts for water year 2000 in the Central Coast region were slightly wetter than normalaverage conditions. Rainfall amounts for representative locations include Santa Cruz with 118 percent of average (36.4 inches), Salinas at 110 percent of average (16.5 inches), Santa Maria at 113 percent of average (14.6 inches) and Santa Barbara at 121 percent of average (21.3 inches). For the entire hydrologic region, average annual precipitation was 110 percent of normal, compared to a statewide average of 97 percent of normal.

Water storage in the Central Coast watersheds was reported as above normal. Average reservoir storage on May 1 was 115 percent of normal with runoff to May 1 measured at 105 percent of normal. The land acreage used for irrigated agriculture continued the past trend of remaining relatively stable. Crop acreage, however, increased 7 percent from 1998 to 2000 to a total of 605,000 acres. This increase incrop acreage is due to expanded use of the practice of growing multiple crops per season on the same piece of land. The estimated amount of multiple cropping in 2000 increased 5 percent and is reflected in the increased acreage of truckcrops of 7 percent above 1998 amounts. Truck crops comprised about 72 percent of total crop acreage in this region, while the next largest crop category, vineyard, comprised 15 percent of total acreage.

The year 2000 on-farm agricultural applied water use in the Central Coast region was 999,400 acre-feet , while total agricultural water use was 1,016,300 acre-feet, or 71 percent of all water uses. This amounts to 23 percent more applied water than was estimated in 1998 and is considered to be more representative of agricultural water use under normal hydrologic conditions. Average on-farm unit applied water in 2000 was 1.7 acre-feet per acre, compared to 1.4 acre-feet per acre in 1998. The total agricultural evapotranspiration of13 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion
Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000

**WATER USE Table 4-2**  **Central Coast Region Water Use and Distribution of Dedicated Supplies - TAF**

**DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES Urban**  Large Landscape 13.7 10.4 10.3 Commercial 47.7 52.6 50.0 Industrial 23.7 24.0 23.7 Energy Production 14.3 14.3 14.3 Residential - Interior 101.9 121.2 121.1 Residential - Exterior 56.3 69.0 70.1 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 64.8 64.8 73.3 73.3 74.2 74.2 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 24.3 24.3 26.8 26.8 25.8 25.8 Outflow 103.7 103.7 116.7 116.7 113.9 113.9 Conveyance Applied Water 3.9 4.2 4.4 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 261.5 196.7 196.7 295.7 221.0 221.0 293.9 218.3 218.3** 
**Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 816.3 999.4 1,152.1 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 556.9 556.9 681.0 681.0 785.9 785.9 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.9 4.9 Outflow 33.6 33.6 45.3 45.3 50.3 50.3 Conveyance Applied Water 12.7 16.9 18.7 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 11.8 11.8 14.7 14.7 16.7 16.7 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Agricultural Use 829.0 605.3 605.3 1,016.3 746.2 746.2 1,170.8 858.8 858.8** 

**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 20.3 21.4 10.8 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 318.6 103.2 73.9 Outflow 173.5 173.5 94.7 94.7 48.5 48.5 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 0.1 0.1 0.1 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Managed Wetlands Use 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 **Total Environmental Use 339.0 173.6 173.6 124.7 94.8 94.8 84.8 48.6 48.6** 

TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 1,429.5 975.6 975.6 1,436.7 1,062.0 1,062.0 1,549.5 1,125.7 1,125.7

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 79.2 79.2 79.2 51.1 51.1 51.1 46.0 46.0 46.0 Local Imported Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colorado River Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 18.1 18.1 18.1 56.8 56.8 56.8 59.7 59.7 59.7 Other Federal Deliveries 54.1 54.1 54.1 61.4 61.4 61.4 54.6 54.6 54.6 SWP Deliveries 24.8 24.8 24.8 30.9 30.9 30.9 28.0 28.0 28.0 Required Environmental Instream Flow 173.4 173.4 173.4 94.7 94.7 94.7 48.4 48.4 48.4 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 608.5 608.5 608.5 749.0 749.0 749.0 870.5 870.5 870.5 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 288.5 344.8 387.6 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 165.4 29.9 36.2 Recycled Water 17.5 17.5 17.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.5 18.5 18.5

TOTAL SUPPLIES 1,429.5 975.6 975.6 1,436.7 1,062.0 1,062.0 1,549.5 1,125.7 1,125.7

Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 14 4applied water, or ETAW, in 2000 amounted to 681,000 acrefeet, which was 22 percent greater than 1998. The regional average unit ETAW was 1.1 acre-feet per acre.

Total urban applied water use for the Central Coast region was 295,700 acre-feet, which was 13 percent higher than the total applied water for 1998. Average per capita water use was about 181 gallons per day, which is about 10 percent higher than 1998 usage. Urban applied water accounted for about 21 percent of the total water use in the region. Total population in the region during year 2000 was 1,459,200, which is an increase of about 3.6 percent over the 1998 population. When compared to the 1998 wet year, the above increases in urban water use are primarily due to significantly less rainfall in year 2000 than in 1998, which means that more urban water was needed for outdoor landscape, parks and golf courses. Total urban ETAW was 73,300 acre-feet, which is 13 percent more than in 1998.

T

otal environmental water demand (instream, wild and scenic, and refuges) for this region in year 2000 was about 124,700 acre-feet, a significant 63 percent less than 1998. This accounted for about 8 percent of total developed and dedicated water uses during year 2000. This is water that is reserved for instream and wild and scenic river flows, which are generally higher in the wetter years (like 1998) and decline to lower flow levels in average and drier years.

Total water supplies, including local and imported (CVP and SWP) surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 1.4 million acre-feet, about the same as 1998.



### Water Year 2001 The weather and precipitation for water year 2001 in the Central Coast Region varied considerably from north to south. The total rainfall recorded in Santa Cruz was 82 percent of average (25.4 inches), Salinas was at 90 percent of average (13.5 inches), King City was at 116 percent of average (12.8 inches) and Santa Barbara received 146 percent of average precipitation (23.5 inches). For the entire hydrologic region, average annual precipitation was 107 percent of normal, compared to a statewide average of 72 percent. The winter season 2001 was characterized by a lack of rainfall across the region during October through December.

Surface water runoff in the watersheds of the Central Coast region was reported as below average, with accumulated runoff to May 1 measured at 70 percent of average amounts. However, reservoir storage on May 1 was 135 percent of average because of significant storage carryover from the previous year. Total cropped acreage in 2001 was 601,900 acres, which was very similar to year 2000. In 2000, the prices of many of the core crops grown in the region had increased significantly. However, in 2001, many of these same crops had lower production amounts and price declines. Head lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, and celery production all experienced decreases in 2001.

Y

ear 2001 on-farm agricultural applied water use in the CentralCoast region was 1,152,100 acre-feet, while the total agriculture water use was 1,170,800 acre-feet or 76 percent of all water uses. This amounted to 41 percent more agricultural wateruse than 1998 and 15 percent more than 2000. Average onfarm unit applied water use per acre also increased in 2001 to 1.9 acre-feet per acre compared to 1.4 acre-feet per acre in 1998 and 1.7 in 2000. As the above data confirms, the need for agricultural applied water increases as the amount of winter precipitation decreases from 1998 (wet) to 2000 and 2001. The total unit ETAW in 2001 was 785,900 acre-feet, which is 41 percent more than 1998 and 15 percent more than 2000. The regional average unit ETAW was 1.3 acre-feet per acre.

In 2001, total urban applied water for the region was 293,900 acre-feet, which was about 12 percent more than 1998 and 1 percent less than year 2000. Average per capita water use was around 176 gallons per day. Urban water use accounted for about 19 percent of the total water use in the region. Total population in the region in 2001 was about 1,476,800, an increase of 1.2 percent from the year 2000 population. Total urban ETAW was 74,200 acre-feet, 15 percent more than 1998 and 1 percent more than in year 2000.

Dedicated environmental water use (instream, wild and scenic flows, and refuges) for the region dropped to 84,800 acre-feet in 2001, 75 percent less than 1998 and 32 percent less than 2000. This accounts for about 5 percent of total developed water uses during this year, and reflects the lower wild and scenic flow volumes in the Big Sur River and the Sisquoc River.

Total available water supplies, including local and imported (CVP and SWP) surface water, groundwater, and reuse, amounted to 1.5 million acre-feet in 2001, which is an 8 percent increase from 1998 and 2000.

W

ater Portfolio Table 4-3 and the companion Water Portfolio flow diagrams (Figures 4-4 and 4-5) provide more information about how the available water supplies are distributed and used on a region-wide basis.15 4 **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



## Selected References Water Quality Control Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board

W atershed Management Initiative Chapter, Regional Water

Quality Control Board

2 002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board Bulletin 118 (Draft), California’s Groundwater, Update 2003, Department of Water Resources
N onpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013, State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission, January 2000

S trategic Plan, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, November 15, 2001 The Califor nian, Salinas San Luis Obispo County T ribune Monterey County HeraldCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 17 4 

# Water Portfolios

Central Coast Hydrologic Region184 California Water Plan Update 2005

**Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region **Table 4-3 Central Coast region water portfolios - TAF** 

ID Central Coast Central Coast Central Coast Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001
1 Colorado River Deliveries

- - - 2 Total Desalination

- - -

3 Water from Refineries

- - - 4a Inflow From Oregon

- - - b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 25,201.6 12,596.4 11,847.9 6a Runoff - Natural N/A b Runoff - Incidental N/A 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge N/A 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow N/A

9 Local Deliveries 79.2 51.1 46.0 10 Local Imports

- - - 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries

- - - b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 18.1 56.8 59.7 12 Other Federal Deliveries 54.1 61.4 54.6 13 State Water Project Deliveries 24.8 30.9 28.0 14a Water Transfers - Regional

- - - b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water 20.3 21.4 10.8 16 Environmental Water Account Releases

- - - 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands

- - - 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Seepage - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands

- - - 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture

- - - b Recycled Water - Urban 17.5 18.1 18.5 c Recycled Water - Groundwater

- - - 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag

- - - b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands

- - -

c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 210.7 254.0 295.9 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands

- - -

c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 76.9 89.6 90.7 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag

- - - b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 165.4 29.9 36.2 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag

- - - b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S

- - -

c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater

- - - 25 Direct Diversions 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 589.1 770.2 778.5 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 897.0 1,093.8 1,258.1 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 990.1 778.5 764.5 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking

- - - 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 35a Evaporation from Lakes 10 11.6 10.9 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 74.2 75.9 71.5 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 214 170.6 156.8 37 Agricultural Water Use 816.3 999.4 1,152.1 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 0.1 0.1 0.1 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 69.3 83.7 87.1 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 42.9 53.1 54.5 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 32.6 37.5 34.0 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 13.4 15.9 15.6 40 Urban Commercial Use 47.7 52.6 50.0 41 Urban Industrial Use 23.7 24.0 23.7 42 Urban Large Landscape 13.7 10.4 10.3 43 Urban Energy Production 14.3 14.3 14.3 44 Instream Flow

- - - 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers 173.5 94.7 48.5 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 556.9 681 785.9 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 64.8 73.3 74.2 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater

- - - 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 3 4.2 4.9 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 68 79.7 75 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 11.3 12.7 12.4 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 11.8 14.7 16.7 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands

- - - d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 33.6 46.3 51.3 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 120.6 135 131.7 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands

- - - 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 173.5 94.7 48.5 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -

c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 108.2 149.1 142.3 56 Regional Exports 65.8 88.9 132.7 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -608.5 -749.0 -870.5 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 401.0 8.3 -14.0 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 1,226.8 1,226.8 1,226.8

Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes**Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region 1 9 4 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 200520 4 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region California Wa ter Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 5 South Coast Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i5 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 5 South Coast Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 5 South Coast Hydrologic Region ................................................................................................................5-1 Setting ................................ 5-1 Climate ............................... 5-2 Population .......................... 5-2 Land Use ............................ 5-2 Water Supply and Use ......... 5-3 State of the Region .............. 5-9 Challenges ..................... 5-9 Accomplishments .......... 5-12 Looking to the Future ......... 5-16 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................5-19 Selected References ........... 5-19



## Box Box 5-1 Integrated Resource Planning .......................................................................................................................5-1 Box 5-2 Acronyms Used in the South Coast Report ....................................................................................................5-4 Box 5-3 W ater Use During Latter Stages of 1987-1992 Drought .................................................................................5-6
Box 5-4 SWRCB Decision 1631 ...............................................................................................................................5-9
Box 5-5 T wo Examples of Ongoing Ecosystem Restoration ........................................................................................5-10 Box 5-6 Key Elements of Califor nia’s Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement .........................................5-12



## Figures Figure 5-1 South Coast Hydrologic Region (map) ......................................................................................................5-ii Figure 5-2 South Coast Hydrologic Region population ...............................................................................................5-2 Figure 5-3 South Coast region water balancefor water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ...................................5-5 Figure 5-4 MWD inland feeder ..............................................................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-5 MWD storage agreements with San Joaquin agencies .............................................................................5-15 Figure 5-6 South Coast region - illustrated water flow diagram .................................................................................5-23 Figure 5-7 South Coast region - schematic flow diagram ..........................................................................................5-24



## Tables

Table 5-1 South Coast Hydrologic Region water balance summary .............................................................................5-7
T able 5-2 South Coast Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies ...........................................5-8

T able 5-3 South Coast region water portfolios .........................................................................................................5-22**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

VENTURA

LOS ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO

**Some Statistics** Area - 110,925 square miles (6.9% of State) Average annual precipitation - 17.6 inches Year 2000 population - 18,223,425 2030 population projection - 23,827,075 Total reservoir storage capacity - 3,059 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 280,260 acres .

.

.

.

.

. Flow in TAF
1998 1,081 2000 1,296 2001 1,250 **Colorado River Region** Colorado River Aqueduct Flow in TAF
1998 623 2000 829 2001 381 **South Lahontan Region** East Branch California Aqueduct (SWP) Flow in TAF
1998 663 2000 866 2001 874 **South Lahontan Region** Los Angeles Aqueduct West Branch California Aqueduct (SWP) **Figure 5-1 South Coast Hydrologic Region**

The South Coast Hydrologic Region in the southwestern corner of California is the most urbanized and populous region. Arrows indicate annual water flows entering and leaving the region for water years 199 8, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF
1998 2,110 2000 2,498 2001 2,325 **Outflow to Ocean***

*Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows.15 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 5 South Coast Hydrologic Region

**Setting** The South Coast Hydrologic Region comprises the southwest portion of the state and is California’s most urbanized and populous region. It contains slightly more than half of the state’s population (54 percent) but covers only 7 percent of the state’s total land area. The topography includes a series of nearly flat coastal plains and valleys, many broad but gentle interior valleys, and several mountain ranges of low and moderate elevation.

The region extends about 250 miles along the Pacific Coast from the Ventura-Santa Barbara County line in the north to the international border with Mexico in the south (Figure 5-1). The region includes all of Orange County and portions of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties.

There are several prominent rivers in the region including the Sespe, Ventura, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, San Gabriel, SantaAna, San Jacinto, Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Dieg uito, Sweetwater, and Otay rivers. Segments of some of these rivers have been extensively lined and in other ways modified for flood control. Natural runoff of the region’s streams and rivers averages about 1.2 million acre-feet annually. Within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, water wholesalers

a nd retailers, groundwater agencies, and watershed plannersand managers are becoming increasingly successful in working together to implement a large and diverse array of local water supply and water quality projects. In turn, this increased level of cooperation and integrated planning is making the region more flexible and less dependent on imported water, particularly during dry years (see Box 5-1).

This regional profile, after describing the characteristics of the region, provides examples of the South Coast’s challenges, accomplishments, and plans to meet the water needs of the future. There are many more examples of water issues and accomplishments than are presented in this chapter. It is important to note that in the highly developed South Coast region there are now many major water interest groups and agencies with important roles to fulfill in providing reliable, affordable, high quality water. The jurisdictions and common areas of interest for these stakeholder interest groups often overlap, such that shared communication and integrated regional planning are becoming increasingly important to successful water planning and management.



## Box 5-1 Integrated Resource Planning

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California adopted its Integrated Resource Plan in 1996 and recently has revised that plan with the adoption of the 2004 Update. The new 2004 Update accomplishes the three objectives of reviewing goals and achievements of the 1996 Integrated Resource Plan, identifying changed conditions for water resource development, and updating the resource targets through 2025.

T he Santa Ana Water Project Authority recently completed its 2002 Integrated Water Resource Plan. It provides information on water demand and supply planning, water resource plans from member agencies, balancing and integrating available resources, and identifying regional problems and issues and potential long-ter m solutions.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 25 

## ClimateThe region has a mild, dry subtropical climate where summers are virtually rainless, except in the mountains where late summer thunderstorms sometimes occur. About 75 percent of the region’s precipitation falls from December through March.The coastal plains and the interior valleys receive on average 12 to 18 inches of annual precipitation, depending on location, but the climate allows for a much wider variation from year to year. Much of the 20 to 40 inches of annual average precipitation in the higher mountains falls as snow.



## Population
The region’s 2000 population was 18,223,000. The fastest growing portion of the South Coast region is that known as the Inland Empire, which includes the inland valleys of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The region containsseven of the state’s fastest-growing cities, in terms of perc entage change in growth (Temecula, Chula Vista, Irvine, Riverside, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, and Murietta). The city of Los Angeles is the state’s biggest city. Its population grew from 3,486,000 in 1990 to 3,645,000 in 2000. The population in San Diego County is concentrated along the coastal terraces and valleys, and south of CampPendleton, the U.S. Marine base. In 2000, the city of San Diego wasAmerica’s seventh largest city, and California’s second large st, with 1,223,000 persons. Figure 5-2 provides a graphical depiction of the South Coast region’s total population from 1960 through 2000, with current projections to year 2030.



## Land Use The mild climate and ample expanse of gentle landscapes in the South Coast region have encouraged a variety of land uses since the first great development boom of the late 1880s. The expansion of new single- and multi-family homes, commercial services, businesses, and highway systems into the warmer The South Coast region comprises the southwest portion of the state and is California’s most urbanized and populous region. The photo depicts the Los Angeles skyline. (DWR Photo)35 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

sections of the region continues onto lands that were historically pastoral, if not agricultural. Although pockets of open space and agricultural uses still exist, the urban area now extends southward from Ventura County to the international border with Mexico and eastward from the coast to beyond Riverside and San Bernardino. Irrigated agriculture now occupies only one-seventh as much land as urban uses. Environmental water uses are mostly limited to relatively small, managed wetland areas, wildlife areas, lakes, and riparian habitats.

Although the acreage has continued to decline in recent years, agriculture is still economically important for the region. In 2000, the total value of agricultural products in San Diego County was $1.3 billion. The total crop acreage in year 2000 was about 280,000 acres, which produced a variety of crops that included high-valued citrus and subtropical fruits, fresh-market vegetable crops, and assorted nursery products. Although agricultural uses occur throughout the region, the major areas continue to be the Oxnard Plain (for vegetables) and the adjacent hills and valleys (for citrus and subtropical fruits) in Ventura County; the coastal (for nursery) and interior valleys (for citrus and avocado fruits) in San Diego County; and the Chino area (for dairies) in San Bernardino County. 

## Water Supply and Use
The region has developed a diverse mix of both local andimported water supply sources. Local water resources development over the last 15 years has included water recycling, groundwater storage and conjunctive use, conservation, brackish water desalination, water transfer and storage, and infrastructure enhancements to complement imported water supplies. The region imports water through the State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), and the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA) (see Box 5-2 for acronyms used in this report). This diverse mix of sources provides fl exibility in managing supplies and resources in wet and dry years. Figure 5-3 provides a graphical presentation of all of the water supply sources that are used to meet the developed water uses within this hydrologic region for 1998, 2000, and 2001. Figure 5-3 also presents a bar chart that summarizes all of the dedicated and developed urban, agricultural and environmental water uses within this hydrologic region for 1998, 2000 and 2001.

T he Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) imported an average of 703,000 acre-feet per year of water from the SWP from 1972 to 2003 (the contracted amount is 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 

### Figure 5-2 South Coast Hydrologic Region population

Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000 and population projection for 2030 for the South Coast region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 45 currently 1,811,000 acre-feet per year; actual imports have been closer to this amount for the last few years), and 680,000 acre-feet or more of water from the CRA (depending on the availability of surplus water). MWD wholesales the water to a consortium of 26 cities, water districts, and a county authority that serve 18 million people living in six counties stretching from Ventura to San Diego.

Fifteen percent of the region’s water supply is developed by water agencies located outside of the service area of MWD and its members agencies. These agencies also import water from the SWP, or use local supplies, usually groundwater. Agencies that import SWP water include Castaic Lake Water Agency, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), Ventura County Flood Control District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District.

Groundwater and groundwater agencies are important to the water supply picture of the region, meeting about 23 percent of water demand in normal years and about 29 percent in drought years (see Box 5-3). There are 56 groundwater basins in the region. In some California groundwater basins,as the demand for groundwater exceeded supply, landowners and other parties turned to the courts to determine how much groundwater can rightfully be extracted by each user. In a process known as court adjudication, the courts study available data to arrive at a distribution of groundwater that is available each year, usually based on the California law ofoverlying use and appropriation. There are 19 court adjudicat ions for groundwater basins in California, mostly in Southern California. In 15 of these adjudications, the court judgment limits the amount of groundwater that can be extracted by all parties based on a court-determined safe yield of the basin. The basin boundaries are also defined by the court.

Most basin adjudications have resulted in either a reduction or no increase in the amount of groundwater extracted. As a result, agencies often import surface water to meet increased demand. The original court decisions provided watermasters with the authority to regulate extraction of the quantity of groundwater; however, they omitted authority to regulate extraction to protect water quality or to prevent the spread of contaminants in the groundwater. Because water quantity and water quality are inseparable, watermasters are recognizing that they must also manage groundwater quality.

The use of recycled water, which brings wastewater agencies into partnerships with surface and groundwater managers, is playing an increasingly significant role in meeting the region’s water needs. The best recent data is from the 2002 Statewide Recycled Water Survey by the State Water Resources Control



## Box 5-2 Acronyms Used in the South Coast Regional Report

CBDA California Bay-Delta Authority CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CVWD Coachella Valley Water District DBPs disinfection byproducts DWR California Department of Water Resources IID Imperial Irrigation District LAA Los Angeles Aqueduct LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public W orks LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power mgd million gallons per day MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MW A The Mojave Water Agency MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Souther n California NDMA nitrosodimethylamine OCWD Orange County Water District QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA WPA Santa Ana Water Project Authority SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District SCCWRRS Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SDCW A San Diego County Water Authority SWP State Water Project TDS total dissolved solids USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation VOCs volatile organic compounds WBMWD West Basin Municipal Water District55 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 5-3 South Coast region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

1998 2000 2001**Thousand Acre-Feet** Wild & Scenic
R.

Instream Flow

Managed Wetlands

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

1998 2000 2001**Thousand Acre-Feet** Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

State Project

Federal Projects

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

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

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 65 Board (SWRCB), which estimated that recycled municipal water delivery was about 275,000 acre-feet per year in Southern California. According to the MWD’s 2003 Annual Progress Report, about 204,000 acre-feet of recycled water was developed within its service area in fiscal year 2003. By the year 2010, MWD expects that its service area will produce about 410,000 acre-feet of water through water recycling, groundwater recovery, or seawater desalination.

West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD), the largest water recycler in the region, has developed more than 31,000 acre-feet of recycled water. Within the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) service area there is roughly 13,000 acre-feet per year of incidental groundwater recharge resulting from wastewater disposal operations, of which 95 percent is used for agriculture and landscape irrigation.

Water use efficiency measures, which are partnering wastewater treatment agencies with wholesale and retail water districts, will continue to have important impacts on the region’s supplies and demands. A combination of active and passive measures has contributed to decreases in urban demands in the region. Recent examples of active water use efficiency programs include the installation of ultra-low-flush toilets and other water efficient appliances for residential, industrial, andinstitutional uses and the promotion of water efficient lands caping and irrigation. Even greater water supply savings are being achieved from passive water use efficiency measures. Passive water measures involve changes in the water code that require manufacturers to offer customers water-saving devices. MWD reports that its member agencies have urban programs that conserve about 65,000 acre-feet annually through active programs, and inclusion of passive conservation measures would make the total savings much larger.

About 15 percent of the South Coast region’s developed water is used for agricultural activities. The sources of water supplies that are available for irrigation operations differ throughout the region. Groundwater is the primary source of water for the agricultural activities on the coastal plain ofVentura County. In the middle segment of the region, combinations of groundwater and imported water are used. In the southern portion, primarily San Diego County, imported water supplies and a small amount of local surface water are the primary sources.

MWD initiated several agricultural water conservation andtransfer programs, including a program with the Imperial Irrig ation District (IID) that conserved 105,130 acre-feet in 2003 and a crop rotation and water supply program with Palo Verde Irrigation District that saved about 186,000 acre-feet of water from 1992 through 1994. In addition, SDCWA is in the initial stage of an agreement with IID in which IID delivers conserved water to SDCWA. SDCWA received 10,000 acre-feet in 2003 and 20,000 acre-feet in 2004. Thirty thousand acre-feet will be delivered in 2005, and deliveries will increase annually toward 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water by 2021.

In the major agricultural areas in the region, most on-farmirrigation operations remain very efficient. Farmers are continuing to use the latest equipment to handle crop irrigations and conserve water. Micro-jet sprinklers and drip emitters are being used for the irrigation operations of most citrus andsubtropical fruit orchards in San Diego and Ventura counties. Although furrow systems are still in use, drip irrigation systems are also used to irrigate the fresh market vegetables produced in Ventura County.

The regional water balance table (Table 5-1) provides a detailed accounting for all of the water that enters and leaves the South Coast region. As shown in the table, the nonquantifiable water uses (Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, etc.) are about the same as total precipitation, and outflows to the ocean are relatively small. Imports are a large part of the applied water in the region. For comparison, Table 5-2 presents information on



## Box 5-3 Water Use During Latter Stages of 1987-1992 Drought

During the latter stages of the 1987-1992 drought and for several years afterward, water supply deliveries and municipal and industrial uses for many retail water districts in the South Coast Hydrologic Region were slightly less than in the late 1980s. The City of Los Angeles, exemplifies this trend. For water year 1990, the city used 677.1 thousand acre-feet (taf) of water from various supplies. In 1998 and 2000, the totals were 596.7 taf and 679.5 taf, respectively. The increase in water supplies in 2000 was less than 1 percent over the 1990 quantities despite a net increase in the population served of more than 400,000.75 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Water Entering the Region** Precipitation 20,873 7,522 9,327 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 1,081 1,296 1,250 Imports from Other Regions 1,286 1,695 1,255 **Total 23,240 10,513 11,832 Water Leaving the Region**  Consumptive Use of Applied Water * (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) 1,468 1,819 1,628 Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions 0 0 0 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 0 0 0 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 2,110 2,498 2,325 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 20,514 7,441 8,947 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows **Total 24,092 11,758 12,900 Storage Changes in the Region**  [+] Water added to storage [−] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 372 128 332 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -1,224 -1,373 -1,400 **Total -852 -1,245 -1,068**

**Applied Water *** (compare with Consumptive Use) 4,184 5,041 4,633

*Footnote for applied water

Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.

**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation:

GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals

This equation does not include the unknown factors such as natu ral recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation)
1998 (205%) 2000 (72%) 2001 (92%) **Table 5-1 South Coast Hydrologic Region Water Balance Summary - TAF** 
Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 85 **Table 5-2 South Coast Hydrologic Region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies - TAF** 

Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion
Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000

**WATER USE**

**DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES Urban**  Large Landscape 165.7 242.8 187.5 Commercial 699.5 914.1 885.5 Industrial 186.0 209.8 209.8 Energy Production 39.8 39.8 39.8 Residential - Interior 1,593.9 1,795.9 1,654.3 Residential - Exterior 776.1 891.8 860.0 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 941.8 941.8 1,134.6 1,134.6 1,047.5 1,047.5 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 518.1 518.1 594.5 594.5 570.1 570.1 Outflow 1,678.1 1,678.1 1,976.7 1,976.7 1,850.2 1,850.2 Conveyance Applied Water 160.0 154.6 153.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 160.0 160.0 154.6 154.6 153.0 153.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 3,621.0 3,298.0 3,298.0 4,248.8 3,860.4 3,860.4 3,989.9 3,620.8 3,620.8**  **Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 691.9 908.4 758.4 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 494.8 494.8 645.8 645.8 542.9 542.9 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 11.2 11.2 15.0 15.0 12.3 12.3 Outflow 100.1 100.1 135.1 135.1 110.1 110.1 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Agricultural Use 691.9 606.1 606.1 908.4 795.9 795.9 758.4 665.3 665.3** 
**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 3.5 3.5 3.5 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 284.2 34.3 108.2 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 31.2 38.1 37.2 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 31.2 31.2 38.1 38.1 37.2 37.2 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Managed Wetlands Use 31.2 31.2 31.2 38.1 38.1 38.1 37.2 37.2 37.2 **Total Environmental Use 318.9 31.2 31.2 75.9 38.1 38.1 148.9 37.2 37.2** 
**TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 4,631.8 3,935.3 3,935.3 5,233.1 4,694.4 4,694.4 4,897.2 4,323.3 4,323.3**

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 292.1 292.1 292.1 211.4 211.4 211.4 217.1 217.1 217.1 Local Imported Deliveries 442.0 442.0 442.0 294.0 294.0 294.0 272.0 272.0 272.0 Colorado River Deliveries 1,081.3 1,081.3 1,081.3 1,296.0 1,296.0 1,296.0 1,250.5 1,250.5 1,250.5 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Federal Deliveries 4.2 4.2 4.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 SWP Deliveries 687.7 687.7 687.7 1,300.1 1,300.1 1,300.1 958.7 958.7 958.7 Required Environmental Instream Flow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 1,223.5 1,223.5 1,223.5 1,372.5 1,372.5 1,372.5 1,400.0 1,400.0 1,400.0 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 408.8 500.9 462.2 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 287.7 37.8 111.7 Recycled Water 204.5 204.5 204.5 219.8 219.8 219.8 225.0 225.0 225.0
**TOTAL SUPPLIES 4,631.8 3,935.3 3,935.3 5,233.1 4,694.4 4,694.4 4,897.2 4,323.3 4,323.3**  **Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0** 95 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

the developed and dedicated components of the total supply, which is a summary of water that is actively stored, managed and used for urban, agricultural and environmental purposes.



## State of the Region
Over the past decade, the region has improved water supply reliability in the face of reduced imported supplies from the Owens Valley and Mono Basin and reduced uncertainty regarding the amount of imports available from the SWP (see Box 5-4). Water agencies have been proactive in continuous planning to manage the changing water supply and demand conditions in the region. While dependent on imported water for at least 50 percent of its water supplies, the region’s water agencies have compiled a wide range of water management tools and water planning practices designed to improve and optimize local water resources in relation to the imported water needs.



### Challenges Like many regions in the state, water quality and water supply challenges are intertwined. The South Coast region must manage for uncertainties caused by population and economic growth. Growth will not only affect demand, but it will addcontamination challenges from increases in wastewater discharges and urban runoff, as well as increased demand for water-based recreation. Outside the region, environmental and water quality needs in the Delta and Owens River/Mono Basin systems affect imported water supply reliability and quality. The region must also assess and plan for impacts of climate variations and global climate change, as well as the cost of replacing aging infrastructure.

G iven the size of the region and the diverse sources of water supply, the challenges to the region’s water quality are varied. Surface water quality issues in the South Coast are dominated by storm water and urban runoff, which contribute contaminants (including trash) to local creeks and rivers. These pollutant sources, as well as sanitary sewer overflows, ocean outfalls, tidal input, and even wildlife, can degrade coastal water quality, closing beaches and increasing the health risks from swimming. These sources also specifically affect water quality in the major bays—Santa Monica, Newport, and San Diego. Newport Bay, for instance, suffers from algal blooms (due to excess nutrients), toxicity to aquatic life, high bacterial counts, and sedimentation. Shipping can also influence water quality, especially at the U.S. Navy base in San Diego Bay and the Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors, where there are toxic sediment hot spots. Harbors, marinas, and recreational boating threaten water quality via ballast water discharges, which can introduce invasive species, petroleum and sewage discharges and spills, biocides from boat hulls, boat clean

ing and fish wastes, trash, and reduced water circulation. The South Coast Wetlands Recovery Project works to restorewetland habitat and eradicate exotic species in many waters heds of the region. Several dedicated wildlife and ecological reserves are located along the South Coast as well.

Constructed wetland projects in Hemet/San Jacinto, San Diego Creek, and Prado Basin remove large loads of nitrogen from wastewater and urban runoff. Salinity, nitrogen, and microbes are the major contaminants in the Santa Ana River, affecting downstream beneficial uses such as swimming and groundwater recharge for domestic use. Because of upstream irrigation diversions, flows in the middle and lower Santa Ana River are composed mostly of recycled water, creating a year-round flow that is high in salinity. The Santa Ana River suffers as well from an invasive exotic species, the giant reed Arundo donax. Other nonnative, invasive species of concern in this region include the marine alga Caulerpa taxifolia along the San Diego coast, and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) in various streams and rivers; both, like Arundo donax, have the potential to wreak havoc with native ecosystems (see Box 5-5).



## Box 5-4 SWRCB Decision 1631

In 1994, State Water Resources Control Board adopted Water Right Decision 1631 amending the City of Los Angeles’ water rights for diverting water from the Mono Basin. The decision restricts diversions from the basin in order to increase and maintain Mono Lake’s level to 6,391 feet above sea level. During the period of Mono Lake’s transition to the 6,391-foot level (estimated to take about 20 years), the maximum amount of water that Los Angeles can divert from the basin is 16 thousand acre-feet per year. Long-term Los Angeles diversions from the Mono Basin are projected to be about 31 thousand acre-feet per year after Mono Lake has reached the 6,391-foot level, or one-third of the city’s historical diversions from the Mono Basin.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 105 Lake Elsinore, the largest natural freshwater lake in southern California, experiences nuisance algae blooms from excess nutrients, impairing its ecological and recreational beneficial uses. Local groups have implemented many wetland and river restoration projects to improve water quality, for example, at Bolsa Chica and in Ballona Creek, as well as along the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers. The United States and Mexico jointly built the International Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat a portion of the sewage from Tijuana, which flows across the international boundary into the San Diego Basin.

The Chino Basin hosts the highest concentration of dairy animals in the United States. In a 40 square-mile area, well over 300,000 animals are maintained on about 300 dairies. Because of a lack of sufficient land to dispose of manure, as well as flooding from expanding suburban development, dairy runoff contributes nitrate, salts, and microorganisms to groundwater as well as surface water. Since 1972, the Santa Ana RegionalWater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has issued waste disc harge requirements to the dairies in this basin. In addition, pilot projects to develop sewer systems for dairies and for treating dairy wash water have also recently been completed. Water utilities can use desalters to recover groundwater from brackish aquifers such as the Chino Basin, but only if they have access to a regional brine line (the Santa Ana River Interceptor in this area). Groundwater quality in this basin is integrally related to the surface water quality downstream in the Santa Ana River, which in turn serves as a source for groundwater recharge in Orange County. Orange County Water District and to the northWest Basin Municipal Water District operate groundwater injection programs to form hydraulic barriers, to protect aquifers from seawater intrusion.

Public health and environmental and economic concerns have grown with the expansion of water recycling programs in the South Coast region. Some concerns are related to the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of wastewater and the presencein treated wastewater of pharmaceuticals, household products, and other emerging contaminants. The high salinity of imported Colorado River water limits the number of times water can be reused before the salt content becomes too high and wastewater can only be discharged to the ocean. Increased use of recycled water and marginal quality groundwater supplies during droughts can result in water quality problemsfor some local supplies that endanger future water management projects. For instance, groundwater recharge potential may be restricted because the RWQCB has established TDS requirements for recharge water in some groundwater basins in order to protect existing basin water quality.

The average TDS concentration of MWD’s CRA water is about600 to 700 mg/L, and the average TDS content of SWP supp lies is about 300 mg/L. The water supply from the LAA has a significantly lower TDS concentration, typically about 160 mg/L. TDS levels in local groundwater supplies in the region vary considerably, ranging from 200 mg/L (Cucamonga Basin near Upland) to more than 1,000 mg/L (Arlington Basin near Corona). Local water uses also contribute significantly to overall salinity levels. For example, municipal and industrial use of water adds between 250 and 500 mg/L of TDS to wastewater. Key sources of local salts include water softeners (typically contributing from 5 to 10 percent of the salt load) and industrial processes.

The long-term salt balance of the region’s groundwater basins is an increasingly critical management issue. Smaller basinslike the Arlington and Mission groundwater basins were abandoned as municipal supplies because of high salinity levels. Some of these basins have only recently been restored through brackish water desalting projects. The Mission Basin has not been restored, but water is being recovered and treated to drinking water standards by the City of Oceanside’s Mission Basin Groundwater Repurification Facility. Blending SWP and CRA supplies, or using the SWP’s relatively low TDS supplies for groundwater replenishment, is a strategy in some areas. However, some inland water districts that use recycled water



## Box 5-5 Two Examples of Ongoing Ecosystem Restoration

The Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives and has provided a draft recommendation for removing the 160-foot high dam, including stored sediment, to restore the Ventura River ecosystem. The Public Draft Report was released in July 2004.

The Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway Project includes planning of recreational uses that showcase the river and provide a place for people to enjoy this important resource.115 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

have salt accumulation problems in their groundwater basins because they lack an ocean outfall or stream discharge. To dispose of these salts, some districts have developed access to a brine pipeline that exports salt and concentrated wastes to a coastal treatment plant and ocean outfall. However, there are situations where agencies have not constructed a brine pipeline due to the high cost of this alternative.

Beyond salinity, several established and emerging contaminants of concern to the region’s drinking water supplies include disinfection byproducts (DBPs), perchlorate, arsenic, nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), hexavalent chromium, andmethyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Historically, industrial solvents have extensively impacted the groundwater underlying the San Gabriel Valley. Imported water from the Owens Valley is of excellent water quality, and imported Delta water quality is generally good. Nonetheless, arsenic is a concern in the Owens Valley supply, and Delta water can contain precursors(such as organic carbon and bromide) of potentially carcinogenic DBPs, if treated with certain disinfection processes necessary to inactivate pathogens in drinking water.

Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel that can disrupt thyroid gland function, has particularly impacted the groundwater in Pasadena and the Rialto-Colton-Fontana region. Perchlorate isalso a concern in Colorado River water, largely due to contamination from inactive ammonium perchlorate manufacturing facilities in Nevada. Perchlorate contamination of wells in the San Gabriel Valley, which resulted in the deactivation of many of these wells, has led to testing of ion exchange technologies for the removal of this constituent.

Naturally occurring arsenic, a known human carcinogen, is another contaminant of concern, present in the LAA supply as well as local aquifers. The City of Los Angeles currently manages arsenic concentrations in the LAA water through treatment. In Southern California, local water sources with high arsenic levels are found in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties.

N DMA, a probable human carcinogen, is associated with the production of rocket fuel and the manufacture of explosives, paints, and other industrial goods. Contamination of surface water and groundwater by NDMA at missile and rocket fuel manufacturing and storage sites is a significant concern, particularly for groundwater supplies. NDMA can also be formed during the treatment of wastewater, which is a threat to aquifers that are recharged with reclaimed wastewater and later used for drinking water. Groundwater contamination by hexavalent chromium, a suspect carcinogen better known as chromium 6, in the LosAngeles basin and elsewhere, has resulted from its use in vario us industries including aerospace and plating. In Los Angeles County, Los Angeles RWQCB staff is overseeing the ongoing assessment and cleanup of sites impacted by hexavalent chromium at defense-related businesses and manufacturing and other industrial sites.

MTBE and other oxygenates have been added to gasoline in areas with severe air pollution to help gasoline burn more cleanly and comply with federal law. Unfortunately, MTBE can also contaminate groundwater supplies when pipelines, fuel tanks, and other containers or equipment leak, when fuel is spilled, and when unburned fuel is discharged from watercraft. The high mobility and low biodegradability of MTBE present a significant risk to aquifer supplies. MTBE has been widely detected in South Coast groundwater, surface water, and imported water supplies. In particular, MTBE contamination forced the closure of more than half of Santa Monica’s water supply wells and made the city more dependent upon imported water supplies and treatment systems. California has recently phased out MTBE from its gasoline supplies. As of January 1,2004, California refineries no longer blend MTBE into gasoline. Ethanol is now used as the primary oxygenate in areas requiring oxygenate additives under federal law.

The 198-foot-high Matilija Dam in Ventura County has lostmost of its water supply and flood control benefits due to sediment deposits. Originally built in 1947 to store up to 7,018 acre-feet of water, siltation has reduced its effective storage capacity to about 500 acre-feet. Moreover, the Matilija Dam has had adverse effects on the ecosystem of the Ventura River watershed, which supports several threatened and endangered species. The structure blocks riparian and wildlife corridors between the Ventura River and Matilija Creek. By trapping sediment that would otherwise be carried downstream, the dam also contributes to the long-term erosion of estuaries and beaches along the Ventura River.

The Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, a joint study by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is one of the largest dam removal studies ever undertaken in the United States. The study recommended the dam’s removal in its July 2004public draft report and environmental impact statement/environmental impact report. However, there are disputes over rights to the remaining water supply. The Casitas Municipal Water District, which leases the dam, pipeline, and rights toCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 125the dam’s water from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, is concerned with how this lost water supply to Casitas will be recovered once the Matilija Dam and reservoir are removed. Studies and discussions are continuing in order to develop solutions for the water supply impacts that could result from removal of this dam.

California’s use of Colorado River water is being managed to ensure that the state reduces the use of this water from a highof 5.3 million acre-feet in previous years to its 4.4 million acrefeet annual apportionment. Until 2016, California may receive interim surplus water from the river depending on the storage level in Lake Mead. The Colorado River Board of California developed the basic plan, called California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan or the “4.4 Plan,” that outlines steps to reduce the state’s use of Colorado River water. Those steps include a water transfer of conserved water from IID to SDCWA, the lining of the All-American and Coachella Canals, water storage and conjunctive use programs, water exchanges, improved reservoir management, salinity control, watershed protection, water reuse, and other measures. The signing of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) in 2003 enabled implementation of the 4.4 Plan (see Box 5-6).

Drought is a constant concern for water districts in the region.This has led to an emphasis on the development of local supplies and demand management strategies. Today, about 50 percent of Southern California’s demand is being met through such local supplies as water conservation, recycling, and groundwater recovery. The uncertainty caused by scientific findings on climate change also has caused water agencies to question the reliability of imported sources.

Groundwater overdraft and lower groundwater levels are challenges to the region. Historically, agricultural, industrial,and urban development has led to increased groundwater pumping from many of the region’s basins. In some basins over-extraction of groundwater has caused seawater intrusion, contributed to land subsidence, and resulted in legal disputes over pumping rights within specific basins.



### Accomplishments The region has developed a diverse water portfolio that is balanced between local and imported supplies. The primary objectives of the region’s water agencies are to provide highquality, reliable, and affordable water. To achieve these objectives, local water districts have built additional facilities to increase surface storage and water transmission capacities. They have also implemented a variety of resource management strategies to increase the efficiencies of agricultural and urban water uses, utilize recycled water, groundwater conjunctive use, groundwater remediation, brackish water desalination,drinking water treatment, watershed management, groundwater banking, and water transfers from outside the region.



## Box 5-6 Key Elements of California’s Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement

The California Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement and related agreements will have the following ef fects:

• Permit the utilization of interim surplus water.

• Transfer as much as 30 million acre-feet of water from farms to cities in Southern California for up to the 75 year term of the agreement.

• Settle potential lawsuits between the Imperial Irrigation District and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

• Obligate California with the sole responsibility for restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem.

• Provide for cooperation on the environmental review and mitigation for the Imperial Irrigation District/ San Diego County Water Authority Transfer Agreement, IID/ Coachella Valley Water District Acquisition Agreement, and Salton Sea habitat conservation plan/natural community conservation plan.

• Fund a $200 million project to line with concrete a portion of the earthen All-American Canal and a portion of the earthen Coachella Canal. Water conserved by reducing seepage will be transferred to San Diego and the San Luis Rey Indian Tribes, who will pay proportionally for operation and maintenance costs.

• Quantify, for the first time, the total Colorado River apportionments in California.135 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

These diversifi ed strategies guide the management of available resources in a manner that allows greater fl exibility when adapting to water quality and supply challenges.

MWD built Diamond Valley Lake in the late 1990s to better manage water supplies between wet and dry years. Located near Hemet in southwestern Riverside County, the 800,000 acre-foot reservoir nearly doubles the region’s existing surface storage capacity and provides increased terminal storage for SWP and Colorado River water. Diamond Valley Lake can also provide the MWD service area with a six-month emergency water supply after an earthquake or other disaster. It also provides water storage for drought protection and to meet peak summer demands.

The SDCWA fi nished construction of Olivenhain Reservoir in 2003 and completed fi lling its 24,000 acre-foot capacity withimported water in 2005. The reservoir, just southwest of Escondido in northern San Diego County, is designed to provide water to the San Diego region during natural or man-made emergencies. It is the fi rst project completed in the SDCWA Emergency Storage Program.

T he Inland Feeder is a conveyance facility for delivery of SWP water made available by the enlargement of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct (Figure 5-4). When it is completed, the Inland Feeder will deliver water by gravity toDiamond Valley Lake through 43.7 miles of tunnels and pipeline that start at Devil Canyon afterbay and tie into the CRA and Eastside Pipeline. The Inland Feeder will provide system reliability by linking the SWP and Colorado River systems and will improve water quality by allowing greater blending of SWP and Colorado River waters.

A recent agreement between MWD and SBVMWD allows MWD to purchase additional SWP water for blending withColorado River water, and to store this water in the San Bernardino groundwater basin. This new groundwater supply also helps to resolve long-standing groundwater issues in the basin. The San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency recently extended the pipeline east from Mentone bringing SWP water
to Beaumont.

O n Oct. 10, 2003, representatives from MWD, SDCWA, IID, and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) signed the Quantifi cation Settlement Agreement (QSA) and several other agreements that will execute several key components of the Colorado River Water Use Plan including establishing water budgets from IID and CVWD and making water transfers viable (see Box 5-5). The QSA includes a water transfer fromIID to SDCWA, which began in 2003 and eventually will provide up to 200,000 acre-feet per year to San Diego County. The transfer will help increase water supply reliability for the South Coast Region.

In 2003, the SDCWA and IID consummated the largest water transfer agreement in the history of the United States. Thistransfer, which will eventually move 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water by farmers in the Imperial Valley annually to San Diego County, has helped reduce SDCWA’s dependence on MWD and diversifi ed its sources of imported water. The initial term of the agreement is for 45 years; a 30-year extension is possible with the mutual consent of both parties. In addition, SDCWA will gain an additional 77,000 acre-feet of water per year through projects it will undertake to line the All-American and Coachella canals to stop water loses that occur because of seepage. This program has a 110-year term.

State agencies, including DWR, SWRCB, and the CaliforniaBay-Delta Authority (CBDA), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) are making major statewide investments in urban and agricultural water conservation programs, which regional and local agencies leverage with their own investments to reduce demands. As discussed in previous sections, additional demand reduction is achieved through passive conservation measures as a result of changes in manufacturing codes. **Figure 5-4 MWD inland feeder**

The Inland Feeder will provide system reliability by linking the State Water Project and Colorado River systems and will improve water quality by allowing greater blending of SWP and Colorado River waters.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 145An example of this regional leveraging is MWD’s water conservation program with its member agencies. Since 1992 Metropolitan has invested more than $191 million in conservation programs and related activities. In 2003 MWD implemented a new rate structure that includes a funding source dedicated to water conservation, recycling, groundwater recovery, and other local projects. The backbone of MWD’s conservation program isthe Conservation Credits Program, initiated in 1988, that cont ributes $154 per acre-foot of water conserved to assist member agencies in pursuing conservation opportunities. In tandem with these urban conservation efforts, MWD and IID entered into the 1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation Agreement and Approval Agreement. This agricultural water savings program began in 1990, and to date MWD has invested more than $200 million to construct, operate, and maintain projects with IID intended to conserve more than 100,000 acre-feet of water every year which can be transferred to MWD. In 2005 water savings from this program were calculated at 101,900 acre-feet.

Palo Verde Irrigation District and MWD have a 35-year agreement for a land management, crop rotation, and water supply program, under which Palo Verde farmers will stop irrigating between 7 to 29 percent of their land, on a rotating basis. This land fallowing program is estimated to produce between 24,500 acre-feet per year up to 110,000 acre-feet per year for use in Southern California. MWD will provide an estimated $6 million to local community improvement programs to counter potential negative economic impacts to communities in the Palo Verde region.

More than $440 million, primarily from State Propositions 13 and 50 and federal Title XVI grants, have been invested in water recycling programs in the region, resulting in over 500,000 acre-feet of water available per year, including Orange County Water District’s (OCWD) current reuse of Santa Ana River water. The growth in recycled water is expected to be about 400,000 acre-feet over the next decade.

OCWD and Orange County Sanitation District’s new Groundwater Replenishment System is designed to increase current water reuse by taking treated sewer water that is currently being released into the ocean and purifying it through microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide advanced oxidation treatment. The purified water will thenbe injected into a seawater barrier and pumped to percolation ponds to seep into deep aquifers and blend with Orange County’s other sources of groundwater. This Groundwater Replenishment System is projected to begin delivery of purified water in 2007, with potential for future expansion as needed. The development of groundwater storage and conjunctive use programs has improved the region’s water supply reliability and overall water quality. A 2000 study by the Association of Groundwater Agencies indicates that existing conjunctive use programs in the region provide an estimated 2.5 million acre-feet of water per year, which is a fraction of the region’s conjunctive use potential. It is estimated that more than 21.5 million acre-feet of additional water could be stored and used in Southern California groundwater basins with the resolution of institutional, water quality, and other issues. State agencieshave supported the development of 34 groundwater management and storage projects throughout the region.

As a result of MWD’s replenishment services pricing program, local agencies are implementing conjunctive use programs. They are storing imported water in groundwater basins and increasing their groundwater use during the summer and during drought years. It is estimated that an average of 100,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater supply is nowproduced as a result of MWD’s discount pricing of water delive ries. MWD has identified the potential for 200,000 acre-feet of additional groundwater production during drought years. To accomplish this additional drought year production, about 600,000 acre-feet of dedicated storage capacity within the local basins may be required.

An example of this type of conjunctive use program is the LasPosas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. The Calleg uas Municipal Water District, in cooperation with MWD, hasinitiated a conjunctive use program in the Las Posas Groundwater Basin of Ventura County. The project is designed to store a maximum of 210,000 acre-feet of SWP water supplies that can be used during water supply shortages. The project will be phased into operation with full operation anticipated by 2010. To date, 18 wells have been constructed and about 50,000 acre-feet of water is in groundwater storage.

Recent groundwater storage agreements allow additional stora ge in wet years. Groundwater agreements to be implemented in the region have the potential to put more than 53-billion gallons of water into storage in Orange County, the west San Gabriel Valley, and the Inland Empire area. Groundwater storage can also be accumulated outside of the South CoastHydrologic Region. MWD has recently developed water stora ge agreements with the Kern-Delta Water District, the Mojave Water Agency, and the North Kern Water Storage District, all located outside of the region. These groundwater storage programs are in addition to existing exchange agreements with the Semitropic Water Banking and Exchange Program155 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

in Kern County, the Arvin-Edison Water Storage Program in Kern County, and the Kern-Delta Storage Program (see Figure 5-5). Castaic Lake Water Agency has also entered into a short-term groundwater banking arrangement with Kern County.

Groundwater quality issues are being identified and addressed at many locations throughout the region. In theSan Gabriel Valley, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and a number of water suppliers have actively pursued technical remedies for the groundwater quality problems. Several treatment facilities for removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were fi rstconstructed in the 1990s. As of June 2002, 18 treatment facilities are operational. Groundwater supplies with high nitrate levels are either blended with other supplies or not used at all. Similar cleanup efforts are being pursued in the San Fernando Basin by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the cities of Burbank and Glendale. Several groundwater desalting plants are currently operated by the Santa Ana Water Project Authority (SAWPA), Chino Basin Desalting Authority, city of Corona, Eastern Municipal Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, the city of Oceanside, West Basin MWD, and the Sweetwater Authority. Brackishgroundwater desalting currently delivers about 100,000 acrefeet of water per year, and will increase to about 250,000 acre-feet during the next decade. State Proposition 13 water bond funding is being utilized to expand desalting capacity in the region. MWD recently developed water storage agreements with the Kern-Delta Water District, the Mojave Water Agency, and the North Kern Water Storage District, all located outside of the region. These groundwater storage programs are in addition to existing exchange agreements with the Semitropic Water Banking and Exchange Program in Kern County, the Arvin-Edison Water Storage Program in Kern County, and the Kern-Delta Storage Program **Figure 5-5 MWD storage agreements with San Joaquin Valley agencies**California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 165 The SAWPA is a joint powers authority in the eastern portion of the region. It represents five agencies in the counties of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino and covers a watershed area of 2,650 square miles. It provides effective and focused watershed planning on a regional basis.

S AWPA operates a brine disposal line and the Arlington Desalter, which facilitates disposal of waste brine from regional desalting plants. SAWPA has been particularly successful in recent years in assisting its member agencies in implementing several new water resources projects that enhance groundwater recovery, groundwater storage, water quality improvement and water recycling through the use of Proposition 13 Water Bond funding. About 20 potential groundwater recovery projects have been evaluated with a potential net water yield of 95,000 acre-feet per year.

The Port Hueneme Water Agency was formed to develop and operate a brackish water desalting demonstration facility for its member agencies in western Ventura County. Its goals are to improve the quality and reliability of local groundwater supplies and decrease seawater intrusion in the Oxnard Plain. The facility will provide a full-scale demonstration of side-by-side operation of three brackish water desalting technologies: reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and electrodialysis reversal.

Increasingly, the region’s water wholesalers, such as Castaic Lake Water Agency, SBVMWD, Mojave Water Agency (MWA), MWD, and SDCWA are acquiring part of their future supplies from water marketing or exchange arrangements, using the CRA and California Aqueduct to convey the exchanged or purchased water.

An agreement in late 2003 between MWA and MWD calls for the exchange of 75,000 acre-feet of SWP flow from the Califor

n ia Aqueduct. Under this accord, MWA received about 23,000 acre-feet of MWD’s State-authorized flow through the California Aqueduct at the end of year 2003. Additional water exchanges through this agreement will depend on the amount of rain or snowfall available to the SWP. Water will be stored in the high desert’s underground aquifers to help replenish the water table, prevent well-deepening by residents, and meet future needs.

The South Coast region has placed an increased emphasis on improving watershed management and protection. Local, State, and federal agencies and nonprofit organizations have invested in several management efforts, including watershed education, monitoring, and wetlands management and protection. More than 40 entities are generating new partnerships and coalitions among various stakeholders in attempts to integrate elements of flood hazard mitigation, groundwater and storm water conser

vation, and management of the quality of storm water runoff, to better manage resources. Below are a few examples of the region’s watershed programs:

• SA WPA, the largest watershed organization, was estab- lished to protect and enhance the quality and supply of the watershed and protect the environment by implemen- tation of its watershed plan.

• U nder the guidance of the Los Angeles County Department

of Public Works, watershed management plans are being developed for five coastal watersheds within Los Angeles County. Eleven watershed and subwatershed plans have been completed with eight pending or proposed plans under way, making Los Angeles County the most productive county in the state in terms of watershed planning.

• T he Hemet/San Jacinto Multipurpose Constructed

Wetlands is a collaborative project between the USBR and Eastern Municipal Water District. The wetland is nearly 60 acres with five interconnected marshes. It provides nitrogen removal of secondarily treated recycled water and habitat for migratory waterfowl, shore birds, and raptors along the Pacific Flyway.

• T he San Diego Creek Watershed is operated by the Irvine

Ranch Water District. The watershed program helps sustain a restored marsh and treats contaminated urban runoff water from San Diego Creek before it enters into Newport Bay in Orange County.

• OCWD operates the Prado Basin Wetland in Riverside

County. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OCWD operates 465 acres of constructed freshwater wetlands to reduce the nitrogen concentration of river water.



## Looking to the FutureThe region’s water agencies generally have solid plans for adapti ng to changing conditions and meeting future water needs. For example, the 2004 Report on MWD’s water supplies states,“Metropolitan has a comprehensive supply plan to provide suffi cient supplemental water supplies and to provide a prudent supply reserve over the next 20 years and beyond.” SAWPA has begun a 10-year integrated program to help, among other things, drought-proof the watershed, so it can roll off imported water for up to three years during drought years. The Chino Basin is one area that has developed an integrated conjunctive management program with the potential to develop 500,000 acre-feet of new storage over the next 20 years, including new yield from storm water management, SWP and recycled water175 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

recharge, and the implementation of aggressive water use efficiency programs. Water districts in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles County are engaged in integrated urban water management planning, collaborative data collection, and a new groundwater plan. These and other ongoing planning programs are important to manage changing conditions facing the region.Water conservation programs, water recycling, and groundwater recovery, as well as water marketing and other water supply augmentation responses are being examined and implemented.

The signing of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and related agreements in October 2003 facilitated long-term watertransfers from the IID and CVWP in the Colorado River Hydrol ogic Region to urban water users in the South Coast Hydrologic Region. They will help California reduce its use of Colorado River water to its basic allotment of 4.4 million acre-feet during years of normal supply. They will also make possible the transfer of additional water to be obtained through lining the All American and the Coachella canals. The water transfer between IID and SDCWA will help to stabilize MWD’s and CVWD’s water sup

p lies, satisfy outstanding miscellaneous and Indian water rights, and provide funding that IID and farmers in the Imperial Valley will use to implement additional water conservation measures once the required fallowing is complete.

MWD will continue its replenishment services water pricing program to encourage local agencies to store imported water in groundwater basins for use during the summer and during drought years. In addition, local agencies in the region are now planning to use water transfers for part of their base supplies, a change from past years when marketing arrangements were viewed as primarily for drought year supplies.

I n 2004 MWD updated its Integrated Water Resources Plan with the revised goal of achieving 1.1 million acre-feet of region-wide conservation by year 2025. The plan proposes to achieve this water conservation target utilizing several programs, including 500,000 acre-feet from compliance with new plumbing codes and other laws, 250,000 acre-feet from pre-1990 conservation, and 300,000 from active program-based conservation.

Ocean water desalination is sometimes described as the ultimate solution to Southern California’s water supply shortfall. While it has become a more feasible source of supply due to technical advances, the development of desalination facilities still faces many challenges that include high energy requirements, envi

ronmental impacts of brine disposal, and plant-siting considerations. State agencies have provided funding for the Desalination Research and Innovation Partnership, which furthered the development of advance reverse osmosis membranes. MWD and five of its member agencies have planned for the potential development of 126,000 acre-feet of desalinated ocean water. Those member agencies include LADWP, Long Beach Water Department, Municipal Water District of Orange County, WBMWD, and SDCWA. The SDCWA expects desalted ocean water to meet between 6 and 15 percent of the region’s needs by 2020 and is conducting an environmental review for building an ocean water desalination facility on the Encina Power Plant property in Carlsbad. SDCWA also is carrying out feasibility studies of desalination facilities at Camp Pendleton and in the southern county. All three sites are on the coast.

Another future water supply option is management of the San Bernardino Basin as a groundwater storage facility. The basin has a capacity of about 5.5 million acre-feet. Pursuant to the January 1969 settlement for Western Municipal Water District et al. vs. East San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District et al. Superior Court Riverside County Case number 78426, the Western-San Bernardino Watermaster determined that the safe yield of the San Bernardino Basin is about 232,000 acre-feet per year. SBVMWD has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey for many years to develop a groundwater computer model that will enable the agency to determine ways to enhance the safe yield of this basin.

T he Groundwater Replenishment System, a high-technology water purification system, is a project under development by the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. It will replace Water Factory 21, which was shut down in January 2004 in anticipation of construction of this new, larger system. The project will take highly treated wastewater and treat it beyond drinking water standards for groundwater recharge and injection into the seawater barriers along the coast. It will provide a second and reliable source of water to recharge the Orange County Basin; protect the basin from further water quality degradation brought on by seawater intrusion; and augment the existing recycled water supply for irrigation and industrial uses. In its first phase, the Groundwater Replenishment System will provide up to 72,000 acre-feet per year and allow for future expansion. It is expected to go online in 2007.

F lood control reservoirs are now being evaluated for their potent ial to provide some water supply benefits through the modification of their operations to enhance groundwater recharge and provide limited year-round storage. The SBVMWD, for example, has applied to the SWRCB for authorization to store storm water from the Santa Ana River in a reservoir that could be created behind Seven Oaks Dam. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) is completing a study, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, to reauthorize four CorpsCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 185 flood control facilities in Los Angeles County for the purpose ofcapturing and safely storing storm water and then slowly releasing the water to downstream groundwater recharge facilities after storm events.

The Water Augmentation Study is a long-term research project,led by the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council and supported financially by its partners, the USBR, MWD, LACDPW, Los Angeles RWQCB, Water Replenishment District of Southern California, LADWP, City of Los Angeles Watershed Protection Division, DWR, and the city of Santa Monica. The purpose of the study is to explore the potential for increasing local water supplies and reducing urban runoff pollution by increasing the upstream infiltration of storm water runoff. Theproject began in January 2000 to assess the impact of runofftransported pollutants on rivers, coastal water, and beaches; the viability of adding these storm water resources to local watersupplies, and the challenge of capturing storm water for infiltration, in ter ms of groundwater quality and quantity.

In 2000, DWR, in cooperation with the USBR and 10 Southe rn California water and wastewater agencies, undertook the Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative tocontinue the work previously started by the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (SCCWRRS). The initiative is a multiyear planning study that evaluates the feasibility of a regional water-recycling plan and assists local water and wastewater agencies in final planning and environmental documentation leading to implementation of projects identified in the SCCWRRS. The initiative is funded on a 50-50 percent cost-sharing among the 12 agencies. The initiative identified short-term projects that could add about 378,000 acre-feet of recycled water for regional use. The 15 short-term projects were identified for the areas of Calleguas, East San Gabriel, West Basin, Central Basin, North Orange County, Central Orange County, Upper Oso, San Juan, Encina, San Pasqual Valley, North City, South Bay, Chino Basin, San Bernardino, and Eastern Basin.

As part of a regional strategy to improve water supply reliability, several agreements with water districts in the Central Valley are providing groundwater storage for the South Coast region:

• Semitropic Water Banking and Exchange Program. This program allows storage of up to 350,000 acre-feet in the groundwater basin underlying the Semitropic Water Storage District in Kern County.

• Arvin-Edison Water Storage Program. MWD and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District have developed a program that allows Metropolitan to store water in the groundwater basin in the Water Storage District’s service area in Kern County. Over the next 25 to 30 years, this groundwater storage program will provide average dry- year withdrawals of about 70,000 acre-feet annually.

• Ker n-Delta Storage Program. This 25-year program will allow storage of up to 250,000 acre-feet of available State Water Project supplies.

Other potential management strategies includes interstategroundwater banking in Arizona, drought year land fallowing programs, lining parts of the All-American and Coachella canals, and agricultural water conservation beyond EWMP implementation. In addition, South Coast region water agencies are storing discount-priced imported water during winter months into groundwater basins and increasing their groundwater use during the summer and during droughts.

The Calleguas Municipal Water District operates a conjunctive use program in the Las Posas Groundwater Basin of Ventura County. Identified as the Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, it is designed to store a maximum of 300,000 acre-feet of water supplies that can be used during short-term and long-term water supply shortages. The project calls for the construction of 30 dual-purpose groundwater wells that will be used for both injection and water production. Pipelines will be constructed to connect the wells with CMWD facilities as far away as the Cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. The source of water supplies would be the State Water Project. The project will be phased into operation with full operation anticipated by 2010. To date, 18 wells have been built and about 50,000 acre-feet of water is in storage.

T o improve the reliability of its potable water supplies during droughts, the Western Municipal Water District is moving forward with plans to operate a conjunctive use program in groundwater basins in western San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The project, the Riverside-Corona Feeder, calls for the recharge of water supplies during above-average precipitation years into the groundwater basins in San Bernardino Valley and pumping those supplies during drought years. Sources of water for the recharging operations would be local surface runoff, including releases from the Seven Oaks Reservoir near the community of Mentone in San Bernardino County and the SWP. Recipients of the stored groundwater supplies are the cities of Corona and Riverside and the Elsinore Valley Water District. When completed, 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline will have been constructed. About 40,000 acre-feet of groundwater supplies could be achieved through this project.195 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Most of the projects described above are designed to improve water quality as the way to obtain increased water supplies. These include watershed activities, such as the Water Augmentation Study, groundwater desalination, use of highly treated recycled water by the OCWD, reduction of sewage spills and storm waterrunoff through water conservation, and surface and groundwater storage projects that implement blending and treatment strategies to reduce contaminants in treated drinking water supplies.

I n addition, MWD is committed to retrofitting all five of its water treatment plants to use ozone; adding fluoride to treated drinking water supplies; implementing a recreation policy for Diamond Valley Lake that protects drinking water quality; and supporting salinity reduction projects throughout the region. Outside the region MWD also supports efforts to preserve and enhance the Sacramento River watershed and the Delta, which are important to the operation of the SWP system.



## Water Portfolios for Water Years **1 998, 2000, and 2001** 
Hydrologic conditions for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 impacted the water supply and water use characteristics for the South Coast Hydrologic Region. These three years were selected because 1998 represents actual supplies and uses in a very wet year, 2000 presents water uses in a near-average water year (on a statewide basis), and 2001 presents the actual data for supplies and uses in a drier water year. In water year 1998, rainfall totals ranged from 170 percent of average in San Diego County to more than 250 percent of average in Ventura County with more than 50 percent of the annual precipitation in January and February. In comparison, during water year 2000 rainfall totals ranged from 60 percent of average in San Diego County to more than 100 percent of average in Ventura County. Precipitation amounts for the region for water year 2000 were average to moderately below average. Rainfall deficits increased from north to south. Water year 2001 was a dry year statewide, although closer to normal levels of precipitation (92 percent of average) occurred for the South Coast region.

T able 5-1 provides more detailed information about the total water supplies available to this region for these three specific years from precipitation, imports, and groundwater, and also summarizes all of the water uses in the region, including the large amount of evapotranspiration from vegetation and forests. The water portfolio table (Table 5-3) and companion water portfolio flow diagrams (Figures 5-6 and 5-7) provided more detailed information about how all available water supplies are distributed and used throughout this region. Table 5-3 presents specific information about the developed or dedicated portion of the total available water for years 1998, 2000, and 2001, which summarizes all water that is used for urban, agricultural, and environmental purposes. TheSouth Coast region’s relatively high level of urban development is reflected in the data for urban water use patterns. In 1998, 78 percent of all applied water use in the region was urban. In 2000 and 2001, urban use accounted for about 81 percent of total water use in regional. By contrast, agriculture only accounted for 15 percent of all applied water in 1998; 17 percent in 2000; and 15 percent in 2001. Table 5-3 also provides detailed information about the sources of the devel

oped water supplies, which are obtained from a mix of both surface water, groundwater supplies, and recycled water.



## Selected References
2002 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board

2 002 Statewide Recycled Water Survey, State Water Resources Control Board, 2003. Available: www.swrcb. ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/index.html Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature, MWD, February 2004 Annual Report of the Santa Clarita Valley Water Purveyors

C alifornia’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118-03 (Draft), Update 2003, California Department of Water Resources Correspondence with watershed and water wholesale and retail delivery agencies. Groundwater Replenishment System W eb site: www.gwrsystem.com/ Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study. Public Draft Report. July 2004. Available: www.matilijadam. org/public-report.htm
N onpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013, State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission, January 2000

San Diego County Water Authority – Water Management

–Recycling Web site: www.sdcwa.org/manage/sourcesrecycling.phtml

S trategic Plan, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, November 15, 2001 Water Quality Control Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Board

W

atershed Management Initiative Chapter, Regional Water

Quality Control Board215 **Chapter 5** South Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

South Coast Hydrologic RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 225 **Table 5-3 South Coast Region water portfolio (TAF)** 

ID South Coast South Coast South Coast Number: Flow Diagram Component (see legend) 1998 2000 2001

1 Colorado River Deliveries 1,081.3 1,296.0 1,250.5 2 Total Desalination

- - - 3 Water from Refineries

- - - 4a Inflow From Oregon

- - - b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 20,873.0 7,522.1 9,327.0 6a Runoff - Natural N/A N/A N/A b Runoff - Incidental N/A N/A N/A 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge N/A N/A N/A 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow N/A 9 Local Deliveries 292.1 211.4 217.1 10 Local Imports 442.0 294.0 272.0 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries

- - - b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries

- - - 12 Other Federal Deliveries 4.2 0.6

- 13 State Water Project Deliveries 687.7 1,300.1 958.7 14a Water Transfers - Regional

- - - b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water 3.5 3.5 3.5 16 Environmental Water Account Releases

- - - 17a Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Return Flows to Developed Supply - Managed Wetlands

- - - 18a Conveyance Seepage - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Seepage - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands

- - - 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture

- - - b Recycled Water - Urban 202.4 182.7 188.8 c Recycled Water - Groundwater 2.1 37.1 36.2 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag

- - - b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands

- - -

c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 87.2 114.4 95.2 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands

- - -

c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 321.6 386.5 367.0 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag

- - - b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 287.7 37.8 111.7 24a Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Ag

- - - b Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Wetlands, Instream, W&S

- - -

c Return Flow for Delta Outflow - Urban Wastewater

- - - 25 Direct Diversions 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 1,380.6 1,515.5 1,643.3 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated 786.0 865.0 841.3 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 846.3 1,008.4 1,020.9 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 1,752.5 1,643.3 1,975.6 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking

- - - 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag 35a Evaporation from Lakes 18.5 18.5 17.9 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 149.1 164.2 160.8 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 256.8 150.2 166.1 37 Agricultural Water Use 691.9 908.4 758.4 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 31.2 38.1 37.2 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 990.7 1,252.8 1,144.3 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 670.2 752.1 709.0 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 603.2 543.1 510.0 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 105.9 139.7 151.0 40 Urban Commercial Use 699.5 914.1 885.5 41 Urban Industrial Use 186.0 209.8 209.8 42 Urban Large Landscape 165.7 242.8 187.5 43 Urban Energy Production 39.8 39.8 39.8 44 Instream Flow

- - - 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers

- - - 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 494.8 645.8 542.9 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 31.2 38.1 37.2 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 941.8 1134.6 1047.5 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater

- - - 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 11.2 15 12.3 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 1824.8 2156.8 2015.9 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 346.5 362.5 358.5 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag

- - -

c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands

- - - d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 100.1 135.1 110.1 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 2009.7 2363.3 2214.8 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands

- - - 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink

- - - 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -

c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 2,367.0 2,991.0 2,505.0 56 Regional Exports 0.0 0.0 0.0 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -1,223.5 -1,372.5 -1,400.0 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 371.9 127.8 332.3 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 2,112.7 3,058.8 3,058.8

Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes**Chapter 5** Sou th Coast Hydrologic Region 23 5 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 200524 5 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports **Chapter 2** Sou th Coast Hydrologic Region California Wa ter Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 6 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3**Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region i6 California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 6 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 6 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................6-1 Setting ................................ 6-1 Population .......................... 6-2 Water Supply and Usage ..... 6-3 Current Situation ............ 6-5 State of the Region .............. 6-5 Challenges .................... 6-9 Accomplishments ......... 6-10 Looking to the Future ......... 6-13 Changes in Water Demands for 2030 Scenarios ............................................................................................6-15 Regional Planning and Coordination .............................................................................................................6-15 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................6-15 Selected References ........... 6-15



## Figures Figure 6-1 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region (map) ..............................................................................................6-ii Figure 6-2 Butte Creek progress ...............................................................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-3 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region population .......................................................................................6-4 Figure 6-4 Sacramento River region water balancefor water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ...........................6-8 Figure 6-5 Sacramento River region - illustrated water flow diagram .........................................................................6-19 Figure 6-6 Sacramento River region - schematic flow diagram ..................................................................................6-20



## Tables Table 6-1 Sacramento River region population density by county ................................................................................6-4
T able 6-2 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region water balance summary .....................................................................6-6
T able 6-3 Sacramento River region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies....................................................6-7
T able 6-4 Sacramento River region water portfolios .................................................................................................6-18**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

**Some Statistics** Area - 27,246 square miles (17.2% of State) Average annual precipitation - 36.7 inches Year 2000 population - 2,593,110 2030 population projection - 4,569,490 Total reservoir storage capacity - 16,146 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 2,038,900 acres .

.

.

.

.

. Flow in TAF
1998

10 2000 9 2001 7 **Nor th Lahontan Region**  Little Truckee Flow in TAF
1998 851 2000 1,111 2001 669 **North Coast Region** Trinity River (CVP) Flow in TAF
1998

2 2000 2 2001 2 North Coast Region

North Fork Ditch

Flow in T AF
1998

3 2000 3 2001 3 **Nor th Lahontan Region**  Pit River

Flow in TAF
1998

0 2000 1 2001 2 **Nor th Lahontan Region** 

Echo Lake Conduit

Flow in TAF
1998 40 2000 30 2001 23 **San Joaquin River Region** Sly Park

Flow in TAF
1998 69 2000 72 2001 80 **San Francisco Bay Region** Putah South Canal North Bay Aqueduct (SWP)

Vallejo Permit Water

Flow in TAF
1998 5,119 2000 6,174 2001 4,572 **San Joaquin River Region**

Delta Mendota Canal Folsom South Canal California Aqueduct TEHAMA

GLENN

LAKE COLUSA BUTTE

YUBA

SUTTER NEVADA SIERRA SACRAMENTO YOLO NAPA

SOLANO PLACER

EL DORADO PLUMAS SISKYOU MODOC

SHASTA LASSEN **Figure 6-1 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region**

The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region includes the entire drainage area of California’s largest river and its tributaries, extending from the Oregon border to Sacramento. Arrows indicate annual flows entering an d leaving the region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF
1998 43,487 2000 18,156 2001 6,944 Sacramento River1 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 6 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region

The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region also encompasses allor a portion of six of the state’s 18 national forests. Lassen, Mend ocino, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta-Trinity and Tahoe Basin national forests are contained or contiguous to the region and contribute to the dynamics of its vast landscape. These federal lands are each managed with specific goals for fish and wildlife such as the recovery of the spotted owl or the Chinook salmon, as well as for hydroelectric power and sustainable timber harvest. Such diverse goals often call for creative management strategies.

Agriculture is the region’s largest industry, contributing a wide variety of crops including rice, grain, tomatoes, field crops, fruits and nuts. Crop statistics show that irrigated agricultural acreage in the region peaked during the 1980s and has since declined with a little more than 2 million acres irrigated in 2000. Excess applied irrigation water generally returns to the supply systemthrough drainage canals, or recharges groundwater. Basin efficiency is usually very good because downstream users recycle return flows for their own use. In some places, return flows are the only water source for downstream agricultural users.

T he southern portion of the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region is experiencing rapid population growth and urbanization. While California experienced a statewide population increase approaching 15 percent from 1990 to 2000, growth rates in the Sacramento metropolitan region have exceeded this trend. According to California Department of Finance projections, Sacramento County’s population increased by 17.5 percentbetween 1990 and 2000, and is projected to grow by 26 percent between 2000 and 2010 to more than 1.5 million people. Similarly, the adjoining urban areas in Placer, El Dorado andYolo counties are also experiencing the same levels of extensive growth and urban expansion. This ongoing rapid rate of urbanization is expected to generate significant land and water use challenges for the entire southern portion of the Sacramento River region, including adequate drought-period water supplies, growth in flood plains, conversion of productive farmland, and the preservation of sensitive environmental habitats. 

## Setting The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region includes the entire drainage area of the state’s largest river and its tributaries, extending from the Oregon border downstream to the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta. The region covers 27,246 square miles including all or a portion of 20 predominately rural Northern California counties, and extends from the crest of the Sierra Nevada in the east to the summit of the Coast Range in the west (Figure 6-1). The northernmost area, mainly high desert plateau, is characterized by cold, snowy winters with only moderate rainfall, and hot, dry summers. The mountainous parts in the north and east typically have cold, wet winters with large amounts of snow providing runoff for summer water supplies. The Sacramento Valley floor has mild winters with less precipitation and hot dry summers. Overall annual precipitation in the region generally increases as you move from south to north and west to east. The heavy snow and rain that falls in this region contributes to the overall water supply for the entire state.

The many rivers and streams that are tributary to the Sacramento River provide important riparian habitat that is criticalfor many aquatic and terrestrial species including the springrun Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Central Valley steelhead (oncorhynchus mykiss). (For more information about increased concern over decline of endangered salmon, see Figure 6-2 and discussion under Ecosystem Restoration.) This region is the only known area for the winter-run Chinook. The valley floor region section adjoining the river, provide some of the most important wintering areas along the Pacific Flyway for many varieties of waterfowl. The region also has several wetland and waterfowl preserves that provide nesting and migration areas for threatened avian species including the bald eagle and Swainson’s hawk and numerous species of neotropical birds. All of these valuable resources are vital components of the ecosystem and contribute to the ecological health of the entire state.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 2 6 For the central and northern portions of the Sacramento River region, most urban development has occurred along the main highway corridors. Although a few of the larger cities in the region, such as Sacramento, divert most of their water from the larger rivers, the principal source of water for most of the urban and rural communities throughout this region is groundwater. TheSacramento Valley is recognized as one of the foremost groundwater basins in the state. In the rural mountain areas of this region, domestic supplies come almost entirely from groundwater.



## Population
The population of the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region was 2,593,000 in 2000, which represents about 8 percent of California’s total population. Table 6-1 provides an additional breakdown by county for populations, land areas, and the resulting population density. Geographically, Siskiyou County has the largest acreage in the region, 6,287 square miles, but with a 2000 population of only 44,750 the population density is about seven people per square mile. On the other hand, Sacramento County is the most populated county in the region, with a density of 1,274 people per square mile. When looking at the map of the region in Figure 6-1, it should be noted that both of these counties are only partially in the region. However, these statistics are useful in portraying the environment of the region, which, except for Sacramento, is predominately rural in nature with low population ratios per square mile.

Although 2000 population numbers indicate lower densities than other developed regions of the state, it is projected that the Sacramento River region’s total population will increase to morethan 4.5 million by the year 2030. Figure 6-3 provides a graphical depiction of the Sacramento River region’s total population from 1960 through 2000, with current projections to 2030. This growth will have a significant impact on shaping the natural resources of the region. Population per square mile decreases as you move farther north into the region, which contains large areas of agriculture and forested lands, both private and public. The Sacramento River region includes the entire drainage area of the state’s largest river and its tributaries, extending from the Oregon border downstream to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In this photo, the Sacramento River fl ows near downtown Sacramento. (DWR Photo)3 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Future land use planning and decisions, at both the state and local level, will need to consider the changing complexion of the region, as well how to best use and preserve the vast open spaces and abundant natural resources in the region.



## Water Supply and Usage Because of the weather patterns that produce a high level of precipitation in the region, major water supplies from the region are provided through the development of reservoirs and from direct groundwater pumping, which historically has recharged through the winter months. Major reservoirsin the region provide water supply, recreation, power, environmental, and fl ood control benefi ts. The Central Valley Project (CVP) is the largest water project in the state, and includes Shasta Lake, Whiskeytown Lake, Keswick Reservoir and Folsom Lake in this region. A large portion of the water supplied by CVP is delivered for agriculture purposes, both in this region and as water exports to other regions. The U.S. This performance measure reports the escapement (the number of adult salmon escaping mortality and successfully returning each year to spawn) of adult spring- run Chinook salmon, a threatened species under the state and federal Endangered Species acts, on Butte Creek. The Butte C reek population is one of the few remaining self-sustaining populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Central Valley. The spring- run in Butte Creek has been affected by significant impediments to upstream passage of adults stemming from dams, inoperative fish ladders, and reduced flows as a result of water diversions. Since 1995, restoration actions have included dam removal, installation and/or repair of fish ladders and fish screens, and improvements to base flow. Spring Run Chinook Salmon on Butte Creek **Figure 6-2 Butte Creek Progress**

Increased concern over the decline in endangered salmon has stimulated several projects and programs. Figure shows number of returning adult spring-run Chinook salmon in Butte Creek from 1970 to 200 3. Restoration projects and programs are listed by year of impl ementation.

Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Solano Project provides urban and agricultural water supply to parts of the Sacramento River Region and parts of the San Francisco Bay region. The major water supply facilities of the State Water Project (SWP) are along the Feather River basin in this region, consisting of Lake Oroville, Thermalito Afterbay, Lake Davis and Frenchman Reservoir. SWP water serves both urban and agricultural uses in this region and are exported south to other drier regions of the state. A large amount of water from both CVP and SWP reservoirs is released downstream to maintain environmental water quality standards in the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta. Such storage releases are critical in the summer and fall, to prevent ocean salt water from penetrating east into the Delta during high tidal cycles.

T here are several other, smaller reservoirs that add to theoverall surface water supply. In total, the region has 43 reservoirs, with a combined capacity of almost 16 million acre-feet. Major reservoirs in the region provide not only water supply, but also are the source of recreation, power generation, andCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 6 Data from California Department of Finance provide decadal population from 1960 to 2000 and population projection for 2030

for the Sacramento River region. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 **Figure 6-3 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region population**

**County Population Square Miles Persons Per Square Mile** 

Butte 204,500 1639 125 Colusa 19,050 1151 17 El Dorado 159,700 1711 93 Glenn 26,750 1315 20 *Lake 58,800 1258 47 *Lassen 34,300 4557 8 *Modoc 9,375 3944 2 *Napa 125,400 754 166 Nevada 92,200 958 96 Placer 248,900 1404 177 Plumas 20,750 2554 8 Sacramento 1,230,600 966 1,274 Shasta 165,200 3785 44 *Sierra 3,610 953 4 *Siskiyou 44,750 6287 7 Sutter 79,400 603 132 Tehama 55,800 2951 19 *Trinity 13,000 3179 4 Y olo 169,400 1013 167 Yuba 60,700 631 96 * Represents counties only partially covered within the region California Dept. of Finance (July, 2001 Estimated) **Table 6-1 Sacramento River Region Population Density by County**  other environmental and fl ood control benefi ts. In addition, the region has a network of creeks and rivers that convey water for use throughout the region and also provide nesting and rearing grounds for major fi sh and wildlife species. Figure 6-4 provides a graphical presentation of the categories of the water supply sources that are used to meet the developed water uses in this hydrologic region for 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Water use in the Sacramento River region is mostly for agricultural production with more than 2.0 million irrigated acres in 2000. Agricultural products include a variety of crops such as rice and other grains, tomatoes, fi eld crops, fruits and nuts. A substantial number of acres of rangeland in this region are also used for livestock management. Much of the economy of the region relies on agricultural water supplies, which are diverted and distributed through extensive systems of diversion canals and drains. Basinwide water use effi ciency is generally high,because many return fl ows from fi elds are captured by drainage systems and then re-supplied to other fi elds downstream. In some places, these return fl ows are the primary water source for other downstream uses, including agriculture and wildlife refuges. The water quality of these return fl ows is a concern for some downstream users, because agricultural runoff cancontain elevated levels of pesticides and fertilizer salts. In addition, excess applied irrigation water can return to the supply system by percolating as groundwater recharge. The larger urban areas in the region have developed near major rivers, so surface water diversions are a key component of municipal water supplies. However, the Sacramento Valley is also recognized as having one of the foremost groundwater basins5 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

in the state. The availability of abundant groundwater suppliesunder the valley floor has allowed urban areas to expand delive ry capabilities by including the use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater has become the principle source of water supply for urban as well as rural domestic uses.

In-stream flows, refuges and wildlife areas are the principal environmental use of water in the region. With the federal and state listing of the spring-run Chinook salmon, winter-run Chinook and Central Valley steelhead, much attention has been given to the recovery of these species and their related habitat. Tributaries to the Sacramento River, as well as the main stem itself, have been the focus of a number of ecosystem-related projects designed to increase the amount of environmental water use for habitat and species restoration.

In addition, the Sacramento Valley serves as a breeding and resting ground along the Pacific Flyway. Therefore, in more recent years, duck and other waterfowl habitat development in the valley section by duck clubs, non-profit groups and natural resource agencies have resulted in an increase in the use of environmental water in an attempt to increase the numbers of waterfowl species residing in or using the region. Certain agricultural practices are known to benefit many species of wildlife. The programs that provide the most benefits are the rice straw decomposition program and the use of agricultural return flow to refuges and duck clubs, which are designed to improve air and water quality in the valley. As a result of these programs, and other resource management activities, the Sacramento River region contains the largest and most extensive wetlands in the state. The Sacramento River regionhas a number of acres in both private and public ownership dedicated to managed wetlands. For example, in the northeastern mountain counties, associated with the Pit River system, such as the Big Valley and Alturas area, there are about 14,000 acres of managed wetlands. Farther south, in the Sacramento Valley, there are 16,987 acres in federal ownership; 11,987 acres of State lands; and 28,642 acres in private ownership managed as wetlands.

W ith the listing of the winter-run Chinook, spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead, much of the waterdiverted out of the Sacramento River waterways for agricultural use, environmental uses and refuge water supplies passes through state-of-the-art fish screens. These fish screens minimize take of the species when water is diverted from the river, and also increases system flexibility, allowing year-long diversion of water for agricultural purposes. 

### Current Situation Table 6-2 presents a Water Supply Balance for this hydrologic

region for 1998, a wet year; 2000, an average year; and 2001, a drier year. The total sources of all water supplies to the region are tabulated in the top portion of Table 6-2, the major uses of all water are shown in the middle section, and estimated interaction with groundwater storage is shown at the bottom of the table.Using 2000 as an example, a significant portion of the precipitation (57 million acre-feet) is used by native vegetation (forests),evaporation, unregulated runoff and percolation to groundwater , tabulated as 26.5 million acre-feet. Statutory Required outflows to maintain Delta water quality requirements (SWRCB Decision 1630) are the next largest component of water use, 12.3 million acre-feet, followed by consumptive use of applied water in the Sacramento River region, 5.56 million acre-feet, and water exports to other regions 6.2 million acre-feet. Table 6-3 provides more specific information about the developed or dedicated component of water supplies for agricultural, urban and environmental purposes, as assembled from actual data for 1998, 2000 and 2001. This table provides more specific information regarding the distribution of developed water, withlarge components used for environmental and agricultural purp oses. Note that the environmental water use component of this table includes the amount required to maintain Delta outflow standards, which amounts to more than half of the tabulated environmental water usage. Figure 6-4 presents a bar chartthat summarizes only the dedicated and developed urban, agric ultural and environmental water uses in this hydrologic region.



## State of the Region
Lands that are irrigated with groundwater generally enjoy areliable supply as do those urban areas that depend on groundwater as all or part of their supply. However, in the foothills, groundwater development in fractured rock sources are highly variable in terms of water quantity and water quality and are an uncertain source for large-scale residential development. In the more rural portions of this region, small, widely dispersed populations translate into high per capita costs for municipalwater system maintenance and improvements. Historic development pattern of small geographically dispersed population centers can constrain the ability to interconnect individual water systems or to develop centralized sources of good quality municipal water supplies because major capital improvement projects become more expensive.

Exports from the Sacramento Valley are a concern for some water interest groups in the region, because they are fearful of losing this resource which is a key component to futureCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 6 6 Water Entering the Region Precipitation 89,500 57,106 35,895 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions*** 901 1,150 700 Total 90,401 58,256 36,595 Water Leaving the Region Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 4,119 5,532 5,456 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions*** 5,194 6,251 4,657 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 11,039 8,879 5,663 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 35,112 12,328 3,940 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 31,445 26,518 20,439 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows Total 86,909 59,508 40,155 Storage Changes in the Region [+] Water added to storage [-] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 2,752 -1,101 -2,412 Change in Groundwater Storage ** 740 -151 -1,148 Total 3,492 -1,252 -3,560

Applied Water * (compare with Consumptive Use) 6,957 9,208 9,096

*Footnote for applied water

Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no lon ger available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and outflows.

**Footnote for change in Groundwater Storage

C hange in Groundwater Storage is based upon best available information. Basins in the north part of the state (North Coast, San Francisco, Sacramento River and North Lahontan regions and parts of Central Coast and San Joaquin River regions) have been modeled – spring 1997 to spring 1998 for the 1998 water year and spring 1999 to spring 2000 for the 2000 water year. All other regions and year 2001 were calculated using the following equation:

GW change in storage = intentional recharge + deep percolation of applied water + conveyance deep percolation - withdrawals

This equation does not include the unknown factors such as nat ural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation)
1998 (168%) 2000 (105%) 2001 (67%) **Table 6-2 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Water Balance Summary - TAF** 
Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in Region7 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Table 6-3 Sacramento River Region Water Use and Distribution of Dedicated Supplies (TAF)** 

Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion Applied Net Depletion
Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use 2001 1998 2000

**WATER USE**

**DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES Urban**  Large Landscape 91.8 111.2 120.1 Commercial 113.1 140.4 137.5 Industrial 77.3 84.2 84.5 Energy Production 0.0 0.3 0.1 Residential - Interior 191.5 223.3 229.2 Residential - Exterior 243.8 291.7 297.3 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 313.2 313.2 378.8 378.8 384.4 384.4 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Outflow 312.0 309.4 368.8 366.2 379.6 377.0 Conveyance Applied Water 9.8 8.5 8.5 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 4.9 4.9 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 727.3 635.2 632.6 859.6 756.2 753.6 877.2 772.7 770.1** 
**Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 5,841.2 7,927.1 7,781.7 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 3,677.9 3,677.9 4,983.2 4,983.2 4,908.4 4,908.4 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 122.0 122.0 173.4 173.4 174.2 174.2 Outflow 1,494.4 497.7 1,901.5 690.3 1,927.7 972.5 Conveyance Applied Water 617.0 786.8 785.4 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 40.6 40.6 61.5 61.5 59.9 59.9 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 199.3 139.3 223.7 179.2 232.3 186.9 GW Recharge Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Agricultural Use 6,458.2 5,534.2 4,477.5 8,713.9 7,343.3 6,087.6 8,567.1 7,302.5 6,301.9** 

**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 3,699.6 3,759.8 3,747.5 Outflow 586.3 586.3 600.2 600.2 614.1 614.1 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 2,754.1 2,024.7 885.0 Outflow 947.7 947.7 782.8 782.8 320.5 320.5 Required Delta Outflow Applied Water 9,505.0 7,231.6 4,486.2 Outflow 9,505.0 9,505.0 7,231.6 7,231.6 4,486.2 4,486.2 Managed Wetlands Habitat Applied Water 398.3 429.5 445.7 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 127.5 127.5 169.7 169.7 162.9 162.9 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 9.8 9.8 14.4 14.4 14.2 14.2 Outflow 208.2 204.2 193.3 189.1 201.4 197.0 Conveyance Applied Water 40.8 42.0 23.3 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 2.7 2.7 Total Managed Wetlands Use 439.1 352.6 348.6 471.5 384.5 380.3 469.0 382.5 378.1 **Total Environmental Use 16,397.8 11,391.6 11,387.6 13,487.6 8,999.1 8,994.9 9,587.7 5,803.3 5,798.9** 
**TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 23,583.3 17,561.0 16,497.7 23,061.1 17,098.6 15,836.1 19,032.0 13,878.5 12,870.9**

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 13,939.5 13,939.5 13,021.9 12,204.8 12,204.8 11,172.4 8,843.0 8,843.0 8,075.4 Local Imported Deliveries 9.7 9.7 9.1 10.4 10.4 9.5 8.5 8.5 7.8 Colorado River Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CVP Base and Project Deliveries 1,990.7 1,990.7 1,859.7 2,466.7 2,466.7 2,258.0 2,497.3 2,497.3 2,280.5 Other Federal Deliveries 198.0 198.0 185.0 228.3 228.3 209.0 239.5 239.5 218.7 SWP Deliveries 14.9 14.9 13.9 14.9 14.9 13.6 19.6 19.6 17.9 Required Environmental Instream Flow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 1,408.2 1,408.2 1,408.2 2,173.5 2,173.5 2,173.5 2,270.6 2,270.6 2,270.6 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 446.5 641.7 656.3 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 5,575.8 5,320.8 4,497.2 Recycled Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

**TOTAL SUPPLIES 23,583.3 17,561.0 16,497.7 23,061.1 17,098.6 15,836.1 19,032.0 13,878.5 12,870.9**  **Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0** California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 8 6 **Figure 6-4 Sacramento River region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Wild & Scenic
R.

Instream Flow

Req Delta Outflow

Managed Wetlands

Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Reuse & Recycle

Ground Water

State Project

Federal Projects

Local Projects **Dedicated Water Supplies Applied Water Uses** 

**Water Balance for Water Years**

Three years show a marked change in the amount and relative pro portions of water delivered to Sacramento River region’s urban and agricultural sectors and water dedicated to the environment ( applied water, top chart), where the water came from, and how much water was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, botto m chart).9 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

economic growth. Although there is an abundant water supply in this hydrologic region, limited infrastructure in the foothill communities and the historic water development for the needs of the downstream urban and agricultural users has resulted in some water supply shortages to outlying and foothill areas in dry years. The specific water problems of the foothills are described in more detail in Chapter 12 on the Mountain Counties region. Urban areas in the central part of this region generally have sufficient supplies to survive dry periods with periodic cutbacks. However, as future population growth increases in the region, the competition for high quality water for municipal water will also increase.

Many north valley water users are also concerned that in the future their surface water rights may be further curtailed, such that more groundwater will be needed for irrigation as well as forurban use. In this light, they are apprehensive about new proposals involving the export of surface and groundwater supplies to other locations, unless proper planning provides assurances for retaining the water necessary to meet future agricultural, urban and environmental needs at the local level.

C hanges to surface water allocations in the region may occur as a result of negotiations for renewal of CVP contracts, increased environmental restoration needs, expanded conjunctive use of surface and ground water, and various plans and proposals for water transfers. Cumulatively, these changes could stimulate a substantial increase in groundwater use in the region. In addition groundwater development will most likely be targeted to meet a significant share of the moderately increasing water demandsof the region. In response to this phenomenon, some local gover nments in the region are evaluating the use of groundwater regulations in relation to new development as a method to assure adequate water supply for future needs.

The potential for developing new supplies from groundwater is more favorable in the northern portion of the SacramentoValley. The southern portion is already experiencing localized groundwater supply and quality problems, such as in the Sacramento area. Although substantial groundwater can potentially be identified in the Sacramento Valley, there is still a great deal of research that needs to be done to evaluate thequantity and quality of these supplies. If additional groundwater supplies are identified and documented for future use, some of the existing groundwater infrastructure might alsohave to be replaced or modified to use the resource to its fulle st. Potential environmental impacts of increased groundwater extractions in the Sacramento Valley needs to be evaluated to determine if this would affect the amount of river surface flows and interaction with groundwater tables. Competition for use of the groundwater resource is expected to continue as population increases, and the potential also exists for an increased number of water transfers in the future. Watertransfers, especially those contracts with a groundwater substitut ion component, need to be evaluated for their cumulative effects, because the overall effect could contribute to greater use of the groundwater resources in the region that may negatively impact local water users.

In recent years, requirements for managing threatened and endangered species are influencing management of the region’s water supplies. The salmon and steelhead fishery in the upper Sacramento River has declined greatly over past decades, resulting in many programs and projects for fishery restoration. Along the Sacramento River, factors that contribute to this problem include: unsuitably warm water temperatures, toxic heavy metals from acidmine drainage, pesticides and fertilizer runoff, degraded spawni ng gravels, obstructions to fish migration, and prior destruction of riparian habitat due to growth or noxious weed encroachment. It should be noted, however, that some riparian habitats are now being restored due to projects funded by federal and State agencies associated with CBDA (discussed later in this chapter).

In summary, the majority of the region does enjoy abundant groundwater and surface water supplies for all beneficial uses in the region. However, precautions should be taken with land use changes that may use a greater amount of the natural resources because the majority of the area is just beginning to understand its groundwater resources and how they, combined with surface water supplies, can be used most efficiently.


### Challenges
Water Reallocation and Transfers During extended periods of drought, water districts in the Sacramento River Region that rely on surface water supplies may be faced with insufficient water supplies, due to surface water allocation cutbacks imposed by their CVP and SWP water contracts. As shown in Table 6-4, CVP deliveries to this region in a normal year exceed 2.4 million acre-feet per year, while SWP deliveries in the Feather River service area average about 15,000 acre-feet per year. During extended droughts, reductions in deliveries could eventually force water users to choose between using groundwater to replace the reduced surface supplies, or taking valuable agricultural acreage out of production. The additional use of groundwater supplies by a greater number of water users during droughts may result in adverse impacts to the groundwater resource, which has the potential to negatively impact users that are totally dependent on groundwater supplies. Surface water transfer programs toCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 10 6 other regions are of concern, because such programs have the potential to aggravate overuse of the groundwater resources. Before new out-of-basin water transfers are considered, local water interests would like to ensure that their existing surfacewater rights are protected, and that equitable use of groundwater supplies are established to sustain the local agricultural economy and natural resource needs.

With a growing demand for high quality water throughout the state, water transfers are being evaluated more closely as a means to move water out of the Sacramento River region to other parts of the state. In response, several counties in the region have passed laws that regulate or impede water transfers that would move water outside of their county, especially when a proposed transfer program has a groundwater component. In some counties, for instance, transferees are required to mitigate for third-party impacts associated with this type of water transfer and transfers require a permit approved by the Board of Supervi

sors or its designee. In other counties, transferring groundwater outside of the county is prohibited by local ordinances.

Water Quality Surface water quality in the watershed is generally good, making the Sacramento River one of the most desirable water sources in the state. Nonetheless, turbidity, rice pesticides, and organophosphate pesticides such as diazinon affect fisheries and drinking water supplies. The decline of fisheries in the Sacramento River is in part related to water quality problems on the river’s main stem: unsuitable water temperature, toxic heavy metals, such as mercury, copper, zinc, and cadmium from acid mine drainage, pesticides and fertilizer in agricultural runoff, and degraded spawning gravels. Holding of rice field drain

a ge, allowing for degradation or rice herbicides, has effectively addressed this water quality concern among downstream water users, in particular, the city of Sacramento. In the Cache Creek watershed, Clear Lake suffers from large mercury, sediment, and nutrient loadings, the latter leading to nuisance algae blooms. Along with a few select other water bodies, the basin plan specifically prohibits direct discharges of wastes into Folsom Lake and the lower American River downstream to its conflu

ence with the Sacramento; waste discharges from houseboats on Shasta, Clear Lake, and in the Delta are also banned. High density recreation use of Whiskeytown and Shasta lakes may be contributing to high bacteria levels in these two reservoirs.

In its triennial review, the Central Valley Regional Board identified mercury loads, a legacy of California’s gold mining heritage, as one of the most significant water quality problems in the region. In particular, the Cache Creek watershed is the major source of mercury to the Delta; to a lesser extent, mercury is also a concern in Lake Berryessa and Marsh Creek Reservoir. An organic form of mercury, methylmercury, is a neurotoxin that is especially dangerous to fetuses and infants, attacking the central nervous system and causing an array of developmentaland other problems. Because of methylmercury’s bioaccumulative properties, several water bodies in the Sacramento River region have fish consumption advisories. Pesticide management and agricultural water discharge has recently come into the limelight with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s decision to eliminate waivers associated with agricultural discharge. Coalitions in the region are forming partnerships to address this issue through a watershed approach as provided for by the Regional Board and affirmed by the State Water Resources Control Board in their review of the Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver. Stakeholders in the region are working to find a solution that encompasses the protection of public health, meets current and future water quality regulations, and allows for a sustainable agricultural economy.

Groundwater quality in the Sacramento River Region is gene rally good, though there are local groundwater problems. Naturally occurring salinity impairs wells at the north end of the Sacramento Valley. Groundwater near the Sutter Buttes is impaired because of local volcanic geology, and hydrogen sulfide is a problem in wells in the geothermal areas in the western part of the region. Human-induced impairments, like nitrate, are generally associated with agriculture and septic tanks; the latter is especially an issue in Butte County, where 150,000 of its 200,000 residents rely upon individual septic systems. Septic tanks are often inappropriately sited in shallow, unconfined or fractured hard rock aquifers, where insufficient soil depth is available for necessary leaching. Heavy metals from historical burn dumps also contaminate groundwater locally. Inthe Sierra foothills there is potential for encountering uraniumand radon-bearing rock or sulfide mineral deposits containing heavy metals. Perchlorate, previously used as an oxidizer or booster for solid rocket fuel and now a human health concern in domestic water, has contaminated wells in Rancho Cordova,
near Sacramento.


### AccomplishmentsThe goals and objectives of the CBDA program play a promin ent role in regional efforts to improve water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem restoration. Current activities and accomplishments are summarized in the following sections.

Water Supply Reliability Past concerns with potential groundwater exports have spurred

numerous counties to enact groundwater ordinances to regu11 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

late groundwater extraction when groundwater is intended for export outside the county. In addition, some counties are also involved in extensive cataloging and inventory projects to determine the extent of their water resources and unmet needs of the region to ensure that current and future needs are met locally prior to water exports.

In addition, regional representatives are working in conjunction with CBDA to conduct an extensive reevaluation of additional off-stream surface storage reservoirs in this region designed to store excess water during high flow events and thereby, help alleviate pressure for water exports from the region. Water use efficiencies in the region could providebenefits to other regions of the state if the storage and conveyance capacity existed to hold and transport water when it is needed. This process, commonly known as the North of Delta Off-Stream Storage (NODOS) is evaluating previouslyidentified sites for their suitability in this type of project. Specifically , the Department of Water Resources is conducting an environmental evaluation of the Antelope Valley on the west side of the Sacramento River, near Maxwell for the construction of off-stream storage currently known as Sites Reservoir.

Water Use Efficiency Water use efficiency in the Sacramento Valley is included in a

c omprehensive and integrated program being pursued by the agricultural diverters in the region. Most water return flows in the region are “recoverable,” which means that water returns to rivers and streams where it can be re-used by downstream diverters. Because of this, local incentives to improve water use efficiency are focused on the benefit of decreased operational costs. Water users have accomplished many water saving improvements, including laser-leveling of fields to decreasewater consumption and the lining of canals to reduce subsur face seepage. DWR’s Water Use Efficiency program uses grant funding to provide incentives to water users in the Sacramento Valley to develop system improvements that will make water available for uses that provide statewide benefits. These benefits include improving endangered species habitat and improving overall water quality throughout the system by improving source water quality.

The recent development of the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program (SVWMP) can provide a framework for improved regional coordination of water use efficiency in the Sacramento Valley. A regional approach to water use efficiency allows for the coordination and consolidation of individual efforts into a comprehensive plan that optimizes limited financial and water resources. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, particularly the approach to the regional Quantifia ble Objectives (QOs) articulates this regional approach to water use efficiency activities. Additionally, the AB 3616 Program, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Water Conservation Standards could be incorporated to develop a unified regional approach to water use efficiency for the Sacramento Valley. In the SVWMP, the consolidated water use efficiency program would be able to coordinate with other program elements to better meet local needs (water user and environmental) and potentially provide water for other areas of the state.

Agencies involved in CALFED’s Water Use Efficiency Program, including DWR, have accomplished the following results through Year 3 of the California Bay Delta Program:

• Partnerships forged for groundwater planning with local

agencies in six areas.

• Work initiated on 22 groundwater management and

groundwater storage projects.

• Progress made on studies for potential north-of-Delta

o ff-stream storage and Shasta Dam enlargement. The proposed projects are among five surface storage options being studied to increase storage capacity and provide flexibility to the state’s water system.

• $11 million in grants awarded for agricultural and urban

water use efficiency programs.

• Key achievements made on streamlining water transfers

a nd facilitating transfer agreements that protect local water users, economies and ecosystems.

Ecosystem Restoration Prior to the Gold Rush of the late 1840s, the area known as the Sacramento Valley consisted of a warm and abundant naturalenvironment, essentially a floodplain to the expansive Sacram ento River, rich in natural habitats, such as oaks, sycamore andcottonwood. As the Gold Rush subsided, those it brought to Calif ornia moved into the plains of the Sacramento Valley and began ranching and farming, clearing the land for these purposes. Asthe population bases increased in the valley, flood control projects and levees were created in an attempt to control the great river to the detriment of the natural processes of the river and the species that inhabited it. The CBDA Ecosystem Restoration Program attempts to return some of these natural functions to the creeks and rivers in the region to aid in the restoration and maintenance of the endangered species that once inhabited it.

Many ecosystem restoration programs and projects are under

way in the Sacramento River region. Some of these projects are along the main stem of the Sacramento River and others involveCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 12 6 work along or in the tributaries. CBDA Ecosystem Restoration and Watershed Programs in the Sacramento River region have focused on protecting and restoring habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as salmonids and other fish species and wildlife. Ecosystem protection and restoration on tributaries of the Sacramento River, as well as the main stem, will help to provide habitat for these species while also maintaining water quality in the source area streams that eventually flow into the Bay-Delta.

T he Sacramento Valley with its alluvial soils, abundant water and moderate climate, is one of the richest agricultural regionson earth. These same physical attributes also make it an incredibly productive ecosystem that supports more than 250 species of fish and wildlife. For example, spring-run Chinook salmon swim in from the Pacific and climb 5,000 vertical feet, first through the Sacramento River and then Mill Creek, to spawn at the base of Lassen Peak. Canada geese fly from north of the Artic Circle to winter in the wetlands, and Swainson hawksmigrate from as far south as Argentina to reach the biologically-rich Sacramento V alley.

During the past 130 years, more than 95 percent of the valley’s historic riparian forests have been converted to other land uses. In 1988, federal and state agencies, along with interested stakeholders and regional and local nonprofit groups, began to stabilize this trend by protecting and restoring riparian habitat along the Sacramento River. To date, more than 20,000 acres have been protected in such areas as the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge, the Bureau of Land Management’s lands north of Red Bluff, Sacramento River State Wildlife Area, other state parks in the region and various areas under privateconservation ownership. In addition, about 4,000 acres of floodprone agricultural land has been restored to riparian forest.

In 1986, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1086, which called for development of a riparian habitat inventory and created theUpper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Mana gement Plan. The purpose of this plan is to preserve remaining riparian habitat and reestablish a continuous riparian ecosystemalong the Sacramento River. The final plan contained a conceptual Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan to guide riparian habitat restoration along the river and its major tributaries from Red Bluff to Verona. The management plan for this program also contained a more specific Fishery Restoration Plan, listing 20 actions to help restore the salmon and steelhead fisheries of the river and its tributaries. All of the proposed restoration is now under way, funded by a combination of federal, State, and local sources. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) includes many of the CVP related fishery restoration measures recommended by the SB 1086 plan. One of the concerns expressed by regional stakeholders involves land acquisitions for restoration projects that may not allow for reimbursement of tax dollars to local governments for land conversion projects. Local governments fear that the loss of revenue from productive agricultural land taken off of the tax roles may affect their ability to provide health and safety in their jurisdictions. In response to this concern, since 2000, the CBDA has begun using conservation easements rather than direct purchases. This approach leaves the property on the tax roles, thus minimizing the negative impacts associated with land conversion.

L ocal governments would also like to see programs that provide for species recovery and protection which support reasonable recreational access for the public that would contribute to anincrease in tourism dollars in the local economy. It is anticipated that increased recreation associated with a healthier river system will contribute to the local economy in the future.

The Sacramento River region is the focus of significant CBDAecosystem restoration through several different sources, includi ng local efforts, CVPIA and CBDA, and many more are planned for several decades including species recovery of fish. TheCALFED Multi-species Conservation Strategy (MSCS) is a comprehensive regulatory plan for the CALFED Program developed in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA). The MSCSestablishes the State and federal regulations for numerous species and habitat types throughout the focus area. By adhering to this plan, the program can comply with these regulating acts.

Increased concern over the decline in endangered salmon has

s timulated several projects and programs in the region over the past several years designed to alleviate pressures on these fish. Significant work has been accomplished toward this end on Butte Creek, for example. Partnerships between landowners and agricultural water districts along the creek and State andfederal agencies have resulted in the removal or reengineeri ng of several small dams, the screening of diversions from this creek, and the construction of a canal siphon beneath Butte Creek to aid in fish passage for spawning and rearing. These partnerships resulted in the removal of the Western Canal, McPherrin, McGowan, and Point Four dams and screening modification or construction on five other diversions along this tributary. These efforts, which have been coordinated andpartially funded through CBDA, have built strong partners hips in the valley between agencies and landowners. They have also contributed to an increase in the returning runs of spring-run Chinook salmon, with higher numbers in eight of13 6 **Chapter 6** Sacramento River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

the last nine years, compared to the previous two decades. These numbers are displayed in the following chart through 2003 (Figure 6-2).

Another major salmon recovery project in the Sacramento River region is on Battle Creek. The Battle Creek Restoration Program proposes to restore access for salmon and steelhead to about 42 miles of habitat in the north and south forks of Battle Creek while minimizing the reduction of clean andrenewable energy provided by PG&E’s Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project. This project includes removal of up to five diversion dams, construction of ladders and fish screens at three additional diversions and increasing flow releases from remaining diversion dams. Environmental documents for the project are under development and a proposal for additional funds is under review by the Ecosystem Restoration Program. PG&E is the majority landowner in the project area, and isworking with the Bureau of Reclamation, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game under a memorandum of understanding signed in 1999. They are working closely with the Battle Creek Working Group that includes the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy, other CALFED agencies and other interested parties.

A third example of restoration in the Sacramento River regionlies on Clear Creek, which is also a tributary to the Sacramento River, near Redding in Shasta County. Restoring Clear Creek is identified in several significant documents or act of legislation, including CVPIA, Section 3406, (b)(12). Through increasing flows in the creek by releasing more water from Whiskeytown Dam; the removal of McCormick-Saeltzer Dam in 2000; supplementing the gravel supply, which was blockedby Whiskeytown Dam; implementing methods to control erosion having negative impacts to salmonid habitat; and restoring the stream channel the Clear Creek Restoration Program has contributed significantly to the five-fold increase in fall Chinook spawning escapements in Clear Creek from 1995 to 2002 over the baseline period of 1967 to 1991. Data also show trends of increases in steelhead and spring-run Chinook spawning and juvenile production.

Another major salmon recovery effort in the Sacramento River Region is the implementation of the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program. This program has partnered State and federal agencies with water diverters in the region to develop and implement fish screen projects for the large and significant diversions on the Sacramento and other rivers in the regions. As a result of this program, almost all of the water diverted from the Sacramento River is pumped through state-of-the-art fish screens. This program has increased the flexibility of diversions from the river, allowing diverters to increase deliveries to wildlife refuges, increase the acres of habitat for migratory waterfowl using the Pacific Flyway, and implement a valleywide rice straw decomposition program that replaces the traditional practice of burning rice straw. As a result of these efforts, the Sacramento Valley is seeing increases in anadromous fish populations without infringements on diversion rights.

In addition to the projects discussed above, another program under the ERP which is active in the region is the Environmental Water Program (EWP). The goal of this program is to identify and purchase 100,000 acre-feet of water annually to augmentin-stream flows north of the Delta. Four of the five Tier 1 priority streams for the program lie in the region: Clear Creek, Mill Creek, Butte Creek and Deer Creek. The EWP is also working closely with Battle Creek, which has been identified as a Tier 2 priority stream in this program. Development of a regional implementation structure for the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan that is consistent with and in collaboration with existing local restoration program integration efforts is vital.

There are currently numerous watershed groups in the region compiling valuable data and involved in restoration projects in their watersheds. However, these are only a piece of the larger fabric of the greater Sacramento River watershed. Efforts are continuing to provide a comprehensive view of the watershed based on information gathered from funded projects throughoutthe watershed. This will allow for more informed decisionmaking and better protection and use of the resources.

Through Year 3 of the CBDA Program, the Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) and CALFED Watershed program have provided funding to the Sacramento Valley region as follows:

• $172 million invested in 139 local ecosystem restoration projects. Funded projects, including more than 50projects to improve fish passage, restore habitat, monitor and assess watersheds, and provide education and outreach.

• $11.4 million invested in 40 local watershed projects

addressing areas such as spawning gravel, floodplain management and watershed education and outreach.

• $12 million provided for studies addressing mercury and

other pollutants associated with abandoned mines. 

## Looking to the Future Water agencies in the region continue to manage water in light of changing conditions in the region and the state. Anexample is the Sacramento Valley Water Management Prog ram (SVWMP). This resource management program was