1 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 2 North Coast Hydrologic Region

51 inches per year. Relatively little snow is in this region, and it usually stays on the ground only a short time at elevations of 4,000 feet or higher. As a result of the abundant rainfall, the average annual runoff for the rivers of this region is about 29 million acre-feet per year, which is the largest volume compared to all other hydrologic regions of California.



## Population The population of the entire North Coast region was about 644,000 in year 2000, which is less than 2 percent of California’s total population. More than half of this region’s population lives in the southern part, primarily in Santa Rosa and the surrounding communities of Rohnert Park, Windsor, and Healdsburg along the Russian River watershed. Urban growth in the Santa Rosa area, 147,500 people in year 2000, is heavily influenced by the overall urban expansion of the adjacent San Francisco Bay region. Other smaller communities in the northern portions of this region include Eureka, 26,000 people in 2000; Ukiah, 15,500; Arcata, 16,600; Crescent City, 7,300; and Yreka, 7,200.
When compared with the 1990 regional population of 571,750, the 644,000 in 2000 represents a growth rate of 12.6 percent over the 10 years, which is slightly lower that the statewide growth rate of nearly 14 percent over the sameperiod. Projections today indicate that the regional population is expected to grow to about 895,000 by year 2030, which represents a 39 percent increase from year 2000 totals. Figure 2-2 provides a graphical depiction of the North Coast region’s total population from year 1960 through year 2000, with current projections to year 2030. More than half of this projected growth is anticipated to occur in the Santa Rosa region, as urban populations from the San Francisco Bay area continue to expand north. Population increases in the rural communities in the northern half of this region are projected to grow more slowly. 

## Setting The North Coast Hydrologic Region encompasses redwood forests, inland mountain valleys, and the arid Modoc Plateau. The region includes all or large portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma counties (Figure 2-1). It also includes small areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Marin counties. The region includes the Pacific Ocean coastline from Tomales Bay to the Oregon border, and then extends east along the border to the Goose Lake Basin. This region covers roughly 19,500 square miles, or more than 12 percent of California’s land area. Most of the region is mountainous and rugged. The mountain crests, which form the eastern boundary of the region, are about 6,000 feet elevation with a few peaks higher than 8,000 feet. Only 13 percent of the land is classified as valleys or mesas, and more than half of that is in the higher northeastern part of the region in the upper Klamath River Basin.



## Climate Weather conditions and temperatures vary dramatically from the cooler coastal areas to the arid inland valleys in Siskiyou and Modoc counties. In the western coastal portion of this region, average temperatures are moderated by the influence of the Pacific Ocean and range from highs in the mid-80s in the summer to lows in the mid-30s during thewinter. In the inland regions of Siskiyou and Modoc count ies, temperatures are more variable, where summer high temperatures usually reach the 100-degree mark and winter low temperatures are often in the low-30-degree range. Heavy rainfall in the coastal mountain ranges makes theNorth Coast region the most water-abundant area of Califor nia, producing about 41 percent of the state’s total natural runoff. Average annual precipitation varies from more than 100 inches in the north coast mountains of Del Norte County to less than 15 inches in the Lost River drainage area of Modoc County. Region-wide, average precipitation is aboutCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 2 2 

## Land Use Forest and rangeland represent about 98 percent of this region’s land area. Much of the region is identified as national forests, state and national parks, under the jurisdiction of the federal Bureau of Land Management, and American Indianlands such as the Hoopa Valley and Round Mountain reservations. The major land uses in the North Coast region consistof timber production, agriculture, fish and wildlife management, parks, recreational areas, and open space. However, in recent years the timber industry has declined as a result of timber over-cutting, economic issues, and the expansion of environmental regulations.

V

acationers, boaters, anglers, and sightseers are attracted to the region’s 400 miles of scenic ocean shoreline, including nearby forests with more than half of California’s redwoods.The inland regions are mountainous and include 10 wilderness areas run by the U.S. Forest Service. More than 40 state parks, numerous Forest Service campgrounds, the Smith River National Recreation Area and the Redwood National Park are within this hydrologic region. It is an area of rugged natural beauty with some of the most renowned fishing in North America.
Climate, soils, water supply, and remoteness from markets are factors that limit the types of agricultural crops that can be grown in the North Coast region. In the inland valley areas, there is more irrigable land than can be irrigated with existing water. The agricultural trend in the past decade has been one of land consolidation and the conversion of prime agricultural land to urban growth. This trend is a result of low crop values, the lack of additional inexpensive surface water, and the ability to use only the most economically developable groundwater.
Irrigated agriculture in the North Coast region uses most of the region’s developed water supplies. Irrigation today accounts for about 81 percent of the region’s water use, while municipal The North Coast region encompasses redwood forests, inland mountain valleys, and the arid Modoc Plateau. The region covers roughly 19,500 square miles, or more than 12 percent of California’s land area. (DWR Photo)3 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

and industrial use is about 19 percent. About 326,600 acres, or about 2 percent of the region, is irrigated. Of that, 225,900 acres are in the Upper Klamath River Basin where the main irrigated crops are pasture and alfalfa, grain, and potatoes. The highest value crops in the region are the substantial acres of grapes and orchards in the Russian River Basin and ornamental fl owers, including bulbs, in Del Norte County.
The total acreage of fruit and nut orchards has decreased over the past several decades. For example, in Sonoma County, orchards declined from 20,000 acres in 1971 to fewer than 3,500 acres in 2001. However, the amount of irrigation water used on orchards did not decrease in the same proportion because many of the apple, prune, and walnut orchards taken out of production were not irrigated. As the acreage of orchards declined, the acreage planted in vineyards increased. Most ofthe newer vineyards use drip irrigation systems for plant irrigation, but overhead sprinklers are also used for frost protection in the spring and for post-harvest irrigation in the fall.
The North Coast Hydrologic Region also contains roughly 280 dairy farms with 60,000 milk cows, according to the 2002 Census of Agriculture. The majority of these dairy farms are in Humboldt County (140 farms) and Sonoma County (110 farms). Many of the region’s watersheds support threatened and endangered species of plants and animals, and many North Coast streams and rivers support anadromous fi sh runs of salmon and steelhead trout. The principal reaches of the Klamath, Eel, and Smith rivers have been designated wild and scenic under federal and State law and therefore are protected from additional large-scale water development.



## Water Supply and Use Many of the smaller communities and rural areas in the North Coast region are generally supplied by small local surface water and groundwater systems. Larger water supply projectsin this region include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Russian River Project (Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma), and the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District’s Ruth Reservoir, which serves coastal communities from Eureka to McKinleyville. Because the Upper Klamath River watershed is in both California and Oregon, the federal Klamath Project includes water supply facilities in both states. Facilities within the California portion include Clear Lake Reservoir for water supply, Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake as waterfowl refuges, and Iron Gate Reservoir as a hydroelectric facility of Pacifi c Power and Light 

### Figure 2-2 **North Coast Hydrologic Region population**

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000

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 North Coast region.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 4 2 Company. The primary water supply facilities on the Oregonside are Gerber Reservoir and Upper Klamath Lake. The Klamath Project is the largest agricultural irrigation project in the region, and supplies water to about 240,000 acres, of which 62 percent is in Oregon and 38 percent is in California. To maintain adequate instream fishery flows for the lower Klamath River, water releases must be coordinated among the various reservoirs operated by different agencies within both states.
Two of the largest water supply reservoirs in the North Coast region are the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 2.437 million acre-foot Trinity Lake on the Trinity River, and the U.S. Corps of Engineer’s 380,000 acre-foot Lake Sonoma in the Russian River watershed. These facilities provide water for instream flows, recreation, hydropower, and water supply purposes. Water from Trinity Lake is exported from the North Coast region to the Sacramento River region through the U.S. Bureauof Reclamation’s Clear Creek Tunnel. Lake Sonoma is operated to provide flood control and instream flows in the Lower Russian River in Sonoma County. Another intrabasin water transfer system known as the Potter Valley Project has been in existence since 1908 and diverts water from the upper reaches of the Eel River at Cape Horn Dam through a tunnel to the East Fork Russian River upstream from Lake Mendocino. The water stored behind Coyote Dam (Lake Mendocino, built in 1958) is used to meet instream flow requirements, as well as urban and agricultural needs in the lower Russian River watershed and the Santa Rosa area.

Groundwater development is sporadic throughout the mountainous areas of the region, and wells are generally along the valleys of rivers and streams. As described in “California’s Groundwater” (California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118-03), there are very few significant aquifers in the coastal mountains that are capable of providing reliable water.In the coastal areas, most groundwater is developed from shallow wells that are typically installed in the sand and gravel beds adjacent to the region’s rivers. Significant groundwater basins do exist in the upper Klamath River valley along the border with Oregon and also in the southern tip of this region underlying the Santa Rosa area.

The principal developed uses of environmental water occur in the Lower Klamath Lake, Tule Lake, and Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuges, and the Butte Valley and Shasta Valley Wildlife Areas. In Butte Valley, most of the water for wildlife comes from about 3,000 acre-feet of groundwater. As a result of the passage of both federal and State wild and scenic rivers acts in 1968 and 1972, many of the major rivers in the NorthCoast region have been preserved to maintain their free-flowing character and provide for environmental uses. Most of the Eel, Klamath, Trinity and Smith rivers are designated as wild and scenic, which preserves these river resources and protects them from new water development. On the Trinity River, efforts to restore the fishery led to a federal Record of Decision in year 2000 to increase the fishery flow releases from Trinity Lake. After several years of legal challenges, this decision was upheld by a July 2004 federal court decision. The water allocated to downstream fishery flows is now being increased from the previous 340,000 acre-feet per year, to a new schedule that ranges between 368,600 acre-feet in a critically dry year to more than 700,000 acre-feet per year ina wet water year. Biologists and Central Valley Project operators are still working on the development of daily, weekly and monthly water release schedules that will make the best use of these new water allocations.

T he water balance tables and the narrative discussion at the end of this chapter provide a detailed summary of the actual region-wide water supplies and water uses from years 1998, 2000, and 2001 for the entire North Coast region. Figure 2-3 summarizes the dedicated and developed urban, agricultural and environmental water uses in the region for1998, 2000, and 2001. The figure also 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 these three years. As shown on the first graph, the volume of water dedicated to wild and scenic rivers, called “statutory required outflows,” is the largest component ofdedicated water uses in the region. The information presented in Table 2-1 at the end of the chapter also indicatesthat the volume of water exported to other regions is generally greater than all the water consumptively used for urban, agriculture and wildlife refuges within the North Coast region.



## State of the Region The North Coast region generally has the most abundant water resources of any region of the State. The high volumes of precipitation and natural river runoff are a key component formost of the beneficial uses of its water bodies, including commercial and recreational fishing, shellfish harvesting, urbanand agricultural use, and recreation. Many of the region’s forests and watersheds support threatened and endangered species of plants and animals, and the major rivers and streams contain significant anadromous fishery resources. This region also features important coastal resources, including Bodega Harbor and Humboldt Bay, and many small estuaries.5 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005**Thousand Acre-Feet**

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

1998 2000 2001 Wild & Scenic Rivers

Instream Flow
Managed Wetlands
Irrigated Agriculture

Urban **Figure 2-3 North Coast water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 Thousand Acre-Feet** 

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

1998 2000 2001 Dedicated Environ
Reuse & Recycle Ground Water

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 North 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 was reused among sectors (dedicated water supplies, botto m chart).California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 6 2 

### ChallengesThe region faces many water quality and water supply chall enges. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s water quality priorities highlight the need for control of nonpoint source runoff from logging, rural roads, agriculture, and urban areas. In fact, sediment, temperature, and nutrients are the primary focus of the RWQCB’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Along the coast, nonpoint-source pollution can cause microbial contamination of shellfish growing areas, especially oysters. Much of the region is characterized by rugged, steep, forested lands, with highly erodable, loosely consolidated soils; taken together with wildfires, extensive timber harvesting, and heavy precipitation primarily in the form of rain, the watershed is highly susceptible to erosionand landslides. Such heavy runoff in turn causes stream sedimentation that impacts habitat for spawning and rearing of anadromous fish. Channel modifications and water diversions have radically changed water-quality conditions in many water bodies in the region, reducing natural flows that dilute contaminant concentrations and lessen their impacts. In the southern portion of the region, the development of new hillside vineyards is an increasing source of erosion and pesticides.

Fisheries can be adversely affected by a number of factors related to both water quality and water quantity. The Eel, Mad, Trinity, Klamath and Russian rivers, as well as many other streams, suffer from sedimentation, which can smother salmonid spawning areas. The North Coast region’s basin plan sets turbidity restrictions to control erosion impacts from logging and related activities, such as road building. Timber harvests can also decrease the canopy shading rivers and streams, thereby increasing water temperatures to levels that are detrimental to cold water fisheries. The basin plan also specifically establishes temperature objectives for the Trinity River, in which reduced flows have disrupted temperature and physical cues for anadromous fish runs. Because of water diversions, summer temperatures in the Trinity as well as the Klamath can be lethal to salmonids. Fisheries can be further affected by the lack of woody debris for pool habitat and sediment metering.

The North Coast RWQCB’s basin plan requires tertiary treatment of wastewater discharges to the Russian River, a majorsource of domestic water, and establishes limits on bacteriological contamination of shellfish-growing areas along the coast. The plan also prohibits or strictly limits waste discharges to the Klamath, Trinity, Smith, Mad, and Eel rivers, as well as estuaries and other coastal waters. Nonpoint source runoff,especially after heavy precipitation, has resulted in contamination and closure of shellfish harvesting beds in Humboldt Bay. In the lower Russian River watershed storm water runoff also might be contributing to high ammonia and low dissolved oxygen levels in Laguna de Santa Rosa, which is threatening aquatic life. Mercury in fish tissue is a water quality concern in Lakes Pillsbury, Mendocino, and Sonoma; a health advisory for mercury has been issued for Lake Pillsbury.
Groundwater quality problems in the North Coast region include contamination from seawater intrusion and nitrates in shallow coastal groundwater aquifers; high total dissolved solids and alkalinity in groundwater associated with the lake sediments of the Modoc Plateau basins; and iron, boron, and manganese in the inland groundwater basins of Men

docino and Sonoma counties. Septic tank failures in western Sonoma County, at Monte Rio and Camp Meeker, and along the Trinity below Lewiston Dam, are a concern because of potential impacts to groundwater wells and recreational water quality.
Other water quality concerns include the impacts of boating fuel constituents such as MTBE to recreational water use at Trinity, Lewiston, and Ruth lakes. Abandoned mines, forest herbicide application, and historical discharge of wood treatment chemicals at lumber mills, including Sierra Pacific Industries near Arcata and Trinity River Lumber Company in Weaverville, also are regional issues of concern. Of note, according to the 305(b) report, only the Russian River Basin has a long-term water quality data set in this region, which is necessary to evaluate quality changes over time.
Even though the North Coast region produces a substantial share of California’s surface water runoff, only about 10 percent of this runoff occurs in the summer and water supplies are limited throughout much of the area. Small surface-water supply projects generally have limited carryover capacity that cannot supply adequate water during extended months of low rainfall. The drinking water for many of the communities on the North Coast, such as Klamath, Smith River, Crescent City, and most of the Humboldt Bay area, is supplied by Ranney collectors (horizontal wells adjacent to or under the bed of a stream). Erosion is undercutting some of these collectors, such as those in the Mad River supplying the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (which serves Eureka, Arcata, and McKinleyville). As such, these “wells” may actually be under the direct influence of surface water, which would then require filtration. The city of Willits has had chronic problems with turbidity, taste, and odor with water from Morris Reservoir, and high arsenic, iron, and manganese levels in its well supply. Organic chemical contamination has closed municipal7 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

wells in the cities of Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. The town of Mendocino typifies the problems related to groundwater development in the shallow marine terrace aquifers; surveys in the mid-1980s indicate about 10 percent of wells go dry every year and up to 40 percent go dry during droughts.

The Klamath River Basin is an interstate watershed with surface storage facilities in both California and Oregon and competing water needs for agriculture, Indian tribal rights, waterfowl refuges, and endangered fish. The primary water storage facilities belong to the federal Klamath Project, whichis operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with other dams and diversion structures operated by local irrigation districts, wildlife management agencies, andelectric power companies. In 2001, the lack of rainfall generated a severe drought, which aggravated water disputes and caused harsh effects to agriculture, waterfowl refuges and the downstream fisheries. The endangered fish populations include listed species such as the Lost River and shortnose suckers, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. During 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was able to deliver only about 75,000 acre-feet of water to agriculture in California, which is about 25 percent of normal. In the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake subbasins, this translated to a drought disaster for both agriculture and the wildlife refuges. In 2002, about 33,000 adult salmon died due to water quality and quantity problems while trying to swim up the Klamath.
Federal agencies have taken a lead role in conducting studies and developing proposals to resolve the competing water needs in the Klamath Basin, with assistance from stateagencies in Oregon and California, and several local governments and interest groups. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is developing a new Klamath Project Operations Plan intended to establish specific allocation procedures to best meet the needs of agriculture, fishery restoration per the Endangered Species Act, waterfowl refuges, and tribal water rights. The U.S. Geological Survey has initiated a four-phase Klamath Basin groundwater study to document water levels, water quality, and groundwater flow patterns; and to identify potential opportunities for future groundwater conjunctive use. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service has developed an adaptive management program that allocates federal funds for agricultural conservation programs, fish andwildlife habitat, water quality improvements, and water storage improvements, which are intended to increase water use efficiencies and achieve long-term reductions in total water use. Other federal agencies in the Klamath Basin Working Group include the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Many of these programs and studies will take several years to develop and implement, so the overall ability to successfully meet all competing water needs will not be known for several years. In the meantime, below-normal water supply conditions during the past three years continue to aggravate the water management issues, disputes, and negative effects to basin resources.
As part of the efforts to restore the Trinity River fishery, the Secretary of the Interior in December 2000 approved a significant change in use of Trinity River Basin water. As part of an effort to restore Trinity River fish habitat, the river’s instream flows were increased from 340,000 acre-feet per year (roughly 25 percent of average annual flow at the Central Valley Project diversion point on the Trinity River) to an average of 595,000 acre-feet per year. This decision, which would reduce the amount of water available for export from the Trinity River to the Central Valley, was challenged by water and power interests in U.S. District Court in 2001. On July 13, 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction imposed by the district court, and ruled that the original year 2000 Record of Decision was adequate. The water allocated to downstream fish flows is now being increased to the new flow schedule, which ranges from a minimum of 368,600 acre-feet in a critically dry year up to 815,000 acre-feet in an extremely wet year.
The Eel River and its tributaries are the largest river systemdraining to the coast of Humboldt County, and it is characteri zed by significant water quality problems during winter storm events due to massive sediment loads from unstable soils. The Eel River is also host to Humboldt County’s largest fisheries of salmon and steelhead, which depend on access to upstream tributaries for spawning. The only major water storage in the upper reaches of the Eel River is the Potter Valley Project, which consists of Lake Pillsbury and a downstream diversion dam and tunnel to the Russian River. The project was originally built in 1908 by Snow Mountain Water and Power Company. LakePillsbury was constructed in 1922 for hydropower production, and the project was acquired by Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1930.

In recent years fishery interest groups have argued that the amount of water diverted to the Russian River has adversely affected salmon and steelhead in the Eel River. The water needs of the Eel River fishery have been evaluated and disputed during the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydropower license amendment proceeding of the Potter Valley Project. In June 2004, FERC approved PG&E’s relicense amendment of the Potter Valley Project and its associated waterCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 8 2 diversions to the Russian River. However, fishery groups are litigating the FERC decision, so the future distribution of project water between the Eel and Russian rivers is not yet resolved. 

### Accomplishments In early 1998, the city of Santa Rosa selected an alternative plan to recharge depleted geothermal fields in the Geysers area with treated wastewater as part of its long-term wastewater-recycling program. Under this alternative, the Santa Rosa Subregional Sewage System will pump about 11-million gallons per day of treated wastewater to the Geysers for injection into the steam fields. This amount is a little less than half the flow the treat

ment system is expected to produce when finished. The project is intended to eliminate weather-related problems of the city’s disposal system and minimize treated wastewater discharges into the Russian River.
The communities around Humboldt Bay support programs intended to achieve the dual goals of flood control and habitat enhancement. The region is committed to restoring the natural functioning of urban streams and wetlands. The city of Arcata has many programs to acquire conservation easements and deeds to wetlands, for the re-establishment of a natural floodplain for storm water management, and for the restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. In the past 10 years, Arcata has collaborated with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, community groups, and schools for development of these restoration activi

ties, and has spent millions of dollars on programs. Additional financial support has been obtained through grants from the California Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Game, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Russian River Action Plan, first prepared in 1997, wasupdated by Sonoma County Water Agency in 2003 and provides a regional assessment of ongoing efforts to restore the salmonid fishery and improve the riparian habitat in the Russian River watershed. The plan describes 17 current and pending restoration activities, followed by an extensive list of additional habitat restoration projects that are in need of funding. In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed steelhead trout as threatened and in 2002 listed coho salmon as endangered along part of the Central California coast that includes the Russian River Basin. The Sonoma County Water Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Marine Fisheries Service signed an agreement to establish a framework for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Under that agreement, the Army Corps and the Sonoma County agency jointly review and coordinate information on their respective Russian River activities to determine effects to critical salmonid habitat. The Eel-Russian River Commission, composed of county supervisors from Humboldt, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties, also pro

vides a regional forum for agencies and groups to stay informed about projects and issues affecting the Eel and Russian rivers.



## Relationship with Other Regions As shown on the regional map (see Figure 2-1) the Klamath River Basin straddles the border with Oregon, such that water from the upper basin flows into Oregon and eventually returns to California above Iron Gate Reservoir. On the Oregon side of this interstate basin, two surface water diversions export an average of 29,600 acre-feet per year from Klamath River tributaries into the Rogue River system in Oregon. The Klamath River Basin also receives a small amount of imported water (about 2,000 acre-feet per year) from the upper reaches of the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region through a canal called the North Fork Ditch.
The North Coast region exports a large volume of water from the upper reaches of the Trinity River into the Sacramento River region through the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project at Lewiston Dam and the Clear Creek Tunnel. For 1998, 2000, and 2001, the Trinity River exports were 851,000 acre-feet per year, 1.11 million acre-feet per year, and 669,000 acre-feet per year, respectively. In future years these Trinity River exports are likely to be reduced due to theincreased instream flows established for the Trinity River fishery. Elsewhere, a smaller regional export of roughly 33,000 acre-feet per year is transported from the lower Russian River into the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay regionthrough the Sonoma-Petaluma Aqueduct, to supply communities in northern Marin County and southern Sonoma County.



## Looking to the Future When compared to the more developed regions of the state, urban and agricultural water use in the North Coast region use a relatively small part of the total available water. However, localized water supply problems are expected to continue for communities with limited surface water and groundwater, particularly during extended droughts. While significant water supplies exist throughout most of the North Coast region, the ability to acquire funding to upgrade and expand water systems is a major problem for the rural communities.
Along the coast, the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District system might expand to serve the Trinidad-Moonstone area,which is experiencing local water deficiencies. The Eureka9 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

Arcata area may undergo construction of a regional water treatment plant and is investigating groundwater development as an alternative source, which would not require the same level of water treatment.
Crescent City has an adequate supply from the Smith River but needs to increase system transmission and storage capacity and might build a new water treatment facility. The city of Rio Dell might also begin construction of a surface water treatment facility. Ranney wells will be installed in the Eel River as a primary water supply for Rio Dell. Trinity County Waterworks District No. 1, which serves the town of Hayfork from the 800 acre-foot Ewing Reservoir, has plans to enlarge the reservoir and expand its surface water system.

In the Klamath River Basin, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is leading efforts to balance water needs between the historical agricultural uses of the Klamath Project, the instream needs of endangered fish, as well as other system water uses. The recent dry hydrologic conditions have intensified these issues, and federal funding was approved in 2002 to provide relief through the development of conservation programs and the availabilityof new groundwater. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is continuing to update the Klamath Project long-term operations plan, but difficult issues have delayed its completion. The KlamathRiver Compact Commission also provides a forum for discussions on management of interstate water resources between Oregon, California, and the federal agencies, and promotes intergovernmental cooperation on water allocation issues. A fewadditional groundwater wells are likely to be constructed to augment irrigation supplies in the Butte Valley and Tule Lake areas. Pressure for additional groundwater development in areas like Scott and Shasta valleys will be greater since the 2002 listingof the coho salmon. The new listing, along with stricter applications of California Department of Fish and Game instream regulations, will reduce the supplies available for irrigation from existing water developments and from natural runoff.
The lower Russian River watershed and the adjoining Santa Rosa area are projected to experience the most significant urban growth for any part of the North Coast Hydrologic Region. This growth will continue to stress the available water and accentuate the need balance urban water uses with environmental water needs. The Sonoma County Water Agency has a central role in maximizing the use of existing water supplies, and is actively developing conservation, water recycling, and groundwater conjunctive use. The Sonoma County Water Agency is also restoring and preserving the Russian River fishery and habitat and is the lead agency for developing and implementing a Russian River Action Plan. Restoration and protection of salmonid habitat will continue to be a prominent fishery issue for all of the major coastal rivers. The federal listing of coho salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act and the State listing of the coho salmon generate additional regulatory requirements that affect all surface water uses on these rivers. The California Department of Fish and Game has prepared a coho salmon Recovery Plan to guide actions directed at the recovery of this species. Existing and planned water projects will need to be operated in ways that do not affect the fishery, which might alter methods and schedules for water diversions, hydropower operations, and wastewater discharges. Surface water quality issues such as sediment loads, nutrients, and warm water can also affect the fishery, and these fall under the jurisdiction of the North Coast RWQCB, which is developing basin plans to address water quality problems and protect the coastal rivers.



## Regional Planning The forum and focus of regional planning activities varies significantly from north to south across the North Coast region because of the diversity of water issues and the involved water agencies. In the far north interstate Klamath River watershed, much of the planning is being done by federal agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others. These federal agencies are working to balance the needs of the federal Klamath Project with water for fish, tribal interests, and interests of communities affected by the federal project. Planning and issue resolution for the Trinity River also have a significant federal lead role because of the federal Central Valley Project at Trinity and Lewiston lakes. In general, many of the Northern California counties lack funding at the level available to federal agencies to conduct regional planning.

I n the central portion of the region, the communities and water issues in Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino counties tend to be organized at the local or county levels, partly becausethese areas are geographically separated from other developed regions. Planning activities of Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District and the Humboldt County general plan update are one of the primary forums for regional planning for theArcata and Eureka areas. The Mendocino Council of Gover nments and the Mendocino Community Services District are among the lead water planning agencies for the county, which includes Ukiah and portions of the upper Russian River wine country.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 10 2 Sonoma County is the southernmost county in the North Coast Hydrologic Region, and water planning is closely associated with those of the adjoining San Francisco Bay region. Water planning is strongly focused on meeting the urban needs of Santa Rosa and the surrounding communities served by Sonoma County Water Agency. The agency coordinates with and is a member of several San Francisco Bay area regional planning groups, such as the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition that provides significant direction and guidance forregional planning. Much of Sonoma County regional planning also focuses on the competing uses of the Russian River, which is the largest river in this part of the North Coast region. The Russian River Action Plan has been updated by Sonoma County Water Agency, as a coordinated effort among federal, State, and local agencies to protect and restore salmonid fishery populations and habitat.
The State agency with the most significant influence on regional water planning activities in the North Coast region is the North Coast RWQCB. Although headquartered in Santa Rosa, this agency has key responsibilities for surface water quality and regulations for all of the rivers in the region. The board oversees several water quality programs and issues related to timber operations, vineyard runoff, nonpoint source pollution, thedevelopment of total maximum daily load limits, and the develo pment of water quality objectives for individual basin plans.



## Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, **2000, and 2001** The tables in this chapter present actual information about the

water supplies and uses for the North Coast Hydrologic Region for the three selected years. Water year 1998 was a wet year for this region, with annual precipitation at 154 percent of average, while the statewide annual precipitation was 171 percent of average. Year 2000 represents normal hydrologic conditions with annual precipitation at 98 percent of average for the North Coast region. Year 2001 reflected drier water year conditions with annual precipitation at 60 percent of average. For comparison, statewide average precipitation in year 2001 was 72 percent of normal.
Table 2-1 provides detailed information about the total water supplies available to this region for these three years from precipitation, imports, and groundwater, and also summarizes the uses of all of the water supplies. As shown in this table, the largest component of overall water use for this region is by evapotranspiration from the forest lands (native vegetation). The second largest component of water use consists of the river flows into the ocean from designated wild and scenic rivers, labeled as “statutory outflow to salt sinks.” The North Coast region has the highest total volume of water that is used by natural forests and the river outflows, compared to any of the other regions of California. Table 2-1 also indicates that water exports to other regions are generally greater than the volume of water that is consumed for agricultural and urban purposes within this region.

A more detailed tabulation of the portion of the total available water that is dedicated to urban, agricultural and environmental purposes is presented in Table 2-2. Because most of the North Coast region is largely undeveloped, dedicated environmental water uses for wild and scenic rivers are a larger component of the total dedicated water uses in this region. Less than 10percent of the dedicated water is used for urban and agricultural purposes within this region. The section at the bottom of Table 2-2 also provides detailed information about the sourcesof the dedicated water supplies, which are primarily from surface water. Although groundwater is an important source of supply for many small, rural communities, the total amount of groundwater used in the region is small compared to surface

water use.
More detailed information about how available supplies are distributed and used on a region-wide basis is shown in Table 2-3 and the companion water portfolio flow diagrams (Figures 2-4 and 2-5).



## 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 Del Norte, Mendocino, and Siskiyou counties Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District11 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Water Entering the Region** Precipitation 79,216 50,755 31,254 Inflow from Oregon 2,105 1,498 988 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions 2 2 2 **Total 81,323 52,255 32,244 Water Leaving the Region**  Consumptive Use of Applied Water * 646 791 647 (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) Outflow to Oregon 184 114 66 Exports to Other Regions 883 1,144 703 Statutory Required Outflow to Salt Sink 32,348 18,763 8,021 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 115 125 122 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 46,491 31,592 23,323 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows **Total 80,667 52,529 32,882 Storage Changes in the Region**  [+] Water added to storage [-] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 703 -246 -491 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -47 -28 -147 **Total 656 -274 -638** 
**Applied Water** * (compare with Consumptive Use) 1,166 1,353 1,018

*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 natural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation) 1998 (154%) 2000 (98%) 2001 (60%) **Table 2-1 North 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 12 2 **Table 2-2 North 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 11.0 12.4 12.7 Commercial 17.1 17.2 17.5 Industrial 30.2 31.7 31.1 Energy Production 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Interior 42.7 44.1 43.3 Residential - Exterior 38.9 44.6 44.8 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 41.2 41.2 45.9 45.9 47.7 47.7 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Outflow 76.3 76.3 80.8 80.8 79.5 79.5 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 Urban Use 139.9 117.7 117.7 150.0 126.9 126.9 149.4 127.4 127.4**  **Agriculture** On-Farm Applied Water 634.6 778.9 614.6 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 449.2 449.2 551.1 551.1 444.1 444.1 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 29.6 29.6 33.5 33.5 26.4 26.4 Outflow 41.4 35.4 47.0 40.1 48.4 41.3 Conveyance Applied Water 24.0 27.5 17.9 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 4.2 4.2 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 658.6 529.1 523.1 806.4 640.7 633.8 632.5 523.1 516.0**  **Environmental** Instream Applied Water 1,445.3 1,444.5 1,473.5 Outflow 1,425.1 1,425.1 1,441.9 1,441.9 1,473.5 1,473.5 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 30,923.0 17,321.1 6,547.6 Outflow 30,923.0 30,923.0 17,321.1 17,321.1 6,547.6 6,547.6 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 391.4 424.4 254.3 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 155.7 155.7 194.4 194.4 155.3 155.3 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 Outflow 111.0 111.0 115.4 115.4 67.9 67.9 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 391.4 267.1 267.1 424.4 310.2 310.2 254.3 223.3 223.3 **Total Environmental Use 32,759.7 32,615.2 32,615.2 19,190.0 19,073.2 19,073.2 8,275.4 8,244.4 8,244.4**  **TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 33,558.2 33,262.0 33,256.0 20,146.4 19,840.8 19,833.9 9,057.3 8,894.9 8,887.8**

**Surface Water** Local Deliveries 537.9 537.9 534.2 592.7 592.7 588.6 340.6 340.6 336.5 Local Imported Deliveries 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 17.8 17.8 17.6 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Federal Deliveries 334.5 334.5 332.2 408.7 408.7 405.9 238.2 238.2 235.4 SWP Deliveries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required Environmental Instream Flow 32,187.9 32,187.9 32,187.9 18,583.6 18,583.6 18,583.6 7,933.7 7,933.7 7,933.7 Groundwater Net Withdrawal 187.7 187.7 187.7 240.7 240.7 240.7 352.5 352.5 352.5 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 76.6 94.2 100.2 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 219.6 211.4 62.2 Recycled Water 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1

**TOTAL SUPPLIES 33,558.2 33,262.0 33,256.0 20,146.4 19,840.8 19,833.9 9,057.3 8,894.9 8,887.8**  **Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0** 13 2 **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

North Coast Hydrologic RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 14 2 ID North Coast North Coast North 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 2,104.5 1,498.0 988.0 b Inflow From Mexico

- - - 5 Precipitation 79,216.3 50,755.1 31,254.4 6a Runoff - Natural 53,812.0 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 N/A 9 Local Deliveries 537.9 592.7 340.6 10 Local Imports 2.0 3.1 17.8 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries

- - - b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries

- - - 12 Other Federal Deliveries 334.5 408.7 238.2 13 State Water Project Deliveries

- - - 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 1,445.3 1,444.5 1,473.5 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 5.3 6.4 4.9 c Conveyance Seepage - Managed Wetlands

- - - 19a Recycled Water - Agriculture 11.7 11.7 11.7 b Recycled Water - Urban 0.3 0.3 0.4 c Recycled Water - Groundwater

- - - 20a Return Flow to Developed Supply - Ag 6.0 6.9 7.1 b Return Flow to Developed Supply - Wetlands

- - -
c Return Flow to Developed Supply - Urban

- - - 21a Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Ag 46.9 61.2 72.2 b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands 1.2 1.3 0.7 c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 18.7 19.7 18.5 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag 67.5 86.1 23.5 b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S 143.3 115.5 30.3 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 N/A N/A N/A 26 Surface Water in Storage - Beg of Yr 2,236.3 2,740.7 2,495.0 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 264.3 334.9 452.7 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 2,938.8 2,495.0 2,003.9 31 Groundwater Recharge-Contract Banking

- - - 32 Groundwater Recharge-Adjudicated Basins

- - - 33 Groundwater Recharge-Unadjudicated Basins

- - - 34a Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Native Vegetation N/A N/A N/A b Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Unirrigated Ag N/A N/A N/A 35a Evaporation from Lakes 38.9 45.2 42.4 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 167.5 181.3 162.7 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 271.1 183.2 144.3 37 Agricultural Water Use 634.6 778.9 614.6 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 391.4 424.4 254.3 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 29.4 30.4 29.1 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 35.2 40.8 40.9 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 13.3 13.7 14.2 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 3.7 3.8 3.9 40 Urban Commercial Use 17.1 17.2 17.5 41 Urban Industrial Use 30.2 31.7 31.1 42 Urban Large Landscape 11.0 12.4 12.7 43 Urban Energy Production

- - 0 44 Instream Flow 1425.1 1441.9 1473.5 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers 30923 17321.1 6547.6 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 449.2 551.1 444.1 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 155.7 194.4 155.3 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 41.2 45.9 47.7 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater 0.2 0.2 0.2 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 29.6 33.5 26.4 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 75.8 79.8 78.6 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban

- - - b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 6.9 7.1 4.2 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands 0.4 0.4 0.1 d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico N/A N/A

- 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 37.4 42.1 41.3 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 76.3 80.8 79.5 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands 1.7 1.7 1.5 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 32348.1 18763 8021.1 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon 183.7 113.7 66.4 c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 2.0 2.0 2.0 56 Regional Exports 883.4 1143.5 702.5 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -46.9 -28.4 -146.8 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 702.5 -245.7 -491.1 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 3,779.9 3,779.9 3,779.9 Inflows Outflows Green number signifies included in summary boxes **Table 2-3 North Coast water portfolios (TAF)** **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region 15 2 **Volume 3**  Regional Reports California Wa ter Plan Update 2005SUMMARY

OUTFLOWS INFLOWS **Figure 2-5 North Coast region - schematic flow diagram**

In schematic of Table 2-3, key components of the flow diagram are shown as boxes and connectors in a flow chart. Circled numbers correspond to the identification number of flow diagram components in the table; box color indicates whether component is water input, output, or summary. Blank boxes are flow diagram components not relevant to the region. WILD & SCENIC RIVERS NET USE: RUNOFF: NATURAL: INCIDENTAL: PRECIPITATION: TOTAL STREAM FLOW: Sum of Known

Quantities AG EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION ON IRRIGATED LANDS:

INFLOW FROM OREGON: LOCAL IMPORTED DELIVERIES: LOCAL DELIVERIES:

SURFACE WATER IN STORAGE: Beg of Yr: End of Yr: OTHER FEDERAL DELIVERIES:

WATER DEPOSITS: SURFACE WATER: GROUNDWATER: RECYL & DESAL: TRANSFERS:

GROUNDWATER CHANGE IN STORAGE: BANKED: ADJUDICATED: UNADJUDICATED: Sum of known quantities GW EXTRACTIONS: CONTRACT BANKS: ADJUDICATED BASINS: UNADJUDICATED BASINS: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER: AG: WETLANDS: URBAN:

WATER USE (APPLIED): AGRICULTURAL: WETLANDS: URBAN: TOTAL

RECYCLED WATER: AG: URBAN: GW:

URBAN WASTEWATER PRODUCED: INCIDENTAL E & ET AG RETURN FLOWS:

AG & WETLANDS RETURN FLOWS:

RETURN FLOWS TO SALT SINKS: AG: WETLANDS: URBAN:

REMAINING NATURAL RUNOFF FLOW TO SALT SINKS:

OUTFLOW TO OREGON: DEEP PERC OF APPLIED WATER: AG: WETLANDS: URBAN: RETURN FLOW TO DEVELOPED SUPPLY: AG: WETLANDS: URBAN: EVAP FROM: LAKES: RESERVOIRS: E & ET FROM: NATIVE VEGETATION: UNIRRIGATED AG:

RELEASES FOR INSTREAM USE: DIRECT DIVERSIONS: CONVEYANCE E & ET: URBAN: AG: WETLANDS: CONVEYANCE RETURN FLOWS: URBAN: AG: WETLANDS:

CONVEYANCE SEEPAGE: URBAN: AG: WETLANDS:

RETURN FLOW FOR DELTA OUTFLOW: AG: WETLANDS: URBAN : EVAPORATION AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER, PRECIPITATION AND CONVEYANCE:

GW RECHARGE: CONTRACT BANKING: ADJUDICATED BASINS: UNADJUDICATED BASINS: TO E & ET:

SUBSURFACE GW

INFLOW:

SUBSURFACE GROUNDWATER OUTFLOW:

OTHER REGIONAL TRANSFER OUT: REGIONAL TRANSFER IN:

INSTREAM NET USE: CONVEYANCE E&ET, RETURN FLOWS, & SEEPAGE: URBAN: AG: WETLANDS:

Service Area Return Flow within

Return of Required Instream Flows Return of Required Wild &

Scenic Flows 1

2

5 4 3

55 6 13 11

19 12 10 9

7

20

21 45 29 26
30 35

39 to 43 37 38

53

54 46 14 34 36

28

52 16 24 17

18

25 47

50 49

48

27

31

32
33

23 8 15C 15A
15B

56 44 16 51

22

TOTAL GROUNDWATER NATURAL RECHARGE:

162 **Volume 3**Regional Reports **Chapter 2** North Coast Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

## Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 

# Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region .......................................................................................................3-1 Setting ................................ 3-1 Land Use ............................ 3-1 Population and Water Use ... 3-1 Water Supplies .................... 3-2 Groundwater .................. 3-2 Recycled Water ............... 3-3 Role of Conservation ....... 3-3 Water Quality ..................... 3-3 Wetlands and Watershed Management ................................................................................................................3-6 State of the Region .............. 3-6 Water Supply Reliability .. 3-7 Water Conservation and Recycling ...................................................................................................................3-8 Surface Storage .............. 3-8 Desalination ................... 3-8 Environmental Water Quality ...........................................................................................................................3-9 Drinking Water Quality ... 3-9 Wetlands and Watershed Management ..........................................................................................................3-10 Looking to the Future ......... 3-13 Water Quality ............... 3-13 Wetlands and Watershed ..............................................................................................................................3-15 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................3-15 Selected References ........... 3-15



## Boxes Box 3-1 Acronyms Used in San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ...............................................................................3-4 Box 3-2 Bay Area W ater Agencies Forum .................................................................................................................3-6 Box 3-3 Ongoing Planning Organizations ..............................................................................................................3-12 

## Figures Figure 3-1 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ......................................................................................................3-ii Figure 3-2 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region population ......................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-3 San Francisco Bay region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001 (2 bar charts) ..........................3-5 Figure 3-4 San Francisco Bay region - illustrated water flow diagram .......................................................................3-19 Figure 3-5 San Francisco Bay region - schematic flow diagram ................................................................................3-20


## Tables Table 3-1 Sources of surface water imported .............................................................................................................3-4 T able 3-2 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region water balance summary ..................................................................3-14 T able 3-3 San Francisco Bay region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies.................................................3-16 T able 3-4 San Francisco Bay region water portfolios ................................................................................................3-18**Volume 3** Regional Reports California Water Plan Update 2005

NAPA

SOLANO

CONTRA

COSTA

ALAMEDA

SANTA CLARA SAN MATEO MARIN

SAN FRANCISCO

**Some Statistics** Area - 4,506 square miles (2.8% of State) Average annual precipitation - 25.4 inches Year 2000 population - 6,105,650 2030 population projection - 7,857,360 Total reservoir storage capacity - 746 TAF 2000 irrigated crop area - 70,300 acres .

.

.

.

.

. Flow in TAF 1998 597 2000 629 2001 625 **San Joaquin River Region**

Contra Costa Canal Mokelumne Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct South Bay Aqueduct (SWP)

Flow in TAF 1998 66 2000 89 2001 133 **Central Coast Region** San Felipe Unit CVP Flow in TAF 1998 32 2000 33 2001 34 **North Coast Region** Sonoma Petaluma Aqueduct

Flow in TAF 1998 69 2000 72 2001 80 **Sacramento River Region**

**Putah South Canal,** North Bay Aqueduct (SWP)

Vallejo Permit Water **Figure 3-1 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region**

The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region includes the San Franc isco and Suisun bays and Suisun Marsh and their drainage areas. Arrows indicate annual flows entering and leaving the region for water years 1998, 2000, and 2001. Flow in TAF 1998 52,665 2000 21,751 2001 9,455 **Outflow to Ocean***

*Outflow to Ocean includes Wild and Scenic Rivers, regulated flows, and estimated wastewater outflows.1 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region

**Land Use** Portions of the region are highly urbanized and include the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose metropolitan areas. Agricultural acreage occurs mostly in the north and northeast in Napa, Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. Santa Clara and Alameda counties also have significant agricultural acreage at the edge of the urban development. The predominant crops are grapes along with fruit and nut trees, hay production, and dairy and livestock operations. In the area along the ocean coastline south of the Golden Gate, more than half of the irrigated acres are in high-value specialty crops, such as artichokes, strawberries, or flowers.


## Population and Water Use The bay region is a heavily urbanized region. From California Department of Finance figures, the total population of thishydrologic region in year 2000 was 6,106,000, with approxim ately half of the people residing in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. The Association of Bay Area Governments projects that even with the implementation of “Smart Growth” policies by local government, the nine counties that include the bay region will add 2 million people, 750,000 households and create 1.5 million jobs by year 2030. Figure 3-2 provides a graphical depiction of the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region’s total population from year 1960 through year 2000, with current projections to year 2030. Water use in the bay region is predominantly urban with more than 50 percent of the use residential. There are also numerous industrial users around the bay. Agricultural water use is a much smaller percentage of total water use in this region compared to other inland regions, such as the Sacramento River region, San Joaquin River region, and the Tulare Lake region. For example, in the San Francisco Bay region part of the Santa Clara Valley Water District service area, agricultural use is less than one percent of total water use of 383,000 acre-feet per year. However SCVWD does deliver about 29,000 acre-feet of agricultural water to customers in the Central Coast Hydrologic Region. 

## Setting The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, which occupies parts of nine counties, extends from southern Santa Clara County north to Tomales Bay in Marin County, and inland to the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers near Collinsville (Figure 3-1). The eastern boundary follows the crest of the Coast Range, the highest peaks of which are more than 3,000 feet above sea level. Streams in the region flow into the bay-estuary or to the Pacific Ocean. The climate within the region varies significantly from west to east. Coastal areas are typically cool and often foggy, and inland valleys are warmer with a Mediterranean-like climate. Rainfall amounts vary among subregions and can be highly influenced by vegetative cover and marine influences. Although there are several small reservoirs and groundwater basins throughout this region, the primary water supplies are imported from other regions of the state.

The bay region boasts significant Pacific Coast marshes such as Pescadero marsh and Tomales Bay marshes as well as San Francisco Bay itself. San Francisco Bay is an estuary with a deep central channel, broad mudflats, and fringing marsh. The bay is commonly divided in to the South, Central, and North Bay. The North Bay is more brackish while the South and Central bays are more marine dominated. Suisun Marsh in between the North Bay and the Delta is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America, providing more than 10 percent of California’s remaining wetlands.

T he combined flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds flow through the Delta and into the San Francisco Bay. Delta outflow interacts with tides to determine how far saltwater intrudes from the ocean into the San Francisco Bay Estuary. The resulting salinity gradients influence the distribution of many estuarine fishes and invertebrates as well as plants, birds, and animals in wetlands areas. Delta outflow varies with hydrology, reservoir releases, and diversions upstream.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 2 3 Figure 3-1; 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 years 1998, 2000, and 2001.



## Water Supplies In the early 1900s, local water agencies developed significant imported water supplies from the Mokelumne and Tuolumne rivers to meet the anticipated demands. At the same time, local reservoirs and watersheds were being developed to capture surface supplies, to recharge the groundwater basins, and to act as terminal reservoirs for the larger projects. Later, State and federal water projects brought water to the northern, eastern, and southern parts of the region through a number of canals. Table 3-1 shows the sources of surface water imported. As additional information, Figure 3-3 presents bar charts thatsummarize all of the dedicated and developed urban, agric ultural and environmental water uses and supplies within this hydrologic region for years 1998, 2000 and 2001. 

### Groundwater Local groundwater accounts for only about 5 percent of the region’s average water year supply. The more heavily usedbasins include the Santa Clara Valley, Livermore Valley, Westside, Niles Cone, Napa-Sonoma Valley, and Petaluma Valley groundwater basins. For agencies like SCVWD, Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 (Zone 7), groundwater is a critically important local supply that helps offset dependence on imported water supplies. (See Box 3- 1 for list of acronyms used in this chapter.) Conjunctive use programs have also been implemented by these agencies to optimize the use of groundwater and surface water resources,and water quality programs are in place to monitor and protect groundwater quality. Throughout the region additionalgroundwater resources continue to be investigated and developed to expand the role of conjunctive use programs. Portions of the San Francisco Bay Region are highly urbanized and include the San Francisco (skyline in photo above), Oakland, and San Jose metropolitan areas. Agricult 3 Chapter 3 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



### Recycled Water Recycled water in the bay region is used in a full spectrum of applications, including landscape irrigation, industrial cooling, agricultural needs and as a supply to the areas many wetlands. Currently, nearly 50-million gallons per day of recycled water is produced in the bay region, and future planned projects have the potential to increase this amount to 100 mgd by the year 2020.



### Role of Conservation
Urban water districts in the bay region generally are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU) that commits them to make a good faith effort to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs). In 2001, the California Urban Water Agencies issued a report that projected net water savings for the bay region based on implementation of the MOU at about 105,000 acre-feet. These numbers are being updated and revised by the CALFED Bay-Delta Water Use Efficiency Program as part of its planning process.

The seven agencies that participate in the Bay Area WaterAgencies Coalition—SCVWD, ACWD, Zone 7, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), and Bay Area Water Supply and ConservationAgency (BAWSCA)—recently completed a study on conservation advancement that showed that as a whole, their members had reduced the per capita water use by 16 percent since 1986 and decreased total water use by 1.4 percent despite a 17 percent increase in population served during the same period. Individual agency results varied around these numbers.



## Water Quality
The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region is centered on the San Francisco Estuary and its water quality. The estuary’simmediate watershed is highly urbanized, resulting in contaminant loads from both point and nonpoint sources, as well as pollutants from the Napa, Petaluma, and Guadalupe rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Central Valley. Bay Area residents generally receive good quality drinking water that varies by source and treatment. Sources range from high quality Hetch Hetchy and Mokelumne River supplies, local surface and groundwater, and variable-quality Delta water. Utilities that depend on the Delta for all or part of their domestic water supplies do meet the current drinking water standards, although they remain concerned about issues such as microbial contamination, salinity, and organic carbon. Figure 3-2 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region population

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

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

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 4 3 

## Box 3-1 Acronyms Used in the San Francisco Bay Regional Report

ACWD Alameda County Water District BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BACW A Bay Area Clean Water Agencies bay region San Francisco Bay Region BMPs Best Management Practices CALFED State and Federal Bay- Delta Authority CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan CCWD Contra Costa Water District CVP Central Valley Project EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District mgd million gallons per day MMWD Marin Municipal Water District MOU Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban W ater Conservation in California SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District SCW A Sonoma County Water Agency SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SIP Seismic Improvement Program SMPA Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement SLLPIP San Luis Low Point Improvement Project SWP State Water Project Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 **Table 3-1 Sources of surface water imported** 
**Water Water source Operator Counties Served Water supplied to the Bay Conveyance**  **Region via facility in 2000 Facility** 

Hetch Hetchy Tuolumne SFPUC San Francisco, San 259 TAF (29%) Aqueduct River Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties

Mokelumne Mokelumne EBMUD Alameda, Contra Costa Aqueduct River counties 206 TAF (23%)

South Bay Delta DWR Alameda, 119 TAF (13%) Aqueduct (SWP) Santa Clara counties
Contra Costa Western Delta CCWD/ Contra Costa County 117 TAF (13%) Canal CVP
San Felipe Unit Delta via San USBR Santa Clara County 89 TAF (10%) Luis Reservoir (CVP)
North Bay Northern DWR Solano, Napa counties 36 TAF (4%) Aqueduct Delta (SWP)

Putah South Lake USBR Solano County 35 TAF (4%) Canal Berryessa
Sonoma Russian River SCWA Sonoma County 33 TAF (4%) Petaluma Aqueduct5 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

**Figure 3-3 San Francisco Bay region water balance for water years 1998, 2000, 2001**

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

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet Instream Flow

Managed Wetlands
Irrigated Agriculture

Urban

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

1998 2000 2001Thousand Acre-Feet 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 San Francisco 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 6 3 Delta water constitutes about one-third of the domestic water in the bay region.


## Wetlands and Watershed Management The San Francisco Bay is one of the most modified estuaries in the United States. The topography, ebb and flow of the tides, patterns of freshwater inflows locally and from the Delta, and the availability and types of sediment have all been altered. Many new species of plants and animals have been introduced. These exotic and invasive species, such as the Chinese mitten crab and Asian clam, threaten to undermine the estuary’s food web and alter its ecosystem.

W

ater quality has also changed over time. The character of the wetlands around the bay has changed dramatically. Over 75 percent of the bay’s historical wetlands have been lost or alteredthrough a variety of land use changes around the bay including filling for urban and industrial uses and the construction of dikes for agricultural uses. There used to be 190,000 acres of tidal marsh; now there are 40,000 acres with only 16,000 of these having been tidal marsh historically. Tidal flats have been reduced from 50,000 acres to 29,000 acres due to bay fill, erosion, tidal marsh evolution, and other factors. The total area covered by the bay at high tide was historically about 516,000 acres. Now the bay covers about 327,000 acres at high tide. There are about 500 species of fish and wildlife associated with the bay lands, 20 of which are now threatened or endangered. In recent decades, filling of the bay has slowed significantly due to regulatory changes and the creation of the Bay Cons ervation and Development Commission, a State agency charged with permitting activities along the shore of the bay.


## State of the Region Some of the major water related challenges facing the San Francisco Bay region include improving water supply reliability to sustain water supplies in drought periods and other emergency outages, maintaining and improving drinking water quality across the region by continuing to meet and exceed current and anticipated drinking water quality standards and protecting drinking water sources, and improving the ecosystem health of San Francisco Bay. Other challenges include linking local land use planning with water system planning and improving water management planning on a regional level.
Many projects and programs are already under way to addressthese needs. However, the various parties concerned with waterrelated issues in the bay region are increasingly recognizing that there is also a need to develop solutions on a more collaborative regional or subregional basis (Box 3-2 Bay Area Water Agency Forums). Some of the longstanding regional planning efforts within the bay region are described in this section, including projects under way to improve water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem restoration through regional partnerships. In addition, some of the newer water management and drinking water quality regional planning initiatives are described in the next section, “Looking to the Future.”



## Box 3-2 Bay Area Water Agency Forums

ABAG-CALFED Task Force. Regional body of elected officials from local government and water districts, staff, and nongovernmental organizations that was formed to link planning for water supply and water supply reliability, water quality, and environmental protection for the Bay; support the objectives of the CALFED Record of Decision; and explore opportunities to improve regional cooperation. Bay Area Water Agencies Forum (formerly known as the Six Agencies Group). First convened in 2000 to provide a regular opportunity for water agency policymakers to discuss regional water policy issues and explore cooperative approaches to improving the quality and reliability of Bay Area water supplies. Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition. Established in 2002 to provide a forum and a framework for water agency general managers to discuss water management planning issues and coordinate projects and programs to improve water supply reliability and water quality. Northern California Salinity Coalition. Created in 2003 to advance the interests of the eight member water agencies in the development of local and regional efforts that will use desalination or salinity management technologies, practices, and approaches to improve water supply reliability for coalition members and to reduce salinity-related problems affecting the water supplies of the member agencies.7 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



### Water Supply Reliability Generally, water districts in the San Francisco Bay region have sufficient supplies to meet the needs of their customers in normal water years now and for some time into the future. The major water supply reliability challenges occur during droughts and other emergencies. Currently, during drought periods, locally developed water supplies are very limited, and imported water supplies can be short of water users needs. This problem is expected to worsen over time as the region’s urban use grows and because these imported supplies may be more at risk due to various other factors. For example, area of origin communities outside the San Francisco Bay region will also need more water as they grow. Water could be reallocated for environmental needs or Delta outflow and operational requirements could change, affecting the San Francisco Bay regions’ imported water supply.
Some examples of future shortfall estimates are:

• Using year 2020 demand projections, SCVWD estimates

a shortfall of approximately 66,000 acre-feet in a very dry year ( a repeat of 1977 drought conditions), or approximately 15 percent of the projected demand.

• EBMUD, without the Freeport Project, could face projected

dry period customer rationing of 68 percent based on 2020 projected demand. With the proposed intake from the Sacramento River at Freeport, rationing would be reduced to 28 percent during dry periods.
The exact magnitude of drought year shortfalls and the best water management tools to be used to address them are controversial. Each district has different assumptions and policies that guide their planning. Different systems rely on water from different watersheds, so even the definition of a drought for planning purposes varies somewhat. However, drought supply reliability will continue to be a major challenge for water supply planning in the bay region.

T he region is also prone to major earthquakes and other natural disasters that could damage and interrupt water delivery. Critical seismic reliability upgrades are required for some facilities that cross or are located on any of the three active earthquake fault systems (that is, San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults). According to SFPUC, a major earthquake could disrupt water supplies for up to 60 days in its system, which serves 2.4 million people in the bay region. In other areas, significant progress has already been made on seismic vulnerability but challenges remain. E ach water district has plans under way to address these drought shortfalls and to ensure that their systems will provide a certain level of water service in the event of an earthquake or natural disaster. Details such as future projected water demands, supplies, and planned capital expenditures can be found in each district’s plans. However, there are no statistics that summarize the current and future expenditures planned region-wide or the amount of water expected to be developed for droughts or the expected performance region-wide in the event of a seismic event. This is the type of information that may become available through integrated resources planning.

Some examples of projects under way to address future reliability needs are described in the following sections. In addition to the example projects listed here, there are numerous other efforts under way.
Seismic Vulnerability and Drought Supply Planning

• SFPUC is implementing a $4.3 billion capital improvement

p rogram to replace or repair aging facilities, provide seismic upgrades and improve water supply reliability.

• EBMUD is nearing completion of a 10-year seismic

improvement program. The program is a $189 millionprogram to improve post-earthquake firefighting capability and water service within the EBMUD service area.

• Zone 7 is updating its Well Master Plan so that it can more

readily rely on groundwater to meet its normal demands if a seismic event disrupts the imported water delivery system.

• SCVWD is implementing and updating its integrated water

resources plan to address water supply shortfalls and preparing a comprehensive water utility infrastructure management program to address seismic and security hazards.

• CCWD recently completed the major components of its

$120 million Seismic Reliability Improvements program,including a 21-mile Multi-purpose Pipeline, a new pumpi ng plant at its Mallard Slough Intake, interties, and seismic valves. These facilities improve reliability and fire-fighting flows after a major earthquake.

Groundwater

• ACWD, SCVWD, and Zone 7 have implemented conjunctive use programs within their service areas to optimize the combined use of groundwater and surface water resources. Objectives of these programs include the prevention of groundwater overdraft and subsidence, the prevention of salt water intrusion, and the development of an emergency groundwater storage supply.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 8 3

• To ensure that the quality of local groundwater supplies is

n ot degraded, bay region water agencies actively monitor water quality and have implemented several groundwater protection measures.

• To date, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has invested $2.4

million in eight local groundwater projects in areas like Santa Clara County.

• Solano County Water Agency, ACWD, SCVWD, and

Zone 7 have entered into agreements with groundwater banks outside the region. Currently 425,000 acre-feet of water is stored under these programs, as an additional water supply for droughts. Other Bay Area agencies arestudying the potential of out-of-region groundwater banki ng options, as well as new conjunctive use programs.

Conveyance and Interconnections

• EBMUD, in conjunction with the Sacramento County

Water Agency, is preparing preliminary design docum ents to divert water from the Sacramento River to reduce customer rationing during multi-year droughts (Freeport Project).

• A 40-mgd intertie between the SCVWD system and the

SFPUC system was completed recently in the City of Milpitas. EBMUD and SFPUC are also constructing another 30-mgd treated water intertie between their systems.

• Studies are under way on the San Luis Low Point Improvement Project to address water quality and conveyance issues for South Bay water users and to improve the reliability of water supplies from San Luis Reservoir for the customers of the San Felipe Unit of the Central Valley Project including SCVWD. Additional details on the SLLPIP including schedule and budget can be found in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Plan for the Conveyance Program. 

### Water Conservation and Recycling Many different wastewater reclamation/recycling projects are under way in the Bay Region, and others are in the planning and environmental documentation stages. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Water Recycling Project Master Plan, prepared in 1999, analyzed recycling for the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa and developed a plan to achieve 125,000 acre-feet/year of water recycling over the next 10 years.

BARWRP also had a number of recommendations to makeregional reclamation and recycling projects more implem entable including increasing public acceptance and dealingwith environmental impacts regionally. Many of the nearterm recycling projects identified in the plan are now being developed, some through the use of $43 million in Bay-Delta program funding. BARWRP members are reviewing progress and updating program objectives and recommendations. A similar coordinated water recycling program is under way in the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay region.
Water conservation is generally included as a component of each water agency’s planning programs. Agencies are actively involved in implementing water conservation measures and raising public awareness about the need to conserve water supplies through more efficient practices. Water conservation efforts are helping to reduce water demands and conserve the bay region’s water supplies. To date, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has invested over $15 million in 35 local water conservation programs. 

### Surface StorageWater agencies are also studying several surface storage projects within the region and in other regions to help with drought relief, emergency storage, and water quality management. Some of the surface water storage projects under consideration in the region include expansion of Calaveras, Pacheco, and Los Vaqueros reservoirs. Calaveras Reservoir expansion is being studied as part of the CALFED Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program to provide water supply reliability to SFPUC customers and potential regional partners in the Bay Area. Los Vaqueros expansion is being evaluated as part of the CALFED Program. This project is being studied both as a way to improve drought supply reliability and water quality for theBay Region, and to provide environmental benefits to the BayDelta. Studies of the potential for expansion of Los Vaqueros are under way. Additional details on the schedule and budget for this project can be found in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Plan for Storage. Expansion of Pacheco Reservoir is being consideredby CALFED as an alternative under the SLLPIP. Additional information on this project can be found in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Plan for Conveyance.



### Desalination With recent advances in technology, several water agencies in the Bay Region are investigating desalinization as a source toimprove water supply reliability. Marin Municipal Water District is proposing a major new desalination project for Marin County using water from San Rafael Bay. EBMUD, CCWD, SCVWD and SFPUC are conducting a joint feasibility study for a desalinization plant to serve the Bay Region as an emergency9 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

or dry-year supply. ACWD has built a brackish water desalination plant to produce potable water from brackish water taken from local aquifers. 

### Environmental Water Quality The San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary is the main focus of water quality issues in this region. Water and sediment in the estuarymeet quality guidelines for most contaminants, with constituents in water meeting toxicity and chemical guidelines about 87 percent of the time. Sediment concentrations, though, are more problematic, due to legacy pollutants, with only about 60 percent of the sediment samples meeting chemical guidelines and passing toxicity tests. Over time, estuary water quality has significantly improved, for instance, with fewer toxic episodes and decreased silver concentrations in the south bay. Imple

mentation of secondary treatment of domestic wastewater has dramatically improved the quality, especially the oxygen content, of the San Francisco Estuary, as has the reduction in the use of organophosphate pesticides.

Major water quality issues include control of storm water, urban, and construction site runoff, as well as runoff and dischargesfrom the vast Central Valley and Delta watershed. Legacy pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, contaminate fish in the estuary. Other water quality concerns include copper and nickel in the South Bay, selenium from Contra Costa refineries, erosion from vineyards in Napa and Sonoma valleys, pesticides in urban creeks generally, and toxicity of water and especially sediment. Habitat in the Suisun Marsh is threatened by increasing sedimentation. Exotic and invasive species, such as the Chinese mitten crab and Asian clam, threaten to undermine the estuary’s food web and alter its ecosystem. Because San Francisco Bay has several active seaports, discharge of ballast water and vessel wastes and maintenance dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments are water quality concerns. New contaminants are emerging that may be causing impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, includ

ing PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), pyrethroid insecticides, and compounds from pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

The bay acts as a sediment repository, so persistent, sedimentbound contaminants, such as mercury, dioxins, PCBs, and organochlorine pesticides have accumulated over time. Thesecompounds also bioaccumulate in the food chain, causing contamination of bay fish and endangering their consumers, including humans and wildlife. Happily, new inputs of the persistent sediment contaminants in the estuary are controlled as the use of most organochlorine pesticides and PCBs are banned, and the concentrations in the sediments and in organisms appear to be declining. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board is developing new regulatory requirements to address the mercury sources to the estuary, most significantly, the New Almaden mine, as well as the thousands of abandoned mercury and gold mine tailings in the Central Valley watershed. Mercury contamination in rstuary fish, such as the striped bass, has remained high for more than 30 years. Wetland restoration could increase mercury methylation processes and cause higher contamination in fish. State and federal agencies, working through the CALFED Bay Delta Program and other organizations, have funded a number of studies to determine potential effects of restoration and explore management actions that would decrease methyl mercury production and bioac

cumulation.

Since 1993, the San Francisco Regional Monitoring Programhas been providing monitoring, and evaluation of the monitoring results, on water, sediment, and fish contamination issues in the bay. The annual conference and publication “Pulse of the Estuary” is produced by the San Francisco Estuary Institute and summarizes what is known about the estuary’s water qualityissues. In addition to the mercury research mentioned previo usly, the CALFED Bay Delta Program has funded $10 million in projects related to water quality in the bay, including watershed management, pesticide use reduction, and toxicity studies.

Outside of the San Francisco Estuary, Tomales Bay is one of only four commercial shellfish growing areas on the entire west coast. Some of the coastal watersheds of Marin and San Mateo counties provide important habitat for listed species of coho salmon and steelhead. Sediment threatens water quality and habitat in Bolinas Lagoon, the only wetland on the West Coast designated as a Wetland of International Significance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

### Drinking Water Quality The quality of domestic water supplies in the San Francisco Bay Region is generally excellent, but does vary by source of supply and method of water treatment. For instance, the source water quality of SFPUC’s Tuolumne River supply, EBMUD’s MokelumneRiver supply, and local surface and groundwater supplies is gene rally better than that of water diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. However, even with a high quality water source, San Francisco recently implemented chloramine disinfection of drinking water, in order to reduce disinfection byproducts. In the CCWD service area, the storage of higher quality Delta water in Los Vaqueros Reservoir, as well as the implementation of advanced water treatment systems, has significantly improved water quality in that area.California Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 10 3 Utilities that divert and deliver water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta are pursuing a range of projects to protect and improve the quality of the water, including storing Delta waterwhen it has relatively good quality, managing the watersheds, blending water from different sources, and applying advanced water treatment technology. For example, CCWD is continuing to work with local and regional agencies and CALFED to improve its source water quality. Projects include using CALFED funding to relocate agricultural drains and to line portions of the Contra Costa Canal that may be impacted by poor quality local groundwater. Utilities in Solano County use water blending methods to combine high quality local surface water with Delta water of variable quality from the North Bay Aqueduct. SCVWD, ACWD, and Zone 7 utilize a diversified portfolio of water sources, including Delta water, Hetch Hetchy supplies, local surface water, and groundwater. Starting in 2002, the SVCWD initiated major renovations to each of its three regional water treatment plants in order to provide higher quality drinking water to the residents of Santa Clara County. When these projects are completed in year 2010, the systems will switch from the current method of disinfection by chlorination to the use of ozone technology for water disinfection.

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has funded several effortsto improve water quality in the region, including the feasibility of expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the San Luis Low Point Improvement Project (previously discussed under“Surface Storage” and “Water Supply Reliability/Conveya nce,” respectively). The Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability project is evaluating a broad array of cooperative regional projects to benefit ACWD, Zone 7, SFPUC, CCWD,SCVWD, EBMUD, and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA - representing the 28 wholesale water customers of the SFPUC). Some of the regional projectconcepts being considered in this study include the expansion of storage in Calaveras and Los Vaqueros reservoirs, additional recycling, additional conservation beyond existing urban BMPs, and desalination.

I n general, groundwater quality throughout most of the region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments, such as leaking underground storage tanks.Groundwater in the Livermore Valley and Niles Cone (souther n Alameda County) basins has high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, boron, and hardness; such that both Zone 7 and ACWD are implementing wellhead demineralization projects to improve the quality of this groundwater supply. In the Santa Clara Valley region, some of the underlying groundwater supplies are threatened by pollutants from various industrial activities and historical agriculture. SCVWD works to protect the quality of these supplies by aggressively responding to pollution threats such as MTBE, PCE, TCE, and prechlorate. These pollution threats are individually identified and evaluated in order to prevent or mitigate groundwater contamination. Elsewhere, groundwater in Petaluma Valley and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley has high levels of nitrate, which adversely impacts the ability to use domestic wells for drinking water purposes. Groundwater recharge projects and the use of imported water have effectively halted land subsidence in most areas, and have successfully stopped or reversed seawater intrusion into aquifers around the bay. 

### Wetlands and Watershed Management Although there are serious problems facing San Francisco Bay, its wetlands, and watershed, there has been a concerted effort over the last 20 years to restore the Bay. Some of the major planning and implementation efforts are described here. Expenditures to date on ecosystem restoration include $32 million in Bay-Delta Program funding, along with significant local, state and federal funding.

T he Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, completed by the San Francisco Estuary Project in 1993, presents a blueprint of 145 specific actions to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the bay and Delta. The CCMP has been implemented over time by a wide variety of local, state and federal partners including the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Estuary Project regularly updates the priorities for CCMP implementation and prepares a report on the state of the estuary. In addition, the Estuary Project prepares Bay-Delta Report card that identifies many of the restoration projects under way to track progress implementing the CCMP. The most recent list of priorities identified by Estuary Project is:

• Reduce the impact of invasive species on the estuary

through prevention, control, eradication, and education.

• Expand, restore, and protect bay and Delta wetlands and

c ontiguous habitats. (These two items were both identified as top priorities.)

• Protect and restore watersheds, including promoting creek

restoration, throughout the estuary.

• Create “incentives” that motivate governments, landowners, businesses and communities to protect and restore the estuary.

• Minimize or eliminate pollution of the estuary from all

sources.11 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

• Increase public interaction with the estuary’s natural

resources, encourage stewardship, and promote the values ecological processes provide to human activities and the effects of human activities on them.

• Continue, sustain, and expand the regional monitoring

program to address all key CCMP issues including pollution;, wetlands including mitigation measures, watersheds, dredging, and sediment transport, biological resources, land use and flows and integrate scientific monitoring results into management and regulatory actions.

• Promulgate baseline inflow standards for San Francisco,

San Pablo, and Suisun bays to protect and restore the estuary.
The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report, prepared by the Habitat Goals Project in 1999, is a guide for restoring and improving the bay lands and adjacent habitats of the San Francisco Estuary. It provides recommendations for the kinds, amounts, and distribution of wetlands and related habitats that are needed to sustain diverse and healthy communities of fish and wildlife resource in the Bay. The CCMP originallyidentified the need for these types of habitat goals. The reco mmendations are being implemented over time through voluntary restoration efforts that include many local, state and federal partners.
The Implementation Strategy for The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, prepared in 2001, identifies actions in the HabitatGoals Report that are consistent with the Joint Venture’s objectives. The State and federal partners in the Joint Venture are implementing these actions.

S tate, federal, and local governments, landowners, and nonp rofit agencies have been working cooperatively to restore the San Francisco Bay estuary for a number of years in conjunctionwith these and other planning processes. Because the restoration and watershed management projects around the bay are so numerous, each one is not listed individually. Additional information can be found on websites for groups active in restoration such as the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture (www. sfbayjv.org/), the Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program’s Wetlands Tracker (www.wrmp.org) or the Estuary Project’s Report Card (www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep.org). A few of the largest efforts are described here.
The Napa Sonoma Marsh Project is joint State, federal, andlocal project to restore 10,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitats within the former Cargill salt pond complex in the North Bay. It includes habitat restoration, beneficial use of recycled water, and improved water quality in the Napa River and the bay. The Bel Marin Keys and Hamilton Airfield projects will collectively restore over 2,400 acres of diked historical wetlands in the North Bay along the Marin County shoreline. These three projects, along with many smaller North Bay projects, will provide significant restoration of wetlands and associated uplands. In 2003, the State of California andthe federal government approved the purchase and restoration of 15,100 acres of Cargill’s salt ponds in the South San Francisco Bay.
Acquisition of the South Bay salt ponds provides an opportunity for landscape-level wetlands restoration, improving the physical, chemical, and biological health of the San Francisco Bay. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project will integrate restoration with flood management, while also providing for public access, wildlife-oriented recreation, and education opportunities. The project will restore and enhance a mosaic of wetlands, creating a vibrant ecosystem. Restored tidal marshes will provide critical habitat for the endangered California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Large marsh areas with extensive channel systems will also provide habitat for fish and other aquatic life and haul out areas for harbor seals. In addition, the restored tidal marshes will help filter out and eliminate pollutants. Many of the ponds will remain as managed ponds and be enhanced to maximize their use as feeding and resting habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl traveling on the Pacific Flyway.
Flood management will be integrated with restoration plan

ning, to ensure flood protection for local communities. Wherefeasible, flood capacities of local creeks, flood control channels, and rivers will be increased by widening the mouths of the waterways and reestablishing connections to historical floodplains. As ponds are opened to the tide, levees between the newly created tidal marsh and local communities will need to be built or enhanced to provide flood protection.
The acquisition of such a large area of open space in theSouth Bay will allow for the provision of public access, wildlife-oriented recreation, and education opportunities, to be planned concurrently with restoration and flood management. Public uses could include creation of Bay Trail segments for biking and hiking, and provision of hunting and angling opportunities, bird watching, environmental education, and other recreational opportunities.
In the Suisun Marsh, the Suisun Marsh Charter Group was formed in 2001 to resolve issues including recovery ofendangered species, amendment of the Suisun Marsh PresCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3**Regional Reports 12 3 ervation Agreement (SMPA), issuance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit, and implementation of a Suisun Marsh Levee Program. The Charter Group was charged with developing and analyzing a plan for the Suisun Marsh that would outline the actions necessary to preserve and enhance managed seasonal wetlands, restore tidalmarsh habitat, implement a comprehensive levee protect ion/improvement program, and protect ecosystem and drinking water quality, consistent with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s goals and objectives. The proposed Suisun Marsh Plan would balance the goals and objectives of the Bay-Delta Program, SMPA, federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and other management and restoration programs within the Suisun Marsh in a manner that is responsive to the concerns of all stakeholders and is based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. The proposed Suisun Marsh Plan also would provide for simultaneous protections and enhancementof: (1) The Pacific Flyway and existing wildlife values in mana ged wetlands, (2) endangered species, (3) tidal marshes and other ecosystems, and (4) water quality, including, but not limited to the maintenance and improvement of levees.

Restoration efforts focused on the upper watershed lands above the baylands are also under way. A wide variety of local groups and agencies have watershed management initiatives under way. These are aimed at controlling pollution at the source, identifying contaminants of concern, and protecting watershed habitat. These are usually multi-objective efforts toaddress needs such as flood control, storm water management, habitat restoration, recreation, and open space. Local government agency and region-wide efforts are under way to control storm water runoff to Bay Region waterways, to initiate innovative land use development and agricultural practices and to improve wastewater discharges—leading to higher water quality for human and livestock consumption.

T he Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) is one example of a collaborative, stakeholder driven effort among representatives from regional and local public agencies; civic, environmental, resource conservationand agricultural groups; professional and trade organizations; business and industrial sectors; and the general public, to protect and enhance the Santa Clara Basin watershed, creating a sustainable future for the community and the environment. The State Watershed Task Force recognized the SCBWMI as one of the top 10 watershed partnerships in California through Assembly Bill 2117. Its successes include the adoption of achievable and protective numeric standards for copper and nickel for lower South San Francisco Bay, adoption of wastewater discharge permits and multi-yearstream maintenance permits, watershed education and outreach programs and collaborative efforts to address linkages between watershed management, flood protection and other land use and development activities.



## Box 3-3 Ongoing Planning Organizations

• The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) CALFED Task Force

• Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC)

• Bay Area Wetlands Restoration Program

• Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP)

• Fish Passage Improvement Program

• San Francisco Estuary Institute

• Audubon Society – S.F. Bay Restoration Program

• S.F. Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group (BAPPG)

• Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)

• Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)

• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

• San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP)

• SF Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – SF Bay Basin Plan

• Northern California Salinity Coalition (NCSC)13 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



## Looking to the FutureThe San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region is home to a multitude of planning organizations that seek to identify future trends and the challenges that accompany them (Box 3-3 Ongoing Planning Organizations). These groups are working on issues of land use, housing, environmental quality, and economic development, wetlands, water reliability, watershedmanagement, groundwater management, water quality, fisheries, and ecosystem restoration.
Most, if not all, of the water supply agencies in the bay region have undergone integrated water resource planning processes involving stakeholders in their regions including local land use planners and are implementing the adopted strategies to improvewater supply reliability. These strategies call for the implementation of a diverse portfolio of water management actions including: conservation, recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, dry year transfers, banking, and storage development.
Many local governments are now routinely evaluating or considering water supply plans as they conduct their land useplanning through cooperative efforts with the agencies respons ible for water supply. However, until recently, integrated water management planning has not been coordinated among thevarious subregions of the bay region and has not systematically combined water supply reliability, water quality, stormwater and wastewater management, and environmental restoration planning together. A number of regional associations, including BAWAC, North Bay water districts, and BACWA are working under a Letter of Mutual Understandings that sets up a planning framework to develop such an integrated regional water management plan for the entire nine-county Bay Area. Parties involved in developing the report sections focusing on water supply and drinking water quality expect it to be completed by winter 2006 while efforts to compile other sections of the report will continue.
This effort to develop a broad based multi-regional integrated water management plan for the nine-county bay region is very broad in its vision and scope. Although some of the regional agencies and organizations responsible for various aspects of water management have not been able to participate, others have joined BAWAC in this effort.
These efforts at integrating regional water management andplanning can benefit the bay region in many ways by facilitating implementation of innovative, cost-effective and efficient multi-objectives water management solutions. For instance, by demonstrating how recycling and water use efficiency are being incorporated, they can increase public support for the plan as a whole. Through an integrated plan, the Bay Region may also better compete for funding from broader sources such as state bond funds or federal appropriations. Some of the largest projects in the region will likely require multiple agencies to agree to participate and finance the effort. These types of regional agreements may be more easily reached with regional planning.

Efforts to develop a regional approach to water management can also benefit the state. As regional water management planning moves forward, regional information on current conditions and future planning is expected to become more readily available. This regional information will complement the information being developed for future California waterplans and will be an important part of measuring the performance of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program at meeting water quality and supply reliability goals. It will also help the State and federal governments target expenditures at the highest priority regional needs.
Future bay region regional profiles are expected to incorporate information from integrated regional water management plans (IRWMP). The focus of the integrated regional water management plan within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region covers the nine Bay Area counties. Areas outside the hydrologic boundary are developing separate plans. Proposition 50, Chapter 8 provides funds to assist agencies in developing the IRWMPs. Implementation proposals were submitted in July 2005 for projects that are part of the water supply–water quality section of the draft IRWMP. 

### Water QualityBay region water agencies have made significant investments in programs and projects to actively protect municipal water quality including facility upgrades, advanced treatment methods, watershed monitoring, groundwater monitoring and protection, demineralization projects, and nonpoint water source evaluations. More monitoring and studies are needed to determine the effects of contaminants, including the emerging contaminants, on the aquatic ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. As the population continues to grow in the Bay Area, the control of storm water runoff, particularly from urban areas, will need to be improved in order to reduce contaminant loadsto the estuary. Stricter regulatory requirements are being develo ped to address the major bay contaminants such as PCBs and mercury. However, even if all the sources of these contaminants were abated, it would take a very long time before sediment contaminants were reduced by degradation, transport to theCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 14 3 1998 (188%) 2000 (109%) 2001 (81%) **Water Entering the Region**

Precipitation 11,438 6,644 4,908 Inflow from Oregon/Mexico 0 0 0 Inflow from Colorado River 0 0 0 Imports from Other Regions *** 764 823 872 **Total 12,202 7,467 5,780**  **Water Leaving the Region** Consumptive Use of Applied Water * (Ag, M&I, Wetlands) 363 394 415 Outflow to Oregon/Nevada/Mexico 0 0 0 Exports to Other Regions 0 0 0 Required Outflow to Salt Sink 23 22 20 Additional Outflow to Salt Sink 664 727 759 Evaporation, Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation, Groundwater Subsurface Outflows, 11,146 6,234 4,795 Natural and Incidental Runoff, Ag Effective Precipitation & Other Outflows **Total 12,196 7,377 5,989**  **Storage Changes in the Region** [+] Water added to storage [−] Water removed from storage Change in Surface Reservoir Storage 76 -25 -56 Change in Groundwater Storage ** -70 115 -153 **Total 6**  **90 -209**
**Applied Water *** (compare with Consumptive Use) 1,060 1,158 1,214

*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 natural recharge and subsurface inflow and outflow. Water Year (Percent of Normal Precipitation) **Table 3-2 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Water Balance Summary - TAF**  Water Entering the Region – Water Leaving the Region = Storage Changes in Region15 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005

ocean or atmosphere, or burial under new sediment deposits. Continued monitoring is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions, detect long-term trends and investigate emerging issues from new contaminants.



### Wetlands and Watershed With the large scale wetlands restoration under way around thebay, there will need to be ongoing monitoring and adaptive mana gement to ensure that projects are meeting environmental objectives and integrating well with other water management objectives.



## Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, **2000, and 2001** The following tables present actual information about the

water supplies and uses for the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Water year 1998 was a wet year for this region, with annual precipitation at 188 percent of average, while the statewide annual precipitation was 171 percent of average. Year 2000 represents nearly normal hydrologic conditions with annual precipitation at 109 percent of average for the San Francisco Bay region, and year 2001 reflected drier water year conditions with annual precipitation at 81 percent of average. For comparison, statewide average precipitation in year 2001 was 72 percent of normal. Table 3-3 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 the uses of all of the water supplies. The three-year Water Portfolio table, Table 3-4, and companion Water Portfolio flow diagrams, Figures 3-4 and 3-5, provide more detailed information about how the available water supplies are distributed and used throughout this region.

T able 3-3 presents the portion of the total available water that is dedicated to urban, agricultural and environmental purposes. Because most of the San Francisco Bay region is largely urbanized, more than 85 percent of the developed water is supplied for urban use. By comparison, agricultural use consumes roughly 10 percent of the developed water supply and instream flows and managed wetlands use only 2 to 3 percent of the total dedicated water supply in this region. Table 3-3 also provides detailed information about the sources of the developed water supplies, which are primarily from surface water systems. For the years 1998, 2000 and 2001, this table shows that more than 65 percent of the region’s developed water supplies were imported from other hydrologic regions of the state. 

## 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
B ulletin 118, 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 “2003 Pulse of the Estuary,” San Francisco Estuary InstituteCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 16 3 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 Urban**  Large Landscape 83.7 90.8 94.6 Commercial 206.4 223.2 233.0 Industrial 59.4 63.5 66.1 Energy Production 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Interior 291.6 315.4 329.4 Residential - Exterior 322.8 350.6 365.4 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 290.7 290.7 306.9 306.9 320.0 320.0 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 632.8 632.8 692.7 692.7 722.6 722.6 Conveyance Applied Water 12.4 12.2 11.2 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.6 5.6 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.6 5.6 GW Recharge Applied Water 14.4 13.6 10.4 GW Recharge Evap + Evapotranspiration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Total Urban Use 990.7 935.9 935.9 1,069.3 1,011.8 1,011.8 1,110.1 1,053.8 1,053.8 Agriculture**  On-Farm Applied Water 90.1 108.3 119.2 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 69.4 69.4 83.7 83.7 91.8 91.8 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 20.7 20.7 24.6 24.6 27.4 27.4 Conveyance Applied Water 1.4 1.4 1.2 Conveyance Evaporation & ETAW 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 Conveyance Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conveyance Outflow 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 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 91.5 91.5 91.5 109.7 109.7 109.7 120.4 120.4 120.4**

**Environmental** Instream Applied Water 23.1 21.5 20.0 Outflow 23.1 23.1 21.5 21.5 20.0 20.0 Wild & Scenic Applied Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 6.2 6.2 6.2 Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 E&ET and Deep Perc to Salt Sink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 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 **Total Managed Wetlands Use 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 Total Environmental Use 29.3 29.3 29.3 27.7 27.7 27.7 26.2 26.2 26.2** 

TOTAL USE AND OUTFLOW 1,111.5 1,056.7 1,056.7 1,206.7 1,149.2 1,149.2 1,256.7 1,200.4 1,200.4 **DEDICATED WATER SUPPLIES Surface Water**  Local Deliveries 273.7 273.7 273.7 244.0 244.0 244.0 216.4 216.4 216.4 Local Imported Deliveries 501.2 501.2 501.2 502.9 502.9 502.9 529.8 529.8 529.8 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 104.7 104.7 104.7 108.6 108.6 108.6 109.4 109.4 109.4 Other Federal Deliveries 37.7 37.7 37.7 34.5 34.5 34.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 SWP Deliveries 134.2 134.2 134.2 155.0 155.0 155.0 121.3 121.3 121.3 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 -17.2 -17.2 -17.2 81.8 81.8 81.8 163.6 163.6 163.6 Deep Percolation of Surface and GW 54.8 57.5 56.3 Reuse/Recycle Reuse Surface Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled Water 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 TOTAL SUPPLIES 1,111.5 1,056.7 1,056.7 1,206.7 1,149.2 1,149.2 1,256.7 1,200.4 1,200.4 Balance = Use - Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **Table 3-3 San Francisco Bay Region Water Use and Distribution of Dedicated Supplies- TAF** 17 3 **Chapter 3** San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005



# Water Portfolios

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic RegionCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

**Volume 3** Regional Reports 18 3 **Table 3-4 San Francisco Bay region water portfolios (TAF)** 

ID San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco 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 11,438.0 6,643.7 4,908.0 6a Runoff - Natural b Runoff - Incidental 7 Total Groundwater Natural Recharge 8 Groundwater Subsurface Inflow N/A 9 Local Deliveries 273.7 244.0 216.4 10 Local Imports 501.2 502.9 529.8 11a Central Valley Project :: Base Deliveries

- - - b Central Valley Project :: Project Deliveries 104.7 108.6 109.4 12 Other Federal Deliveries 37.7 34.5 37.5 13 State Water Project Deliveries 134.2 155.0 121.3 14a Water Transfers - Regional 1.0 1.0 0.2 b Water Transfers - Imported

- - - 15a Releases for Delta Outflow - CVP b Releases for Delta Outflow - SWP c Instream Flow Applied Water 23.1 21.5 20.0 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 10.5 10.3 10.3 b Recycled Water - Urban 5.7 5.9 5.9 c Recycled Water - Groundwater 6.2 6.2 6.2 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

- - - b Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Wetlands

- - -
c Deep Percolation of Applied Water - Urban 40.4 43.9 45.9 22a Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Ag

- - - b Reuse of Return Flows within Region - Wetlands, Instream, W&S

- - - 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 491.3 530.5 505.7 27 Groundwater Extractions - Banked

- - - 28 Groundwater Extractions - Adjudicated

- - - 29 Groundwater Extractions - Unadjudicated 37.6 139.3 219.9 23 Groundwater Subsurface Outflow N/A N/A N/A 30 Surface Water Storage - End of Yr 567.6 505.7 449.4 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 10.1 10.1 9.8 b Evaporation from Reservoirs 104.4 103.4 98.8 36 Ag Effective Precipitation on Irrigated Lands 35.4 36.2 34.1 37 Agricultural Water Use 90.1 108.3 119.2 38 Managed Wetlands Water Use 6.2 6.2 6.2 39a Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Interior 120.3 130.4 135.9 b Urban Residential Use - Single Family - Exterior 280.0 304.3 317.0 c Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Interior 171.3 185.0 193.5 d Urban Residential Use - Multi-family - Exterior 42.8 46.3 48.4 40 Urban Commercial Use 206.4 223.2 233.0 41 Urban Industrial Use 59.4 63.5 66.1 42 Urban Large Landscape 83.7 90.8 94.6 43 Urban Energy Production

- - - 44 Instream Flow 23.1 21.5 20 45 Required Delta Outflow

- - - 46 Wild and Scenic Rivers

- - - 47a Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Ag 69.4 83.7 91.8 b Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Managed Wetlands 3.1 3.1 3.1 c Evapotranspiration of Applied Water - Urban 290.7 306.9 320 48 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from Urban Wastewater

- - - 49 Return Flows Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag

- - - 50 Urban Waste Water Produced 560 605 631.5 51a Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Urban 6.2 6.1 5.6 b Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Ag 0.7 0.7 0.6 c Conveyance Evaporation and Evapotranspiration - Managed Wetlands

- - - d Conveyance Outflow to Mexico 52a Return Flows to Salt Sink - Ag 21.4 25.3 28 b Return Flows to Salt Sink - Urban 639 698.8 728.2 c Return Flows to Salt Sink - Wetlands 3.1 3.1 3.1 53 Remaining Natural Runoff - Flows to Salt Sink 23.1 21.5 20 54a Outflow to Nevada

- - - b Outflow to Oregon

- - -
c Outflow to Mexico

- - - 55 Regional Imports 763.8 822.9 871.1 56 Regional Exports 0.0 0.0 0.0 59 Groundwater Net Change in Storage -70.4 114.5 -153.2 60 Surface Water Net Change in Storage 76.3 -24.8 -56.3 61 Surface Water Total Available Storage 746.1 746.1 746.1

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

## Chapter 4 Central Coast Hydrologic Region 

# Volume 3i4 California Water Plan Update 2005

**Chapter 4** Central Coast Hydrologic Region 

# Chapter 4 Central Coast Hydrologic Region

Contents Chapter 4 Central Coast Hydrologic Region ..............................................................................................................4-1 Setting ................................ 4-1 Climate ............................... 4-1 Population .......................... 4-3 Land Use ............................ 4-4 Water Supply and Use ......... 4-5 State of the Region .............. 4-7 Challenges ..................... 4-7 Accomplishments ............ 4-9 Relationship with Other Regions .........................................................................................................................4-10 Looking to the Future ......... 4-11 Regional Planning ............. 4-11 Water Portfolios for Water Years 1998, 2000, and 2001 .....................................................................................4-11 Water Year 1998 .......... 4-11 Water Year 2000 .......... 4-12 Water Year 2001 .......... 4-14 Selected References ........... 4-15



## Box Box 4-1 Ongoing Planning Efforts ..........................................................................................................................4-11



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



## Tables Table 4-1 Central Coast Hydrologic Region water balance summary ...........................................................................4-8 T able 4-2 Central Coast region water use and distribution of dedicated supplies........................................................4-13 T able 4-3 Central Coast region water portfolios .......................................................................................................4-18