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

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Specify Objectives 

What desirable performance characteristics are required to solve the problem? Plans exist to solve 

problems. This is a crucial step in which stakeholders identify what the objectives are for solving the 

identified problem. Specifying objectives allows alternative plans to be developed that demonstrably 

address problems. Earlier chapters of this update present several broad objectives for the state. The 

broadest objective for this water plan update is to provide a sustainable and reliable water supply for all 

Californians through 2030. Based on this, three foundational actions are mentioned: use water efficiently, 

protect water quality, and manage water in ways that protect and restore the environment. As planners 

begin to evaluate possible ways to implement these foundational actions, it is useful to make objectives as 

specific as possible and to express them in terms of measurable outcomes. 

Describe the Water Management System 

What do we need to know to accomplish our objectives? This step in the planning process relates to the 

question, “How does the current water management system work now and how might it change?” Or 

asked differently, “What do we already know about the problem and potential solutions and how might 

the problem change in the future?” This is an area that will require continuous investigation and focused 

learning. Advancing scientific knowledge and using that knowledge effectively have been emphasized 

recently in the CALFED process and other planning efforts. 

DWR continues to provide ways to improve understanding of how the water management system works, 

and how our water management actions interact with the environment. Chapter 3 California Water Today 

describes several aspects of the water management system as it has existed in recent years. The water 

flow diagrams in Volume 3 provide a useful view of how the parts of the system work. DWR has also 

developed a high-level conceptual framework as a basis to identify, document, and describe interactions 

and promote common understanding (see Figure 4-1 Conceptual framework diagram and Box 4-5 

Conceptual Framework Diagram Description). DWR plans to work closely with the advisory committee 

and other interested experts as we document what observable data and causal relationships are used for 

future analyses. 

Water 

Management 

System 

Geophysical 

Parameters 

Evaluation Criteria

(Economic, Management, Societal)

Human and 

Environmental 

Water Demands 

Management 

Options 

Demand 

Drivers 

Water 

Management 

Objectives 

Figure 4-1 Conceptual framework diagram for analysis of water resources and management 

4-6 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-5 Conceptual Framework Diagram Description 

Explore Options 

What are the implications of taking one action over another? This step in the planning process is where 

planners consider a range of possible means to meet the specified objectives. This step usually involves 

the most quantitative work. As a result, we have divided this step into three smaller steps: describe 

expected changes, craft alternative responses, and compare performance. We will look at each one in 

succession. 

Describe Expected Changes 

If we did not expect change to occur, we would not need to plan. If we were confident that our 

surroundings would stay the same and we were satisfied with the way things are, we could just maintain 

our current system. However, we recognize that change is occurring in our communities and in our world. 

Therefore, we have to predict what the future could be and how we can prepare for it. When it comes to 

water, many things can change and affect our ability to provide the benefits that are important to our 

society. Some of the most important areas for change are described in the section “Potential Changes to 

Consider When Preparing for the Future” later in this chapter. 

When considering the future, we know our predictions will never be completely accurate. Nonetheless, 

we rely on predictions about the future during our daily lives (for example, weather forecasts, expected 

commute times, investment appreciation, etc.). We recognize that uncertainty exists in all predictions, so 

we consider that uncertainty, along with other factors, when deciding how to use the information. The 

new approach in Update 2005 explicitly addresses these uncertainties. 

Craft Alternative Responses 

Having some idea of what is likely to happen in the future is necessary to plan for change. The other 

important piece of information is how the change will impact us if it does occur. If the change can cause a 

negative impact, we call this risk. If it can cause a positive impact, we call this reward. In simple terms, 

all of our planning is about balancing risk and reward. We want to avoid suffering a loss, or missing an 

opportunity for gain, as conditions change in the future. Water managers must routinely decide how many 

resources to spend today to protect against future uncertainties, especially extreme events like multiple 

dry years. We all make these types of choices regularly in our personal lives. (For example, Should we 

buy life insurance or disability insurance? If yes, then how much should we buy and what type? When we 

save for our retirement, how much should we invest in stocks versus bonds versus real estate?) 

We typically craft responses based on what we expect to change, the likelihood of that change occurring, 

and the risk we face if the change occurs and we are not prepared for it. There are often multiple 

responses available to satisfy a given objective, so it is prudent to consider several alternatives to find 

responses that balance costs, benefits, and tradeoffs effectively and efficiently. See Volume 2 for a 

discussion of 25 resource management strategies that planners have available to them when designing a 

response to the changes they are facing and may face in the future. 

 4-7 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Compare Performance 

Once we are clear about what changes we could face (future scenarios) and have assembled different 

combinations of promising management actions (response packages – mixes of resource management 

strategies) that could possibly meet our long-term objectives, we must try to predict how each of the 

alternative response packages will perform in a future that is uncertain. This comparison is usually 

attempted using some quantitative analyses. The analytical work plan to be completed for Update 2010

will be developed throughout 2005 (ending Phase 2). Many of the issues faced to provide this kind of 

quantitative comparison are addressed in the CWEMF draft summary report, “Strategic Analysis 

Framework for Managing Water in California” (see Volume 4 Reference Guide). 

Make Decisions 

Choose one or more actions that appear to best satisfy the objectives. The goal of all planning is to make 

decisions that can be carried out to prepare for expected changes. Decisions regarding investments for 

water resource management will continue to be made in the political forums of public policy. However, if 

future water plan updates are successful, these decisions will be made in the context of a broader 

understanding of how the system works and what we can do to manage it successfully for the multiple 

objectives of California. 

Partial Application of New Approach 

The introduction of scenarios is a major difference between the approach used in previous updates and 

the new approach. The goal is to compare and contrast performance of possible management responses 

against expected change. As used in California Water Plan Update 2005, scenarios represent conditions 

that we could reasonably expect to face in the year 2030, based on what we know to be true today. Any 

attempt to forecast or predict what the water management system will be like 25 years from now is highly 

uncertain. Recognizing this uncertainty, DWR has decided to present multiple scenarios that are plausible, 

but may cause water managers to respond very differently. These scenarios are not meant to forecast an 

actual outcome, but rather provide a number of plausible yet different base conditions for comparing the 

performance of possible management responses. Having multiple future scenarios can help identify 

management responses that perform well when compared across a wide array of base conditions that 

could occur in the future. 

It is important to note that the scenarios presented in Update 2005 are only part of the story of 

California’s water future. The scenarios represent different base conditions for 2030 that could affect 

water demands and supplies, but that the water community has little or no control over. The other part of 

the story is the alternative management strategies (called response packages in Update 2005) that still 

need to be considered to prepare for the potential changes described in the scenarios. Update 2010 will 

present quantitative information on the whole story—the base conditions water managers may be faced 

with and the alternative strategies needed to address these conditions. 

4-8 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Describing Expected Changes with Three Preliminary ‘No Action’ Scenarios for 2030 

While DWR has decided to use multiple future scenarios in the quantitative work for Update 2010, it has 

not yet developed the analytic tools to do so. To demonstrate how scenarios can be used to better 

understand the implications of future conditions on water management decisions, however, this section 

presents three “no action” scenarios. The narrative descriptions of these scenarios were developed by 

water plan staff and the advisory committee. Numerical estimates of water demand3

 for these scenarios 

are drawn from an informal collaborative study by DWR staff and a graduate student from the Pardee 

RAND Graduate School (hereafter Groves, Matyac, and Hawkins (2005)). These scenarios are referred 

to as “no action” because they represent changes that are reasonably likely to occur without additional 

management intervention beyond those currently planned. A detailed description of the methods used, 

results, and implications can be found in the Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Quantified Scenarios of 

2030 California Water Demand.” 

As a reminder, previous water plan updates based planning assumptions on a single future condition. The 

use of multiple future scenarios provides decision-makers, water managers, and planners much more 

information about what they might expect in the future and how different management actions might 

perform across a range of possible futures. The scenarios are created by varying important assumptions 

about water and other resource conditions in order to highlight important categories of uncertainties. 

Again, the primary reason to use multiple scenarios is that different assumptions about the future can 

significantly affect the nature and outcome of various mixes of management strategies. Some management 

strategies may be effective and economical regardless of the future scenario. Other strategies may only 

be suited if specific conditions develop in the future. 

Developing quantitative estimates of water demands and supplies for multiple future scenarios and 

management responses requires using available data and assumed relationships. DWR and stakeholders 

considered numerous factors that could vary in the future and developed three preliminary narrative future 

scenarios that can be used to begin the analysis for Update 2010. The following are the three plausible 

scenarios; however, DWR and stakeholders may develop other scenarios as work on Update 2010

progresses: 

• Scenario 1—Current Trends: Recent trends continue for the following: population growth and 

development patterns, agricultural and industrial production, environmental water dedication, and 

naturally occurring conservation (like plumbing code changes, natural replacement, actions water 

users implement on their own, etc.). 

• Scenario 2—Less Resource Intensive: Recent trends for population growth, higher agricultural and 

industrial production, more environmental water dedication, and higher naturally occurring 

conservation than Current Trends (but less than full implementation of all cost-effective 

conservation measures currently available). 

 

3

 During the preparation of Update 2005, many discussions occurred on how to describe what has traditionally been 

called water “demands.” A primary concern is that “demand” is not static. In economic terms, a person’s desire to 

use water is said to be elastic, that is, based on a number of factors such as the intended use for the water, the price 

of water, and the cost of alternative ways to meet the intended use. As used in this section, the word “demand” 

technically means, “the desired quantity of water that would be used if the water is available and a number of other 

factors such as price do not change.” 

 4-9 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

• Scenario 3—More Resource Intensive: Higher population growth rate, higher agricultural and 

industrial production, no additional environmental water dedication (year 2000 level), and lower 

naturally occurring conservation than Current Trends. 

Table 4-1 (Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies) shows factors that may 

vary across scenarios. Each factor must be quantified. The availability and resolution of data varies 

widely. While key factors have been identified, much work remains before reaching agreement on the 

relationships between the factors and the methods that will be used to quantify them. 

Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies 

As work moves forward on Water Plan Update 2010, DWR and stakeholders may add or eliminate 

factors to help answer questions about future scenarios. While all the factors in Table 4-1 are needed to 

define the strategies, DWR proposes to begin analysis by varying only the factors primarily related to 

land and water use patterns over which the water community has little control (those listed in the upper 

portion of Table 4-1). Other factors also may be varied to help us gain insight into specific questions. 

Following are brief descriptions of each example scenario. 

Description of Preliminary Scenarios 

This section describes some of the key assumptions made for each “no action” scenario by category of 

possible change. These three scenarios include two kinds of water use efficiency actions: (1) those that 

water users take on their own (called naturally occurring conservation) and (2) those encouraged by water 

agency programs, policies, and requirements. Only naturally occurring conservation was varied among 

the scenarios; and all scenarios include the same continued implementation of cost-effective actions by 

water agencies. 

Scenario 1: Current Trends 

• Population and Land Use: The population of California meets Department of Finance (DOF) 

estimates of 48.1 million in 2030 with increasing population pressure in the Central Valley and on 

the coast. Expanding metropolitan areas continue to dominate urban growth. 

• Commercial and Industrial: Driven to reduce costs in the face of competition, industry becomes 

more efficient in water use. Due to cost efficiencies, businesses have been reducing water use over 

time, primarily by replacing old or broken-down equipment with high-efficiency machines. 

• Agriculture: Farmers are increasingly using sprinklers and drip irrigation, moving away from 

flooding and furrows. Farmers produce more “crop per drop” through a variety of means, including 

changes in irrigation methods, although more improvement is possible. Increased cost of land is 

shrinking agricultural land availability. Irrigated crop area (including multicropping) is slightly less 

than in 2000. Multicropping area increases significantly from the 2000 level. 

• Environment: Environmental flows reach half way to the levels needed to meet the objectives of 

CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program and the objectives in the Anadromous Fisheries 

Restoration Program. Water dedicated to wetlands reaches half way to “Level 4” supplemental 

water supplies for National Wildlife Refuges cited in Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA) sections 3405 and 3406(b). Urban development continues to encroach on functioning 

floodplains in some areas. 

4-10 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

• Naturally Occurring Conservation: The background conservation that will occur as a result of 

emerging conditions (ongoing changes in plumbing codes, etc.) results in some increase in 

efficiency in all sectors. 

• Other Factors: Other factors remain unchanged (see Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional and 

statewide water demands and supplies). 

Scenario 2: Less Resource Intensive 

• Population and Land Use: Population in 2030 is 48.1 million. Californians live in mixed use 

developments with native vegetation requiring little or no irrigation. An increase in population 

density means infill in existing urban areas and less development of new urban land. This compact 

development has reduced impervious surfaces, which benefits open space, reduces runoff, increases 

groundwater recharge, and affects other related issues. The cost of land is shrinking the availability 

of housing in Southern California. 

• Commercial and Industrial: Due to market conditions, industry has shifted from water-intensive 

processing to dry product assembly, reducing water use. Businesses have dramatically reduced 

water demand and have moved to machines with high-efficiency water use to accomplish standard 

tasks. Potential financial gains have accelerated the move to machines with high-efficiency water 

use to accomplish standard tasks. Urban areas have a high degree of commercial and industrial 

productivity. Also, California has emerged as a leading industrial producer of environmental 

products and continues as a force in producing hardware for the technology industry. 

• Agriculture: Irrigated crop area is at the same level as in 2000. Land area removed from agriculture 

must be replaced by a combination of new land coming into production and increased 

multicropping. Improved water management is increasing water efficiency. A healthy, efficient 

agricultural sector produces more per acre and decreases applied water per irrigated crop acre. 

• Environment: Projects are designed to achieve multiple benefits integrating ecosystem restoration 

with water supply reliability. Management actions are oriented toward the sustainability, restoration, 

and improvement of the natural infrastructure. Water dedicated to instream use and aquatic life 

enhancement is yielding increased populations. Environmental flows reach the levels needed to 

meet the objectives of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program and the objectives in the 

Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program. Water dedicated to wetlands reach the “Level 4” 

supplemental water supplies for National Wildlife Refuges cited in CVPIA sections 3405 and 

3406(b). 

• Naturally Occurring Conservation: The background conservation that will occur as a result of 

emerging conditions is higher in the agricultural and urban sectors than under Scenario 1. Business 

and agriculture apply efficiency measures for reasons other than reducing water demand or waterrelated costs. Current plumbing codes and other existing policies have increased efficiency greater 

than in scenarios 1 and 3. 

• Other Factors: Other factors remain unchanged from Scenario 1. 

Scenario 3: More Resource Intensive 

• Population and Land Use: Population in 2030 is 52.3 million and is dispersed regionally. 

Expanding urban areas are commonplace. The Central Valley is experiencing air and water quality 

problems due to the stress of the large population. The population is more widely distributed, 

resulting in more outdoor residential water use (for example, larger residential lot size). Individuals 

tend to drive long distances to the workplace. 

 4-11 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

• Commercial and Industrial: California has emerged as a leading industrial producer of 

environmental products and continues as a force in producing hardware for the technology industry. 

California’s leadership in high tech hardware places constraints on its water resources because this 

industry is a high water user that has not advanced efficiency technology to limit its water use. The 

industry continues to rely on high water-using processes based on market conditions. 

• Agriculture: Irrigated crop area is at the same level as in 2000. The healthy agricultural sector 

maintains past levels of food and fiber production. Low-density urban development expands onto 

prime farmland, but harvested acreage remains about the same due to increased multicropping and 

new lands coming into production. The annual volume of applied water per crop is high due to the 

changing nature of crops and the movement of agricultural production to lands with poorer soil 

quality. 

• Environment: Environmental flows remain at year 2000 levels. Thus, the flow objectives of 

CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program 

remain unmet. Water dedicated to wetlands remain at year 2000 levels, and the “Level 4” 

supplemental water supplies for National Wildlife Refuges cited in CVPIA sections 3405 and 

3406(b) are not achieved. Californians recognize the link between the environment and their health 

and personal well being, but there is less water made available to accomplish environmental 

objectives. 

• Naturally Occurring Conservation: The background conservation that will occur as a result of 

emerging conditions in the agricultural and commercial and industrial sectors is lower than current 

trends. 

• Other Factors: Other factors remain unchanged from scenarios 1 and 2. 

Preliminary Estimates of Water Demand for Each Scenario 

Groves, Matyac, and Hawkins (2005) created a basic scenario water demand estimator (demand 

estimator) to quantify the water demands for the three narrative scenarios of 2030 described previously. 

Scenario water demand estimates were made individually for the urban, agricultural, and environmental 

sectors for each of the 10 California hydrologic regions. A unique set of input values was assigned for 

each scenario to reflect the qualitative narrative descriptions and scenario factors in Table 4-1 (Factors 

affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies). The demand estimator was run using visual 

programming software to assist collaboration between analysts, decision-makers, and stakeholders. 

Future urban water demand was estimated individually for the residential, commercial, industrial, and 

public sectors. The demand for each urban sector was estimated by simulating plausible growth patterns 

in demand units such as houses, employees, and persons. The number of future demand units was then 

combined with estimates of plausible values for 2030 water demand per unit. Factors are included in the 

demand estimator to account for how changes in water price, personal income, naturally occurring 

conservation, and the continuation of existing water use efficiency programs influence future per unit 

water demand values. 

Agricultural water demand was estimated in similar fashion. Plausible projections of the number of 

irrigated acres by crop type and hydrologic region were combined with plausible values of per-acre crop 

water demand in 2030. Factors are included to describe how future acreage is influenced by changing 

land use, cropping patterns, and multicropping as well as how per-acre crop water demand responds to 

changes in irrigation method, improvements in irrigation technology, and water price. 

4-12 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Environmental water demand for each 2030 scenario was assumed to equal water dedicated to the 

environment in 2000 (an average water year) plus an additional scenario-specific amount. The authors 

based additional environmental allocations on a preliminary assessment by Environmental Defense (see 

Environmental Defense December 8, 2003, memo in Volume 4 Reference Guide) of unmet environmental 

flow objectives. These unmet objectives include the additional instream flows needed to meet the goals of 

CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program in an average water year, the objectives in the Anadromous 

Fisheries Restoration Program, and the additional water needed to reach the “Level 4” supplemental water 

supplies for National Wildlife Refuges cited in CVPIA sections 3405 and 3406(b). 

Factors Affecting Water Demand 

Values for the major factors affecting urban demand that are used in the demand estimator are reported in 

Table 4-2 (Scenario factors affecting urban water demand) for 2000 and 2030 under each of the three 

scenarios. All three scenarios show large increases in population, housing, and number of employees. The 

2030 housing stock reflects a significantly greater proportion of multifamily units in Less Resource 

Intensive (Scenario 2) and more single-family units in More Resource Intensive (Scenario 3), as 

compared to Current Trends (Scenario 1). The number of employees in the commercial and industrial 

sectors is greatest in the More Resource Intensive scenario. 

Table 4-2 Scenario factors affecting urban water demand 

Urban demand drivers Year 2030 scenarios 

(in millions) Year 2000 Current Trends Less Resource Intensive More Resource Intensive 

Population 34.1 48.1 48.1 52.3 

 Coastal & northern 8.3 10.8 10.8 11.2 

 Inland & southern 25.8 37.3 37.3 41.1 

SF houses 7.5 11.0 8.9 12.7 

MF houses 4.1 5.6 7.0 5.1 

Commercial employees 16.4 24.8 25.9 28.0 

Industrial employees 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.5 

Note: Numbers in millions 

SF = single family 

MF = multifamily 

For the agricultural sector, the irrigated crop area decreases about 5 percent from 2000 to 2030 in the 

Current Trends scenario and remains the same as year 2000 in the Less Resource Intensive and More 

Resource Intensive scenarios (see Table 4-3 Scenario factors affecting agricultural water demand). 

Greater multicropping compensates the reduced irrigated land area, especially in the More Resource 

Intensive scenario. The effective water use per acre of irrigated land—an indicator of how intensively 

water is used for irrigation—decreases by 4 percent from year 2000 to 2030 in the Less Resource 

Intensive scenario, and increases by about 5 percent in the More Resource Intensive scenario. Effective 

crop water use does not change in the Current Trends scenario as efficiency gains are offset by greater 

multicropping. 

 4-13 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Table 4-3 Scenario factors affecting agricultural water demand 

Year 2030 scenarios 

Ag. demand drivers 

(area in millions of acres) Year 2000 

Current 

Trends 

Less Resource 

Intensive 

More Resource 

Intensive 

Irrigated crop area 9.51 9.05 9.52 9.50 

 Irrigated land area 8.98 8.08 8.53 8.08 

 Multicropped area 0.54 0.97 0.99 1.42 

Effective crop water use* 3.42 3.41 3.30 3.58 

* Effective crop water use is the ratio of irrigation water use divided by the irrigated land acre (acre-feet/acre). 

The additional instream flows and water for managed wetlands used to set scenario environmental water 

demands are shown in Table 4-4 (Year 2000 unmet environmental water objectives). In the Current 

Trends scenario, half of these additional flows are added to year 2000 environmental water use for 2030 

environmental water demand; 100 percent of the flows are added in the Less Resource Intensive scenario; 

and no additional flows are added to 2000 use in the More Resource Intensive scenario. For this analysis, 

additional instream flows were assigned to hydrologic regions by river reach, and "Level 4" refuge water 

was distributed evenly between the Sacramento and San Joaquin River regions. 

Table 4-4 Year 2000 unmet environmental water objectives 

Location Unmet flow 

objective (taf) 

Trinity River (Lewiston) 344 

American River (Nimbus) 55 

San Joaquin River (Vernalis, DAYFLOW) 96 

San Joaquin River (Below Friant) 268 

Stanislaus River (Goodwin) 34 

Ecosystem Restoration Program #2 Flow Objective 65 

Level 4 Refuge Watera 125 

Total per year 987 

 taf = thousand acre-feet 

 a. Annual water needed in addition to current deliveries to 19 Sacramento and 

 San Joaquin refuges 

Scenario Water Demand Changes between 2000 and 2030 

The combined (or net) change in scenario water demands for average water years is shown in Figure 4-2 

(Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios, 2000–2030). For all three scenarios, an 

additional 1 million to 2 million acre-feet per year of water will be needed by 2030 to stop groundwater 

overdraft statewide.

Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios, 2000–2030 

As shown in Figure 4-2, for the three scenarios, statewide change in average-year water demand ranges 

between -0.35 million acre-feet/year and 4.0 million acre feet/year. The magnitude of this range reflects 

the differences in assumptions used for the three scenarios. Total statewide water demand increases only 

slightly under the Current Trends scenario, a pattern that may be surprising given projected population 

growth. The reason for this trend is revealed by considering the components of net demand, namely 

4-14 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

statewide changes in urban, agricultural, and environmental demand for each of the three scenarios as 

shown in Figure 4-3 (Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by sector, 2000–

2030). The estimated slight increase in total statewide water demand under the Current Trends scenario 

illustrates that California water issues are primarily regional in nature and that inappropriate use of 

statewide averages can mask significant issues. 

While instructive, these preliminary estimates cannot be used as indicators of potential future shortages 

because they describe what additional water demands California could face in 2030 without additional 

demand management beyond current policies, and because they do not consider the future capability of 

the water management system to meet these demands under different hydrologic conditions. 

Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by sector, 2000–2030 

As compared to year 2000, urban water demand increased by 2030 under all three scenarios because of 

population growth. Demand for environmental water was larger in 2030 in the Current Trends and Less 

Resource Intensive scenarios and stayed the same as year 2000 in the More Resource Intensive scenario, 

consistent with the Table 4-1 (Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies). 

Agricultural water demand decreased by 2030 under all three scenarios. In the case of the Current Trends 

scenario, agricultural water demand decreased due to an assumed 5 percent decline in irrigated crop 

acreage (primarily because of urbanization), as well as a 6.5 percent reduction in effective crop water use 

(one indicator of the efficiency of irrigation water use and intensity of planting). Under the Less Resource 

Intensive and More Resource Intensive scenarios, irrigated crop acreage was kept the same as year 2000, 

but agricultural water demand was lower than 2000 because the effective crop water use was reduced by 

9.3 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively. 

The decrease in agricultural water demand was greater than the increase in urban and environmental 

water demand in the Current Trends and Less Resource Intensive scenarios. In the More Resource 

Intensive scenario, increases in urban water demand significantly outweighed demand reductions in the 

agricultural sector. 

Potential transformations in statewide water demand patterns are further illustrated by examining the net 

water demand changes separated out by geographic area as shown in Figure 4-4 (Net change in averageyear water demand for three scenarios by region, 2000–2030). This chart shows that future changes in 

water demand will likely vary substantially by region and scenario. 

Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2000–2030 

Implications from Preliminary Analysis 

It is important to note that estimates of future statewide average-year water demands, however small or 

large, do not adequately characterize the challenges facing California water. Increases in water demand 

must be addressed at regional and local scales because available supplies in one part of the state cannot 

necessarily be used to meet rising demands in another part. As local demands increase, future droughts 

could result in more severe local water shortages than in recent experience. Moreover, the challenges of 

flood management, protecting water quality, and managing water systems to help restore the environment 

 4-15 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

will all require California’s water managers to develop strong water plans that go well beyond just 

meeting water demand increases in average years. 

If realized, the greater urban water demand predicted under all three plausible scenarios would present 

significant challenges to water planners. If future factors influencing water demand resemble the Current 

Trends scenario, we would need to offset an additional 3.6 million acre-feet of urban and environmental 

water demand per year with a combination of management strategies to reduce demand, improve system 

efficiency, and redistribute and augment supplies4

. Although there may be commensurate reductions in 

the agriculture sector, much of this demand reduction would occur in the Central Valley; whereas, much 

of the additional urban demand would be in the southern part of the state. The ability to transfer water 

from the Central Valley to Southern California could be constrained by existing conveyance facilities, 

area-of-origin issues, environmental impacts, and other third-party effects. This fact underscores the need 

for strong integrated regional water management plans supported by strong statewide water management 

systems. 

If future factors influencing water demand resemble the More Resource Intensive scenario, water 

management challenges would be even greater. Demand would increase in all areas of California; the 

demand to grow more crops for food and fiber would be greater than in the other two scenarios. 

Consequently, any reduction in agricultural demand would offset only a portion of the increase in urban 

demand. 

The demand changes predicted in the Less Resource Intensive scenario would be more manageable than 

those for the other two scenarios. If, however, future water supplies are lower because of climate change, 

for example, then even this scenario could present considerable challenges for California water 

management. 

To help meet these challenges, DWR plans to work with regional and local partners to develop the 

necessary data and analytical tools for subsequent phases of California Water Plan Update 2005. These 

will provide a more comprehensive evaluation of a variety of management responses for a number of 

plausible scenarios. DWR will quantify water demands and supplies for each of the future scenarios as 

part of the phased work plan of updates 2005 and 2010. 

These preliminary estimates of water demand (by scenario) (derived from Groves, Matyac, and Hawkins 

(2005)) illustrate how water demands can change over the next 25 years based on different assumptions 

about key factors that influence water demand. These results show that statewide demand can vary 

significantly and that demand can vary significantly across regions and across water use sectors. Although 

instructive, these preliminary estimates cannot be used as indicators of potential future shortages. They 

describe what additional water demands California may face in 2030, but without additional demand 

management beyond current policies. Further, they do not consider the future capability of the water 

management system to meet these demands under different hydrologic conditions. In order to assess how 

balanced the overall water management system will be in 2030, after estimating possible demand, we 

must still incorporate supply conditions, craft alternative responses, and then compare performance of 

 

4

 The 25 resource management strategies are described in Volume 2. 

4-16 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

the response packages under each scenario. More refined estimates of future demand will be done as part 

of Update 2010 along with a comparison of performance between specific noteworthy response packages. 

Next Steps – Craft Responses and Compare Performance 

In Update 2010, each future scenario will be used to test a number of different response packages, that is, 

different mixes of resource management strategies (see Volume 2 for discussion of 25 resource 

management strategies). Comparing the performance of different response packages will provide useful 

information to decision-makers and water managers that must choose actions to help achieve a desirable 

future condition. Stakeholders can identify areas of agreement and where short-term resource 

management strategies can work well regardless of the future conditions. In a long-term time frame, 

where uncertainties about future assumptions increase, plans can be revised to include resource 

management strategies that can better respond to the changed conditions. 

Response packages can be modified and should be used as a basis for identifying short-, medium-, and 

long-term actions of a plan. (For illustrative purposes, see Box 4-6 Sample Response Package.) DWR will 

work with stakeholders and other interested parties to develop several response packages for 

consideration in California Water Plan Update 2010. 

Box 4-6 Sample Response Package 

A significant difference in the proposed analytical approach is the addition of quantitative comparisons 

for different response packages of resource management strategies. This performance evaluation of 

various mixes of strategies under plausible future scenarios will provide planners unprecedented access to 

relevant technical information and new insights. This quantitative insight can be used to help guide 

investments in regional and statewide water management actions. To help focus the quantitative analyses, 

DWR and stakeholders have developed a list of qualitative evaluation criteria that represents the technical 

information required to compare response packages (see Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria for assessing 

achievement of water management objectives). 

Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives 

Initial Insights 

These three preliminary scenarios offer a useful view of how significantly water demand can vary with 

even relatively conservative estimates of different key factors. This idea will be developed further and 

refined during the analyses for Update 2010. The results from these preliminary scenarios illustrate three 

significant points for water planning in California: 

• Total demand for water in California in the year 2030 can vary a great deal. Even with relatively 

conservative adjustments in some key parameters, estimates of statewide demand vary by almost 

5 million acre-feet per year. 

• Urban demand increases in all three scenarios; whereas, agricultural demand decreases in all three 

scenarios. 

• Water demand changes differ between regions and by scenario. 

 4-17 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Better quantitative information is needed to assess how these changes could affect California if they are 

not addressed, and to compare the merits of different management actions to prepare for these expected 

changes. 

Potential Changes to Consider When Preparing for the Future 

When predicting changes, the following activities highlight those factors that should be considered for 

regional and statewide water plans for the next 20 to 25 years. 

When planning to accommodate change, it is useful to consider two categories of how change occurs: 

gradual and sudden. These two characteristics can inform how best to prepare for and respond to the 

expected changes. Gradual changes can include things like variation in population by region, shifts in the 

types and amount of crops grown in an area, or changes in precipitation patterns. Sudden changes can 

include episodic events such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, equipment failures, or intentional acts of 

destruction. The nature of these changes and their potential impacts on our water management systems 

can have a big influence on how we prepare to respond to them. 

Sources for Gradual Change 

The following categories are expected to change significantly, some dramatically. However, they will 

likely occur gradually over time. This type of change allows planners to be flexible regarding when 

management responses are implemented. Understanding the uncertainties around the expected changes 

and the risks associated with these inaccuracies can help determine what a prudent mix of management 

actions may be. 

Future Landscape (Land Use Patterns) 

The way that we use land (the types of use and the level of intensity) relates directly to water use, water 

supply, and water quality. It is impossible to predict precisely how land will be used in the future. By 

better understanding the uncertainties about how land use will change in the future, we can plan to 

accommodate those changes more successfully. 

Projecting current trends has been the traditional method for estimating future water demand. However, 

resource limitations and many economic, environmental, and social factors can cause future conditions to 

vary significantly from existing trends. For example, changes in job conditions can force people to move 

from one region to another or from state to state. Changes in the world food market can influence 

California farmers to alter crop types and crop acreage over time. Advances in scientific understanding of 

the environment can influence methods for habitat restoration or alter targets for instream flows. Many 

factors like these can lead to very different land and water use patterns in the future than what may be 

expected by simply projecting current trends. 

We do not currently have the capability to accurately predict a large number of factors that can influence 

future urban, agricultural, and environmental land use patterns. Although it is difficult to quantify some of 

the specifics, water managers still can prepare for these future uncertainties by formulating a diversified 

portfolio of complementary resource management strategies. 

4-18 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Even if planners are fairly sure that certain land use changes will occur in a specific area, the timing of 

those changes can be very uncertain. For example, an estimate that the population of a community will 

grow to be 500,000 people by 2030 gives planners some useful information to consider. However, if they 

know that the timing is uncertain regarding when the population will be reached, they would be wise to 

choose management strategies that easily can be implemented on a flexible timeline to accommodate 

actual population change over time. 

Urban Use 

According to DOF, California’s year 2004 population of more than 36.5 million is expected to reach 48 

million by year 2030. However, actual population growth will certainly be more or less than this estimate. 

More people leads to more urban development, which often changes urban runoff characteristics and 

water quality. The Department of Parks and Recreation expects that more people means more demand for 

water-based recreation, some of which affect lakes that also serve as reservoirs for drinking water. This 

increasing mixed use raises concerns about the quality of those drinking water sources. (See Volume 2 

Chapter 20 Urban Land Use Management and Chapter 24 Water-dependent Recreation.) 

California’s automobile-dependent lifestyle is reflected in the state’s post-World War II urban 

development. Patterns are characterized by fragmented and segregated land uses, low-density residential 

and strip commercial development, and a lack of connectivity within and between neighborhoods that use 

large quantities of land per capita. This style of development has led to consumption of prime farmland 

and the water appurtenant to that land, open space, or natural habitat and an increased impact on other 

natural resources. Larger residential parcels tend to consume more water per capita than do smaller 

parcels. Large amounts of impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots can degrade water quality 

and increase local flooding and urban runoff, alter streamflow and watershed hydrology, reduce 

groundwater recharge, and increase stream sedimentation. It also increases the need for infrastructure to 

control local storm runoff. 

More population growth can also produce additional domestic wastewater discharges and urban runoff, 

which may in turn contaminate natural water bodies used as drinking water sources. Future water 

demands can vary widely depending on how urban land use patterns develop. Providing a growing 

population with a sufficient, affordable, safe, and reliable water supply is a major challenge facing local 

agencies and governments, especially in light of other challenges like potential water quality degradation 

that tend to diminish water supply (see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “General Plan Guidelines 

Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and Environmental Justice”). 

Agricultural Use 

California agriculture will continue to consume more water than is consumed by all household uses for 

the foreseeable future. As population increases, the need for food and fiber crops also will increase. Over 

the last 20 years, some water has been redistributed from the production of food and fiber to 

environmental and urban uses. Furthermore, historically available water supply for agriculture and other 

uses has been reduced due to continued groundwater overdraft or environmental restrictions in some 

areas. 

California’s agricultural production is large, efficient, and diverse, producing more than 350 commodities. 

California leads the nation in production for 75 crop and livestock commodities, and 13 of those 

commodities are produced solely within this state. In addition, according to the 1997 Census of 

 4-19 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Agriculture’s ranking of market value of agricultural products sold, 8 of the nation’s top 10 producing 

counties are in California. The state grows more than half of the nation’s total fruit, nuts, and vegetables, 

making California a net exporter of food to the rest of the United States and the world. The California 

Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) estimates that 14 percent of California’s agricultural 

production is exported to other countries. 

California has approximately 80,000 farming operations and about 27.6 million acres of farmland, about 9 

million acres are irrigated. Agricultural land in California has been gradually shifting to urban or other 

nonagricultural uses. From 1990 to 2000, about 500,000 acres were converted from agricultural to urban 

or nonagricultural uses. Population growth and nonagricultural forces drive land use conversions 

(Kuminoff and others 2001). It is uncertain at what rate this land conversion will continue in the future. If 

farm-to-urban conversion continues to increase at the same per capita rate, approximately 695,000 acres 

of additional California farmland would be converted to urban use per decade. By 2030, the total 

conversion would be 2.1 million acres or about 10 percent of the California farmland that was in 

production in 2000 (Brunke and others 2004). 

Although agricultural acreage may decline and will be relocated somewhat by urban development, yield 

growth in the quantity of agricultural crops produced per acre of land may continue to increase and will 

probably increase the dollar value of California food production over the next 30 years. Yield growth is 

expected to occur as a result of technological advances and more multicropping (harvesting multiple 

crops in a year on the same land), and may also be affected by the impacts of global climate change. In 

addition, the economic value of crops per acre-foot of water has increased in the past and is expected to 

continue to increase. Irrigation efficiencies have increased as more growers use drip and sprinkler 

irrigation. Also, there has been a shift toward agricultural commodities that generate more economic 

value per unit of water used to produce the commodity. 

Since December 31, 2002, tail water discharges and storm water runoff from irrigated agriculture and 

timber harvesting areas must be monitored. Along with urban runoff, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency has identified agricultural runoff as the most serious threat to water quality in the country. 

Municipal and industrial wastewater and even some urban runoff are already formally managed and 

regulated. However, agricultural runoff and agricultural drainage, especially in the Central Valley, will 

remain significant and potentially expensive challenges, with no obvious or simple solutions. 

Groundwater subjected to overdraft is not a sustainable source of water. The cumulative effects of 

overdraft and water transfers diminish the reliability and sometimes the quality of irrigation water for 

food production. Agriculture cannot easily rebound in years of adequate water supply if surface water 

supplies are greatly curtailed during dry years and affordable groundwater is not available. Growers of 

permanent crops are particularly at risk. Even growers of annual crops may be unable to obtain long-term 

loans or short-term credit if they do not have access to a dependable water supply. 

Future agricultural water demands can vary widely depending on future agricultural land use changes, 

crop selection and farming practices. Agricultural water demand is significantly driven by the crop mix 

grown in the state. Agricultural operations are businesses that seek to produce food and fiber profitably. 

Global markets, rather than water prices, generally dominate the grower’s decision regarding which crop 

to grow. The grower considers the relative prices of agricultural commodities, the costs and regulations 

associated with labor, the costs of inputs needed to produce the crop, inter-state and international 

4-20 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

exchange rates (about 18 percent of California’s agricultural production in value terms is exported to 

other states and countries), and the security of the water supply. 

AB 2587 requires the California Water Plan to estimate the water demand needed to substantially 

continue agricultural production in California. A key phrase in the law is “neither the state nor the nation 

should be allowed to become dependent upon a net import of foreign food.” In particular, the law 

specifies that DWR consider a future scenario under which agricultural production in California is 

sufficient to assure that the state is a net food exporter and that the net shipments out of state are enough 

to cover its traditional share of “table food” use in the United States (assumed by law to be 25 percent) 

plus “growth in export markets.” For California Water Plan Update 2010, DWR will re-examine the 

AB 2597 analysis based on a food forecast prepared by CDFA, as required by the bill. The CDFA food 

forecast was not available for Update 2005 because of time and resource limitations. 

The University of California Agricultural Issues Center prepared “Future Food Production and 

Consumption in California under Alternative Scenarios” (see Volume 4 Reference Guide). The report 

concluded that, based on economics, California agriculture will continue to produce substantial quantities 

of food crops. The value of California food production will more than keep up with rising population and 

income growth in California and the rest of the United States. 

Environmental Use 

Beyond the broad public benefits of maintaining a vital ecosystem, ecosystem restoration serves to 

improve California’s natural water management infrastructure. As we learn more about the link between 

water management and the health of the environment, the benefits of restoring and protecting California’s 

ecosystem to water supply reliability and water quality improvements will become more evident. As 

actions to restore ecosystems help increase the health and abundance of species protected under the State 

and federal Endangered Species Acts, there will be fewer ESA conflicts. As ecosystems like wetlands and 

sloughs are restored, their natural pollutant filtering capabilities will improve water quality. As 

floodplains and seasonal lakes and ponds are restored, groundwater recharge can increase. In addition to 

protecting the public’s long-term interest in sustaining natural habitats, investments toward a healthy 

ecosystem also can contribute to a more reliable, better quality water supply. 

The major issues facing ecosystems statewide are aquatic and riparian habitat degradation and freshwater 

biodiversity declines that are directly linked to: 

• physical alterations to habitat associated with on-stream dams, diversions, levees, and bank 

armoring; 

• deterioration of water quality including temperature, pollution, and low dissolved oxygen; 

• the introduction of non-native invasive species; and 

• long-term climate change. 

Over the past century, the scope of these threats has increased dramatically, mirroring human population 

growth and demand for services provided by and within freshwater ecosystems (transportation, irrigation, 

recreation, land for development, municipal and industrial water supplies, and energy production). 

In rural areas, the main pollution sources often come directly from land use practices both present and 

past. As an example, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project notes the adverse impact that hydraulic 

 4-21 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

mining, which ceased during the 19th century, is still having on numerous Central Valley rivers. In 

addition, logging and related road cuts are a major cause of high sediment loads in some North Coast 

streams. Roads cause significant erosion within watersheds throughout coastal and inland areas. Grazing 

impacts, such as increased erosion, loss of streamside vegetation, loss of groundwater recharge ability in 

mountain meadows, and nutrient inputs, also have contributed to an overall water quality degradation. 

Introduction of aquatic non-native species harm public health, compete with native fish, and impede or 

block water deliveries. Because invasive species interfere with natural processes and do not necessarily 

provide the full range of benefits associated with native species, management of these invasive species is 

essential. 

The potential environmental impacts to marine species and habitats associated with the use of ocean water 

for cooling power plants is also an issue facing California water managers because existing seawater 

intakes for power plant cooling are proposed as the source of supply for almost all proposed desalting 

plants. In general these existing intake systems have had fairly significant impacts on the coastal zone. A 

number of aging coastal power plants that use once-through cooling from the ocean may cease operation 

in the future because they are inefficient. Also, as a result of changes in power plant cooling technology, 

power plants may convert to a “dry” cooling system. Future technologies used in coastal power plants 

will affect the ability to use power plant cooling systems to dilute the desalination salt concentrates 

resulting prior to discharge to the ocean. 

How these factors will continue to influence environmental land use is unknown. A current challenge is to 

protect and improve the environment given the continued need for water for urban and agricultural use, 

problems with non-native species, water quality concerns, and climatic variability. We expect that future 

environmental water demands can vary widely depending on how land use patterns change in the future 

and the effectiveness and efficiency of current and planned ecosystem restoration efforts. (For more 

information, see Ecosystem Restoration strategy in Volume 2 and the Volume 4 Reference Guide article 

“Considering Water Use Efficiency for the Environmental Sector.”) 

Sources for Sudden Change 

Some events may or may not occur within the planning horizon, but when they do occur, they can cause 

major impacts on large segments of the population or the environment. Natural causes or intentional acts 

can cause major disruption to water infrastructure. A drought, flood, earthquake, wildfire, system 

malfunction, or unintentional chemical spill is beyond our control, even if the strictest safety measures are 

in place. Sooner or later, all of these extreme events will strike somewhere in California. The major 

uncertainties are when and where they will strike and how severe they will be. Will a future drought be 

similar to a past drought or will it be longer and more severe? Will the next earthquake cause even greater 

damage? Will the next levee failure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta cause catastrophic 

damage to the Delta and disrupt the delivery of a major portion of the state’s water supply? 

Formulation and implementation of strong integrated regional water management plans can lessen the 

impacts of extreme events. State, regional, and local entities can prepare risk assessments to aid decisions 

on how much protection they can afford to build into their system and in which management strategies to 

invest. For example, the CALFED Levee System Integrity Program was established to help protect the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from flooding and the Delta’s ecosystem and water supply functions 

4-22 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

from disruption due to levee failure. DWR’s Delta Suisun Marsh Office is conducting a comprehensive 

evaluation of its Delta levee rehabilitation and maintenance programs. This evaluation includes an 

assessment of levee failure risks; a detailed analysis of the consequences of levee failure, including water 

supply and positive and negative environmental impacts; and the development of a strategic plan to 

reduce risks, as described in Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 

Levee Programs 

Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs 

The following sources of sudden change should be considered in preparing integrated regional water 

management plans. 

Droughts 

California’s most recent severe statewide drought was from 1987 through 1992. In planning water 

supplies for future needs, the hydrologic record of the past century may not be a reasonable measure of 

future climate conditions. The state's available hydrologic record is rather short for determining 

hydrologic risks; it traces back only about 100 years with mostly qualitative information extending back 

another 100 years. Tree ring studies have shown extensive dry periods far exceeding the 6-year maximum 

drought recorded during the last century. (See Volume 4 Reference Guide articles “Severity of Extreme 

Droughts in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley” and “Planning for Extreme and Prolonged Drought 

Conditions.”) 

Floods 

Flood magnitude in a watershed depends on several factors such as the intensity and duration of 

precipitation, location of the storm center, area of precipitation, rain on snowpack, and antecedent soil 

moisture. The most severe storms for large watersheds are slow-moving frontal storms, with a long 

southwesterly fetch extending from Hawaii, commonly referred to as the “pineapple express.” The most 

severe storms for smaller watersheds in mountain areas are generally intense thunderstorms. 

A major portion of California’s water supply is vulnerable to levee failure and flooding in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Delta comprises 70 islands and tracts, most of which have land 

surfaces at or below mean sea level. Subsidence is occurring on most of the islands which serves to lower 

their land surface with time and thereby increases the risk of and consequence of flooding by levee 

failure. 

Levee failures and resultant flooding in the Delta can occur during storms, or in dry and calm weather. 

Levees are subject to failure at any time due to seepage, piping, slippage, subsidence/sloughing, or 

earthquakes (see section below for discussion of the threat posed by earthquakes to Delta levees). The 

Upper Jones Tract levee failure of June 3, 2004, is the most recent example of a levee failure during dry 

weather. The Jones Tract levee failure may have occurred due to a problem with piping or with the 

levee’s foundation, although the exact cause of the failure is unknown. Levee failures in the Delta can 

also occur during periods of high tides, high winds, and high water. 

Levee failure in the Delta can cause large amounts of saline ocean water to be drawn into the Delta when 

an island floods. Water supply pumping operations in the Delta for the State Water Project (SWP), 

 4-23 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Central Valley Project, and other supply systems must stop when a large amount of ocean water is drawn 

into the Delta and salinity levels in the Delta increase to unacceptable levels. Water supply pumping 

operations can be restarted when salinity in the Delta returns to acceptable levels. Salinity levels can take 

many months to return to normal depending on the amount and location of levee failures and hydrologic 

conditions. Other potential impacts of levee failures are listed in Box 4-8 Potential Impacts from a Critical 

Levee Failure. 

Box 4-8 Potential Impacts from a Critical Levee Failure 

Levee failures are not rare occurrences in the Delta. Since they were originally dewatered, each of the 

Delta’s 70 islands and tracts have flooded at least once. In some cases the cost to remove the flood water 

and repair the damage greatly exceeded the appraised value of the flooded land. Figure 4-5 (Map of 

flooded islands in the Delta for different high flow periods) shows flooding in the Delta, from 1967 to 

1992. 

Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in the Delta for different high flow periods 

Earthquakes 

Aquatic structures including Delta levees are vulnerable to failure, especially during earthquakes. Because 

Delta levees and the California Aqueduct system span a large area, their vulnerability to an earthquake is 

higher than that of an individual structure. Figure 4-6 (Map of San Francisco Bay Region earthquake 

probability) illustrates the location of major faults in the vicinity of the Delta and the probability of an 

earthquake of a selected magnitude from those faults. 

Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earthquake probability 

Water collection and delivery systems in many areas of the state are at risk of damage or failure due to 

earthquakes. Several water districts already have plans in place and have taken action to reduce 

earthquake impacts. Some measures include seismic vulnerability assessment, water supply 

augmentation, delivery system improvement, and groundwater recharge programs. For example, 

Calleguas Municipal Water District lost its water supply when the 1994 Northridge earthquake damaged 

its single feeder pipeline from the SWP. The North Los Posas Storage Program (210,000 acre-feet 

capacity, groundwater recharge program) now augments the water supply to this district to help lessen 

risks posed to the area’s water supply by earthquakes. 

Wildfire 

Wildfire can result in short-term and long-term disruption to a water supply system and other resources. 

Wildfire can damage project facilities, including burning wooden flumes and power transmission lines. 

The loss of vegetation on the watershed can change runoff patterns, reduce natural water storage, increase 

sedimentation, and create other long-term impacts. 

Facility Malfunction 

Deferred maintenance and an aging infrastructure of State, federal, and local water projects present risks 

to public safety, water supply reliability, water quality, and ecological health. The infrastructure includes 

4-24 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

key water conveyance and delivery facilities and drinking water and sewage treatment systems that are 

subject to routine malfunction, short-term outage, or catastrophic failure. 

The SWP is more than 30 years old, the federal Central Valley Project is more than 50 years old, and 

some local facilities are more than a century old. Some of their facilities have surpassed their design life 

and require significant rehabilitation or replacement. In recent years infrastructure failures have disrupted 

water deliveries. Much of the equipment and large fabricated components are unique. Spare parts would 

not be readily available if a sudden failure were to occur; it is generally impractical to store extremely 

large spare parts on site. The replacement of many of these items from sources outside the United States 

is time-consuming, thereby increasing the vulnerability of the projects. 

Water systems are often interconnected or have coordinated operations for optimal, multiple benefits. 

When an operation of one system depends on the smooth operation of another, the successful operation of 

the complete system can become vulnerable to a failure in either part. The failure of the Upper Jones 

Tract levee in the Delta was a reminder of the vulnerability of the Delta levee system and the 

interconnected nature between Delta levees and water supply operations. DWR and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR) took the following actions immediately following the Jones Tract levee failure to 

protect water quality and water supply operations in the Delta: 

• USBR increased releases of fresh water from Shasta Dam to help control salinity and opened the 

gates of the Delta Cross Channel to move Sacramento River water into the central Delta to repel 

seawater intrusion. 

• DWR and USBR reduced pumping at their south Delta export pumps to reduce the intrusion of 

seawater. 

• DWR monitored Delta water quality at more than 20 sites and channel velocity changes in the 

Jones Tract area of the Delta. 

• DWR conducted flood damage control efforts, reconstructed and repaired damaged levees, and 

removed flood water from the tract. 

Chemical Spills 

Truck and railroad tanker accidents and other unintentional spills can release toxic chemicals into 

California’s rivers and other conveyance facilities. For example, a 1991 railroad accident near Dunsmuir 

resulted in a toxic spill that destroyed all aquatic life within a 38-mile reach of the Sacramento River 

above Shasta Dam. A similar accident in another location could shut down a community’s drinking water 

supply for an extended period of time. 

Intentional Disruption 

Vandalism is defined as malicious destruction of property. Vandalism to water infrastructure could be 

acts like defacing concrete structures and important notice boards, stealing copper fittings and aluminum 

handrails, shooting at a turnout structure gate, dumping pesticides or other chemicals into California 

waterways, or dumping heavy material into the aqueduct. Most vandalism occurs in rural areas away from 

residential neighborhoods and frequent security patrols. For example, in the early 1980s, dredging of a 

one-mile stretch of the California Aqueduct revealed concrete blocks, farm equipment, and stolen 

vehicles. A similar stretch in the Delta-Mendota Canal in the early 1990s revealed more than 80 

abandoned vehicles. 

 4-25 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Terrorist acts are meant to cause major damage and loss of life. With the increased tendency for people to 

build houses close to lakes, rivers, and waterways, the potential risk of terrorism increases. Increased 

security is needed to reduce the chances of terrorism causing outages in water service and other damage 

caused by water system failures. 

Cyber threats pose a serious potential impact to the operational capability of water delivery and treatment 

systems. Many new water delivery and treatment systems are SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition) controlled through the Internet. The operational costs of these modern systems are low 

because of remote access capability from a single command center to operate segments of or the entire 

system. However, the entire operation becomes vulnerable to international hackers or cyber terrorists. The 

SWP, unlike many other water delivery systems, has a control system independent of the Internet. 

Most water supply infrastructure was constructed at a time when vandalism, illegal dumping, and the 

threat of terrorism were uncommon. Fencing around the facilities and structures was installed primarily to 

prevent accidents. Today, the absence of active patrolling and lack of fencing along the waterways is 

attributed to the high rate of dumping in those areas. 

Global Climate Change 

As a result of global climate change, California's future hydrologic conditions will likely be different 

from patterns observed over the past century. Predictions include increased temperatures, reductions to 

the Sierra snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and a rise in sea level, although the extent and timing of the 

changes remain uncertain. These changes could have major implications for water supply, flood 

management, and ecosystem health. The prospect of significant climate change warrants examination of 

how California’s water infrastructure and natural systems can be managed to accommodate or adapt to 

these changes, and whether more needs to be done. 

Managing water resources with climate change could prove different than managing for historical climate 

variability because climate change: 

• could produce hydrologic conditions, variability, and extremes that are different from what 

current water systems were designed to manage, 

• may occur too rapidly to allow sufficient time and information to permit managers to respond 

appropriately, and 

• may require special efforts or plans to protect against surprises or uncertainties. 

For over a decade, scientists have been publishing formal, peer-reviewed recommendations for integrating 

the results of climate change research into policy. The Public Interest Energy Research Program 

established a regional climate change research center (see Box 4-9 PIER Program and Climate Change 

Research). The Pacific Institute, in a literature search report for DWR, summarized recommendations for 

coping and adapting to climate change from key peer-reviewed publications. The Pacific Institute’s report 

“Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature” and a DWR 

report on climate change impacts and recommendations for further research, “Accounting For Climate 

Change,” are included in Volume 4 Reference Guide. The University of California, Davis used the 

CALVIN model to evaluate how California’s water system might adapt to long-term climate warming 

(see Box 4-10 CALVIN: An Analytical Tool to Evaluate Effects of Climate Change). 

4-26 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-9 PIER Program and Climate Change Research 

Box 4-10 CALVIN: An Analytical Tool to Evaluate Effects of Climate Change 

One approach for planning for uncertainties associated with climate change is to perform sensitivity 

analyses with different assumptions about potential future conditions. Incorporating flexibility and 

adaptability into our current system can strengthen our ability to respond to change. Flexible systems 

contribute to beneficial operations both under current as well as future climate conditions by allowing 

management adjustments or midcourse corrections without causing major economic and social 

disruptions. 

Some of the expected impacts of global climate change are discussed in the following sections. 

Snowpack Changes 

California’s relies on snowpack as its largest means of annual water storage. Runoff from the Sierra 

Nevada mountains during April through July of each year averages 14 million acre-feet and comes 

primarily from snowmelt. Computer modeling of global climate change scenarios predict significant 

future reductions in the Sierra snowpack. A reduced snowpack will reduce the total water storage for the 

state. Figure 4-7 (Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during the 21st Century) shows a 52 

percent reduction in the annual April through July runoff for a 2.1 degree C (3.8 F) of warming, well 

within the 1.4 to 5.8 degree C (2.5–10.4 F) range predicted by global climate models for this century. 

Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21st century 

Changes in the timing of snowfall and snowmelt, as a result of climate change, may make it more difficult 

to refill reservoir flood control space during late spring and early summer, potentially reducing the 

amount of surface water available during the dry season. Changes in reservoir levels also affect lake 

recreation, hydroelectric power production, and fish habitat by altering water temperatures and quality. 

Reductions in snowpack may require changes in the operation of California’s water systems and 

infrastructure, and increase the value of additional flood control space in reservoirs. 

Hydrologic Pattern 

Historical records reveal long-term changes in the pattern of April–July runoff; an example is plotted here 

for the Sacramento River (Figure 4-8 Sacramento River April-July Runoff in Percent of Water Year 

Runoff). From the 1950s to the present, the percentage of April through July runoff has shown a 

progressive decline. This may indicate a decline in the amount of water stored annually in the Sierra 

snowpack leading to reduced spring and early summer river flows. The same effect is noted to a lesser 

degree on southern Sierra rivers. While these measurements are consistent with climate change model 

simulations, more extensive monitoring of runoff and snowpack is necessary for greater understanding of 

ongoing changes in hydrologic patterns. 

Figure 4-8 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff 

 4-27 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Sea Level Rise 

Global climate change is already leading to sea level rise. Figure 4-9 (Golden Gate annual average and 

19-year mean tide levels) shows historical sea level rise at the Golden Gate. During the 20th century, sea 

levels increased by 0.2 meters (0.7 feet). Models project a median rise of 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) over the 

21st century due to climate change (IPCC 2001). Sea level rise could eventually disrupt ecosystems and 

communities in coastal areas and disrupt ongoing tidal wetland restoration efforts. The biggest impact of 

sea level rise on California’s water supply and tidal wetlands restoration efforts could be in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Sea level rise would increase pressure on Delta levees that protect 

low-lying lands, much of which are already below sea level. A single-foot rise in sea level would increase 

the frequency of the current 100-year peak high tide in the western Delta to about a 10-year event. 

Another effect of sea level rise is increased salinity intrusion from the ocean, which could degrade 

freshwater supplies pumped from the Delta unless more freshwater from upstream reservoirs is released 

to push back intruding sea water. Sea level rise could also threaten coastal aquifers. 

Figure 4-9 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels 

Rainfall Intensity 

Regional precipitation responses to climate change remain difficult to determine. If climate change results 

in larger individual precipitation events, it could affect current reservoir flood control operations and 

other flood management activities and infrastructure. Watershed protection activities would also be 

affected because changes in storm intensity could affect water quality and erosion. 

Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Demand 

Climate change predictions include increased temperatures, as discussed earlier. Plant evapotranspiration 

increases with increased temperature. Another factor that may affect plant evapotranspiration is 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Long-term increases in worldwide atmospheric carbon 

dioxide levels are expected to continue for some time. Some laboratory tests indicate that increased 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can act to reduce plant water consumption. Most researchers 

believe that the influence of warmer temperatures on increasing plant water consumption may be partially 

offset by the effect that rising carbon dioxide concentrations have on reducing consumption . More 

research is needed in this area. 

Aquatic Life 

Warmer air temperatures and changes in snowmelt will make it more difficult to manage reservoirs and 

reservoir releases to maintain rivers temperatures that are cool enough for anadromous fish. Higher water 

temperatures will also increase chemical and biological reaction rates in water bodies, which could 

adversely affect aquatic species. 

Many extensive studies on climate change provide more detailed impacts on the environment. The State's 

Joint Agency Climate Team is developing initiatives on how State government is to address climate 

change. At present, the extent of climate change impacts is uncertain. As more sophisticated tools are 

developed and more studies are completed, better quantification may be possible. 

4-28 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Changing Policies, Regulations, Laws, and Social Attitudes 

This category of potential changes can also include elements of both gradual and sudden change. 

Evolving policies, regulations, laws and social attitudes have dramatically altered California’s water 

management over the past few decades. Some examples include the CVPIA and State Water Resources 

Control Board Decision 1641, which require more water to meet water quality standards. Furthermore, 

additional listing of threatened and endangered species has required more water to address environmental 

needs. 

It is difficult to anticipate precisely how further changes in policies, regulations, laws, and social attitudes 

will affect future water management. However, there are methods that can be employed to consider 

potential impacts on the system if similar changes were to occur in the future. These kinds of potentially 

significant changes that are difficult to predict where, when, and what might happen emphasize the value 

of enhancing regional self-sufficiency and strengthening statewide water management systems to provide 

more flexibility. 

Relationships between Water Operations and Environmental Impacts 

Environmental restoration science is a work in progress. Rarely do we have the necessary scientific 

information on a species, much less an ecosystem, to identify an exact course of action that will restore 

natural communities and processes. When precious resources and endangered species are involved, we 

often do not have the time or money to fully develop our scientific understanding before action is needed. 

Yet, the uncertainty can result in hesitation and delay. Improved understanding of ecological processes 

can lead to changes in policies, regulations, and laws. 

Understanding watershed characteristics allows the use of adaptive management to operate projects and 

programs that best fit into the ecological settings. In some cases the description of these characteristics 

will reveal that important infrastructure, programs, or projects are not sensitive to watershed processes or 

have not been designed to capture the full ecological value of the projects. In these cases reoperation and 

redesign may greatly improve the watershed compatibility of the projects. (See Volume 2 Chapter 19 

System Reoperation and Chapter 25 Watershed Management.) 

Changing Plumbing Codes 

Future changes in plumbing codes, like the one for installing ultralow flush toilets, could allow use of 

innovative water fixtures to conserve water. Code changes could expand use of recycled water for various 

nonpotable uses. These and other changes could alter water use and supplies. 

Emerging Contaminants 

The nature and impact of contaminants themselves may be changing in the future. Future population 

growth and demographic changes may further impair the quality of water bodies with both known and 

emerging contaminants, increasing the risk of drinking water. Demographic change may create larger 

groups of people, including the very old and the very young, who are more vulnerable to drinking water 

contaminants. Information on pollutant sources and their impacts is insufficient to adequately respond to 

existing problems. As new health risk information is obtained, water quality standards may become more 

stringent to protect health and safety. Re-evaluation of health effects research often leads to re-regulation 

of known contaminants. Moreover, there is a growing demand from consumers, expressed in opinion 

surveys as well as in the marketplace, for higher quality water. 

 4-29 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Summary 

All Californians have strong incentives to promote the development and sharing of better information 

about how to balance risk and reward related to water resource investments. These types of decisions 

have never been more complicated and, perhaps, more necessary. Preparing for the future in the face of 

tremendous uncertainties requires cooperation throughout all levels of government in California. There is 

much more to learn about how our complex water management systems work, and how they will respond 

to a multitude of expected changes. 

Three preliminary scenarios offer a useful view of how significantly water demand can vary with even 

relatively conservative estimates of different key factors. This idea will be developed further and refined 

during the analyses for California Water Plan Update 2010. The results from these preliminary scenarios 

illustrate three significant points for water planning in California: 

• Total demand for water in California in the year 2030 can vary a great deal. Even with relatively 

conservative adjustments in some key parameters, estimates of statewide demand vary by almost 

5 million acre-feet per year. 

• Urban demand increases in all three scenarios; whereas, agricultural demand decreases in all three 

scenarios. 

• Water demand changes were different between regions and by scenario. 

These scenarios clearly suggest that water demands can change significantly throughout the state by 2030. 

These kinds of changes are best managed using integrated regional water management supported by 

strong statewide water management systems. 

4-30 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-1 Desired Information for the California Water Plan 

• What do we want to accomplish with our water resources? 

 Economic Objectives 

 Environmental Objectives 

 Equity Objectives 

• How does the current water management system work now and how might it change with respect 

to the following? 

 Water use and environmental interactions 

 Basic hydrology including groundwater 

 Economics, price, and water use 

 Interregional transfers 

 Quantity and quality interactions 

 Water law considerations 

 Changes in technology that can affect water supply reliability 

• What can we expect to happen in the future? What are we preparing for? 

• How can we consider uncertainties about the future when making a decision? 

 How will water management system performance change with respect to water supply 

reliability, water quality, and ecosystem health goals when faced with different 

circumstances? 

• How does (and should) regional and statewide water and resource planning intersect? 

• How do different approaches to prepare for the future compare to one another in light of our 

objectives and available resources? What are the expected tradeoffs? 

 4-31 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-2 Types of Quantitative Information 

To promote clarity and common understanding, we have defined four types of quantitative information 

that the California Water Plan can provide: 

1 Observable data –this information is discrete data that can (or could) be measured or observed at 

a particular place and time. We also presume that if we could measure it in the future, we can 

predict what the values might be in the future. 

2 Causal relationships – this information is what we believe to be true, or at least our best guess, 

about how different observable data are influenced by other factors (for example, How does 

urban water demand change with regards to shifts in prices charged to the consumer?, or How 

does groundwater production in Glenn county change with regards to temperature during the 

growing season for rice?) Our entire understanding of how the water management system 

functions can be described using observable data and causal relationships. 

3 Reporting metrics – this information contains a combination of observable data in a clearly 

defined way (for example, water supply reliability is reported as a function of water demand, 

water delivery, time, place, etc.) 

4 Evaluation criteria – this information describes the standard by which reporting metrics will be 

judged (for example, if water supply reliability is less than some threshold value during dry and 

critical years then additional management actions are required) 

4-32 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-3 Evolving Analytical Approach 

Since the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) published the California Water Plan in 1957, 

analyses for subsequent water plan updates have continued to evolve to meet changing needs for 

information. Early in the series of updates, the reports included water budgets (water uses, supplies, and 

shortages) for a typical (trend-based) average water year. In updates for 1993 and 1998 water budgets 

were also included for an extreme drought condition (a critical water year). The prior update, Bulletin 

160-98, provided readers with estimates of the magnitude of dry-period water shortages in different areas 

of the state and also presented some options for reducing those shortages. 

DWR and stakeholders now want a more comprehensive analysis that includes economics, water quality, 

and environmental and social considerations rather than using water budgets to show a gap between 

future uses and supplies. Considering the large amount of work required to include these changes, the 

analytical work could not be completed for this water plan update. Without this analysis, Update 2005

lacks the information to make the types of region-specific water budget comparisons afforded by Bulletin 

160-98. However, Update 2005 provides qualitative discussions and presents the analytical approach for 

use in Update 2010 and beyond. If the past is any indication, we expect the analytical approach to 

continue to evolve long after Update 2010 is completed. Some changes in the analytical approach 

proposed by California Water Plan Update 2005 include: 

Approach 

• Bulletin 160-98 used and expanded the analytical methods that were developed in Bulletin 160-

93. 

• Update 2005 presents a new analytical approach for multiple future base conditions (scenarios) 

and alternative response packages for potential use in update 2010. 

Current Conditions 

• Bulletin 160-98 used trend analysis to normalize year 1995 to represent a typical average year. 

• Update 2005 presents water portfolio (see Volume 3) information for three actual years (1998, 

2000, and 2001). These three years do not allow drought or other planning analysis that will be 

possible after water portfolios for several additional actual years are developed. 

Future Conditions 

• Bulletin 160-98 projected a single future condition to year 2020 for land use, water demands, and 

supplies. 

• Update 2005 presents an approach to consider multiple plausible, yet very different, future 

scenarios to year 2030 for analysis in update 2010. Update 2005 presents the concept of 

alternative response packages for each scenario for analysis in Update 2010. 

Water Shortages 

• Bulletin 160-98 computed the difference between water demands and supplies as the shortage. 

• Update 2005 presents an approach to balance water demands and supplies for each response 

package by including economics, water quality, and environmental and social considerations. 

 4-33 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Potential Future Management Strategies 

• Bulletin 160-98 presented options that could be used to reduce shortages by area of the state. 

• Update 2005 presents an approach to allow comparison of many different response packages at 

the regional level using evaluation criteria. 

Response packages are different mixes of the resource management strategies (see Volume 2). All of 

these changes need to be supported by developing better data and analytical tools. Data and modeling 

results will be presented in the water portfolio format (see Volume 3). 

4-34 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-4 Principles for Development and Use of Analytical Tools and Data for California Water 

Problems and Solutions 

Strategy 

1. Analytical tools and data should be based on expected long-term water problems and the 

decision-making processes they are expected to inform. 

2. An official strategic analytical approach should identify the technical objectives, roles, and 

responsibilities of major data collection efforts and analytical tools. 

3. Strategic documents should undergo periodic internal and external review, in discussion with 

major stakeholders, to identify needs for additional analytical tool and data development. 

4. A frequently updated implementation document should outline short-term and long-term efforts, 

budgets, and responsibilities for continuous improvement of analytical tools and data with policy 

for continued user, local agency, and stakeholder involvement. 

Transparency 

5. All data and models should have significant documentation. 

6. Known limitations and appropriate applications should be documented. 

7. Model applications should include explanatory and self-critical discussions of results. 

8. All data, models, and major reports should be in the public domain and available on the web. 

9. A common glossary of key terms should be maintained. 

Technical Sustainability 

10. Modularity: Major analytical tools should be designed and implemented to fit modularly in the 

larger strategic analysis framework, allowing models to be tested, refined, updated, and replaced 

without major adjustments to other components. 

11. Adaptive information management framework: Major data and information efforts should fall 

within a larger information management framework, including protocols for data documentation 

and updating, and documentation of limitations. 

Coverage 

12. The spatial coverage of the basic data and analytical framework should be statewide and 

encompass a wide variety of water management options and processes. 

13. Local and regional water management and resources should be explicitly represented to allow 

consistency among local, regional, and statewide studies. 

 4-35 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Accountability and Quality Control 

14. Explicit model testing should be undertaken, documented, and made available for major 

analytical tools. 

15. Protocols and guidelines for model use should be developed and adhered to. 

16. Major analytical products should undergo review by external unaffiliated experts and local 

agencies whose systems are included in the model(s). 

17. In developing and maintaining analytical tools, significant efforts should be made to involve local 

agencies and stakeholders, including users groups or other cooperation mechanisms for widely 

used analytical tools. 

4-36 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-5 Conceptual Framework Diagram Description 

Demand Drivers – Factors that influence the calculation of water demands, which are not directly 

controlled by water management activities. For example, population, population density, land use 

patterns, and economic activity. 

Geophysical Parameters – Factors that represent the basic hydrology, hydrogeology, geology, and 

climate, which form the natural constraints of the system. For example, precipitation, soil properties, and 

aquifer transmissivity. 

Water Management Objectives – Objectives developed by policy makers for desired outcomes of the 

water management system while considering the various constraints, competing demands, and resource 

strategies. For example, desired water quality and desired water reliability at a particular location and 

time and for a particular use. 

Human and Environmental Water Demands – Dynamic consumptive and nonconsumptive demands 

for water that fluctuate based on the climate, economy, changes in water use efficiency, population 

growth, and other factors. Consumptive demands include activities that deplete water from the water 

management system by evaporation, evapotranspiration, or flows to saline water bodies. Nonconsumptive 

demands include activities that require a specific quantity of water at a particular location and time, but do 

not deplete from the water management system. This includes releasing water for hydropower 

production, instream flows, or municipal water use that flows to a wastewater treatment facility and is 

later released to a stream or recharged to groundwater. 

Management Options – Management options are the numerous resource strategies available to water 

managers to improve operation of the water management system and are heavily influenced by the 

desired water management objectives. This includes actions like water use efficiency, surface or 

groundwater storage, floodplain management, and ecosystem restoration. 

Evaluation Criteria – Factors that serve as dynamic evaluation criteria to guide policy makers, water 

managers, and the public about how well a particular hypothetical scenario and operation of the water 

Water 

Management 

System 

Geophysical 

Parameters 

Evaluation Criteria 

(Economic, Management, Societal)

Human and 

Environmental 

Water Demands 

Management 

Options 

Demand 

Drivers 

Water 

Management 

Objectives 

 4-37 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

management system is at meeting water management objectives. This includes things like economic cost 

of implementing different resource strategies, environmental benefits, water reliability, and improvements 

in water quality. 

Water Management System – The system of man made and natural water storage and conveyance 

features where the water management decisions are implemented. This includes location, storage and 

flow capacities, and operating criteria of reservoirs, canals, wetlands, floodplains, lakes, rivers, and 

groundwater basins. 

4-38 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Table 4-1 Factors affecting regional and statewide water demands and supplies 

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3

CURRENT TRENDS LESS RESOURCE INTENSIVE MORE RESOURCE INTENSIVE

Urban Water Use Efficiency

Ag Water Use Efficiency

Per Capita Income

Seasonal/Permanent Crop Mix

Irrigated Land Retirement

Hydrology

Climate Change

Colorado River Supply

Existing Inter-Regional Import Projects 

Flood Management

Energy Costs

Ambient Water Quality

Drinking Water Standards

Ag Discharge Requirements

Urban Runoff Mgmt.

Recreation

Desalting

System Reoperation

Recycled Water

Water Transfers

Within Regions

Water Transfers

Between Regions

Conjunctive Use and Groundwater 

Management

Surface Water Storage

Conveyance Facilities

Rate Structure

Environmental Water-Flow Based

Naturally Occurring Conservation 2 NOC Trend in MOUs

Current Trend 

Higher Inland & Southern;

Lower Coastal & Northern

DOF 

Current Trend

DOF

Current Trend

Current Trend

DOF DOF

Population Density

Higher than DOF

Level Out at Current Crop Area Level Out at Current Crop Area

DOF 

Decrease in High Water Using Activities

Higher than DOF

Increase in Trend

Increase in Trend

Lower than DOF

Total Crop Area

(Includes Multiple Cropping)

Crop Unit Water Use

Industrial Activity Mix

Total Commercial Activity

Population Distribution

Increase in Crop Unit Water Use

Current Trend 

Increase in High Water Using Activities

Increase in Trend

(Same as Scenario 2)

Increase in High Water Using Industries

Current Trend

Higher Environmental Protection Current Level

Decrease in Crop Unit Water Use

All Cost Effective EWMP's in Existing MOU's Implemented by Current Signatories (present commitments)

FACTOR 1

Current Trend

Commercial Activity Mix Current Trend Decrease in High Water Using Activities

Total Industrial Activity

Increase in Trend

(Same as Scenario 2)

Total Population

As Projected From Current Trends

Higher Environmental Protection

Lower Than NOC Trend in MOUs

(2) Naturally Occurring Conservation is the amount of background conservation (changes in plumbing codes, etc.) occurring independently 

from the BMP and EWMP programs.

(1) Factors should be considered as an initial list that will be modified, as needed, as analyses proceed for Water Plan Update 2010.

Higher than NOC Trend in MOUs

Environmental Water-Land Based Current Level

Current Level + Permitted/Financed

All Cost Effective BMP's in Existing MOU's Implemented by Current Signatories (present commitments)

Essentially a Repeat of History

Equal to 4.4 Plan

Current Conditions

Existing facilities, policies and practices

Current Trends

Current Trends

Currently Planned

Essentially a Repeat of History

Current Conditions

Current Level of Use

Current practice - pricing constrained to cost recovery

Present Demand Trends Continued

Current Level + Permitted/Financed

Current Level + Permitted/Financed

Currently Approved Transfers

Current Level + Permitted/Financed

Current Level + Permitted/Financed

Reoperation of systems that are affected by strategy implementation

Currently Approved Transfers

Current and Planned

Current and Planned

 4-39 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-2 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios, 2000–2030 

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Current Trends Less Resource

Intensive

More Resource

Intensive

thousand acre-feet per year

Demand change for all scenarios does not include an additional 1 million to 

2 million acre-feet per year needed to eliminate statewide groundwater overdraft. 

4-40 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-3 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by sector, 2000–2030 

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Current Trends Less Resource

Intensive

More Resource

Intensive

thousand acre-feet per year

Urban Agricultural Environmental

Demand change for all scenarios does not include an additional 1 million to 

2 million acre-feet per year needed to eliminate statewide groundwater overdraft.

 4-41 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-4 Net change in average-year water demand for three scenarios by region, 2000–2030 

4-42 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-6 Sample Response Package 

The theme of this sample response package is using resource management strategies that most agencies 

are currently implementing. These strategies, packaged together, are being implemented by State, 

regional, and local organizations. They are technically and institutionally feasible. They make sense for 

the environment. They are economical and do not raise significant equity issues. 

Test Purpose: Recognizing that agencies can continue to implement management strategies that are 

supported by stakeholders, testing this response will determine how effective this package will be in 

meeting future water demands and management objectives. The future demands and objectives will be 

determined for each of the scenarios for Phase 3 for Update 2010. 

Goal: The goal of this response package is to emphasize maximum implementation of current 

management strategies supported by stakeholders. 

Strategies: This response package would include strategies at implementation levels broadly supported 

by stakeholders. It consists of management strategies that are proven effective and are currently in use. 

The costs and benefits are generally known and can be quantified or acceptable qualitatively to justify 

implementation. This response package could also include higher levels of implementation for strategies 

that stakeholders support conditionally based on the uncertainties of costs and benefits of higher 

implementation. An example would be the amount of urban water conservation that could be achieved 

using accepted new technologies. 

 4-43 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Table 4-5 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives 

Water management 

objective Evaluation criteria Information source 

Increase water supply, 

reallocate supplies or 

manage demand 

(all use sectors) 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Water portfolio / flow diagram; 

water management/system analysis 

Improve drought 

preparedness 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Water management/system analysis 

Improve operational 

flexibility 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Improve water quality 

(all use sectors) 

Risks to human/ecosystem health 

and agricultural production 

Water management/system analysis 

Reduce flood impacts Flood risk Economic analysis and system analysis 

Environmental benefits Fisheries (populations and habitat) 

Native habitat/vegetation 

Wildlife (populations and habitat) 

Data monitoring/compilation, biological 

opinion, and system analysis 

Energy benefits Energy availability Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Recreational opportunities Quantity, quality and variety of waterbased recreation Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Reduce groundwater 

overdraft 

Salinity intrusion 

Subsidence 

Groundwater levels (long term) 

Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Catastrophic vulnerability Economic analysis and system analysis 

Third party impacts Economic analysis and system analysis 

Economic/financial Economic analysis and system analysis 

Other considerations 

Public Trust and environmental 

justice 

Participation in planning; assistance to 

low-income and disadvantaged 

communities 

4-44 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs 

The Department of Water Resources’ Delta Suisun Marsh Office is conducting a comprehensive 

evaluation of its Delta levee rehabilitation and maintenance programs. The objectives of the evaluation 

include: 

• Determine existing and future risks of risks of levee failure due to flooding, subsidence, and 

earthquakes over the next 50 years; 

• Determine the probable consequences of levee failure, such as water supply disruption, ecosystem 

damage, land use loss, economic losses, etc.; 

• Identify and prioritize long- and short-term actions that can be taken to reduce the risk and 

consequences of levee failure. 

Additional information about the comprehensive evaluation can be obtained from DWR’s Delta Suisun 

Marsh Office. 

 4-45 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-8 Potential Impacts from a Critical Levee Failure 

• Significant increase in salt water in the Delta during dry periods and associated degradation of 

export water quality. A Delta levee failure during the summer of 1972 required release of about 

467,500 acre-feet of stored water to flush and dilute salt in the Delta. 

(Testimony by W. R. Gianelli to Senate Committee on Ag and Water Resources) 

• Shut-down of the State and federal water system for the duration of poor-quality water in the 

Delta. 

• Loss of homes, farm income, jobs, loss of critical habitat. 

• Long-term degradation of export water quality due to salt mixing if the island is not reclaimed. 

4-46 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-5 Map of flooded islands in the Delta for different high flow periods 

 Source: DWR 1993 Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Atlas 

 4-47 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-6 Map of San Francisco Bay Region earthquake probability 

 Probability of a 6.7 magnitude earthquake within 30 years in Bay Area 

 (2003 earthquake probability study - USGS) 

4-48 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-9 PIER Program and Climate Change Research 

In conjunction with affected state agencies, the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program 

administered by the California Energy Commission has developed and is implementing a climate change 

research plan for California. The PIER Program established a regional climate change research center 

with the goals of: 

• Improving the understanding of the possible physical and economic impacts of climate change 

• Developing robust adaptation and mitigation strategies for California. 

In support of future updates of the California Water Plan, the California Climate Change Research Center 

(Research Center) is funding (1) the development and maintenance of a comprehensive climatic database 

for California and the analysis of meteorological and hydrological trends; (2) the monitoring of 

meteorological and hydrological parameters in some key remote locations using innovative remote 

sensing devices; (3) the development of climate projections for the state using regional climate models at 

levels of resolution appropriate for water resources impact analyses; and (4) the study of water resources 

impacts under different climatic projections. The Department of Water Resources is a key co-sponsor of 

these research activities. 

 4-49 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-10 CALVIN: An Analytical Tool to Evaluate Effects of Climate Change 

From 1998–2003 the University of California, Davis (with funding from the Resource Agency, CALFED, 

and California Energy Commission) developed a preliminary analytical tool, named CALVIN, to quantify 

the potential of integrated long-term solutions for California water management. The tool integrates 

existing surface water, groundwater, and water demand data in an integrated economic-engineering 

framework for California’s inter-tied water system (covering 92 percent of California’s population and 88 

percent of its irrigated area). In developing the computer model, significant weaknesses and gaps in water 

data were identified and documented. The model and its results have been peer reviewed and show 

preliminary insights into economically promising possibilities for California water management. More 

importantly, the tool demonstrated concepts in advanced data management, documentation, and analysis 

that may be useful for future statewide and regional water policy and planning analysis. The CALVIN 

model has been applied preliminarily to examine statewide potential for regional and statewide water 

markets and how California’s water system might adapt to long-term climate warming (through the Public 

Interest Energy Research Program). 

4-50 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21st century 

 Source: (Knowles and Cayan 2001) 

 4-51 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-8 Sacramento River April-July runoff in percent of water year runoff 

4-52 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Figure 4-9 Golden Gate annual average and 19-year mean tide levels 

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

9.60

9.80

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Golden Gate Gage 9414290 (Feet)

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

NGVD 1929 Datum (Feet)

Annual Average Tide

19-Year Mean Tide

 4-53 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

4-54 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Contents 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan..................................................................................................................5-1

Implementation Costs............................................................................................................................5-4

Recommendation 1 – Diversify Regional Water Portfolios ..................................................................5-5

Recommendation 2 – Promote and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management ....................5-7

Recommendation 3 – Improve Water Quality.....................................................................................5-10

Recommendation 4 – Maintain and Improve Aging Statewide Water Infrastructure .........................5-11

Recommendation 5 – Implement the CALFED Program....................................................................5-13

Recommendation 6 – Provide Effective State Government Leadership, Assistance, and 

 Oversight.......................................................................................................5-15

Recommendation 7 – Clarify State, Federal, and Local Roles and Responsibilities...........................5-17

Recommendation 8 – Develop Funding Strategies and Clarify Role of Public Investments ..............5-19

Recommendation 9 – Invest in New Water Technology.....................................................................5-21

Recommendation 10 – Adapt for Global Climate Change Impacts ....................................................5-22

Recommendation 11 – Improve Water Data Management and Scientific Understanding..................5-24

Recommendation 12 – Protect Public Trust Resources.......................................................................5-26

Recommendation 13 – Increase Tribal Participation and Access to Funding .....................................5-28

Recommendation 14 – Ensure Environmental Justice across All Communities................................5-30

Tables (placed in text) 

Table 5-1 Elements of the implementation plan .......................................................................................5-2

Table 5-2 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives .....................5-3

 i 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

5-ii

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Chapter 5 

Implementation Plan 

About This Chapter 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan lays out the implementation plan for California Water Plan Update 

2005. It presents 14 recommendations. Each is followed by related action plan, intended outcomes, 

resource assumptions, implementation challenges, and performance measures. 

• Implementation Costs 

• Recommendations 1 through 14

The implementation plan is organized around recommendations with related action plan, intended 

outcomes, resource assumptions, implementation challenges, and performance measures. (See Table 5-1 

Elements of the implementation plan). The recommendations are directed at California (decision-makers 

throughout the state), State government (executive and legislative branches), DWR and other State 

agencies to lead our actions over the next 25 years. Additional details for actions assigned to the 

Department of Water Resources are presented in DWR’s Strategic Business Plan (2005). 

In each action plan, near-term high-priority actions, included in the Framework for Action (Chapter 2), 

are preceded by an hourglass symbol () to indicate that they should be completed before the next update 

in 2010. 

Evaluating the performance of some actions plans requires a tracking system that will show whether and 

how well statewide and regional water management objectives are met. Table 5-2 (Evaluation criteria for 

achieving water management objectives) lists criteria developed for this purpose (see Chapter 4 for 

details). This table is cited in the performance measure section of applicable actions plans. 

Implementation challenges specific to each of the 25 resource management strategies and 

recommendations on reducing or removing their challenges are presented in Volume 2 Resource 

Management Strategies and are not repeated in this chapter. 

 5-1 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Table 5-1 Elements of the implementation plan 

Element Description 

Action plan Describes key activities to carry out each recommendation and the entities best 

positioned to play a key role. Action plans break recommendations into 

manageable parts including assignments, resource assumptions, implementation 

challenges, and performance measures for tracking progress. 

Intended outcome Describes the desired end result and may indicate an estimated and/or 

recommended timeframe for implementation. 

Resource assumption Estimates resources, including human and/or financial resources, required to 

accomplish the action plan. 

Implementation challenge Identifies factors that may restrict, limit, or regulate the action plan such as scope, 

funding, skill levels, policy, technology, dependency. 

Performance measure Method to ensure accountability by measuring work performed and results 

achieved. This describes what is to be measured and the methods of 

measurement. Measures may be short term, intermediate, and/or long term. In 

contrast, evaluation criteria represent the technical information used to help 

policy-makers, water managers, and the public compare how well scenarios and 

resource management strategies meet desired water management objectives. 

The criteria listed in Table 5-2 (Evaluation criteria for achieving water 

management objectives) includes parameters like the cost of implementing 

different resource strategies, environmental benefits, water reliability, and water 

quality improvements (see Chapter 3 for details). 

5-2

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Table 5-2 Evaluation criteria for assessing achievement of water management objectives 

Water management 

objective Evaluation criteria Information source 

Increase water supply, 

reallocate supplies or 

manage demand 

(all use sectors) 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Water portfolio / flow diagram; 

water management/system analysis 

Improve drought 

preparedness 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Water management/system analysis 

Improve operational 

flexibility 

Urban, agricultural or environmental 

reliability 

Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Improve water quality 

(all use sectors) 

Risks to human/ecosystem health 

and agricultural production 

Water management/system analysis 

Reduce flood impacts Flood risk Economic analysis and system analysis 

Environmental benefits Fisheries (populations and habitat) 

Native habitat/vegetation 

Wildlife (populations and habitat) 

Data monitoring/compilation, biological 

opinion, and system analysis 

Energy benefits Energy availability Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Recreational opportunities Quantity, quality and variety of waterbased recreation Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Reduce groundwater 

overdraft 

Salinity intrusion 

Subsidence 

Groundwater levels (long term) 

Data monitoring/compilation and system 

analysis 

Catastrophic vulnerability Economic analysis and system analysis 

Third party impacts Economic analysis and system analysis 

Economic/financial Economic analysis and system analysis 

Other considerations 

Public Trust and environmental 

justice 

Participation in planning; assistance to 

low-income and disadvantaged 

communities 

 5-3 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Implementation Costs 

Carrying out the recommendations of California Water Plan Update 2005 will require significant action 

and investment by all Californians. Local implementation of the 25 resource management strategies (see 

Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies) and performing the essential support activities (in Chapter 2 

A Framework for Action), which include CALFED Bay-Delta Program actions, will require billions of 

dollars over the next 25 years. The support activities are essential to integrating the resource management 

strategies and reducing uncertainty and risk. These activities are statewide and integrated regional water 

planning and management, data and analytical tools improvements, research and development, and 

science programs. Many of the management strategies would be applied incrementally and adaptively to 

meet changing regional conditions and goals. However, other strategies and all of the essential support 

activities need significant upfront and ongoing funding. 

Since 1995 voters have demonstrated their support for managing our water resources by approving 

several bond measures, which total an average of $1 billion annually. These bonds, combined with local 

funding, have led to significant progress in new water conservation, groundwater storage, water recycling, 

and ecosystem restoration. Implementation of the CALFED Bay Delta Program was a major driver for 

these bonds, and the program will continue to be vital for improving water management in California. 

Strategies, options, and guidelines for public investments and State financial assistance included in the 

implementation plan are described in Volume 4 Reference Guide article “Financing Strategies and 

Guidelines for Funding Water Resource Projects.” 

5-4

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 1 – Diversify Regional Water Portfolios 

California needs to invest in reliable, high quality, sustainable, and affordable water conservation, 

efficient water management, and development of water supplies to protect public health, and to 

maintain and improve California’s economy, environment, and standard of living. 

To provide for the future, California must rely on a diverse set of water management strategies to 

(1) use and manage its existing water supplies efficiently; (2) implement new technologies to further 

water conservation and recycling, augment supplies, and improve water quality; (3) increase water 

storage and improve conveyance to gain flexibility and complement the benefits of other water 

management tools; and (4) improve watershed management, restore ecosystems and promote stewardship 

of resources. To realize the full potential outlined in this water plan update, California needs significant 

and continuous investments for integrated regional water management, more public and private 

partnerships, project implementation, and better data and analytical tools. 

Action Plan 

• Regions invest in water conservation, efficient water management, and development of reliable, 

high quality, sustainable and affordable water supplies. The State should provide public funding for 

implementing local strategies that have broad public benefits. 

• Local and regional planners diversify and increase the resource management strategies in their 

integrated regional water management plans. 

• DWR will use its technical and financial assistance programs (including Proposition 50 funded 

programs) to effectively and equitably support planning and implementation of local and regional 

water use efficiency, water recycling, groundwater storage and management, ecosystem restoration, 

urban streams, flood management, and related planning efforts. 

• DWR will continue and strengthen its commitment to evaluate and implement feasible elements of 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Protect public health, and maintain and improve California’s economy, environment and standard of 

living. 

• Disbursement of Proposition 50 funding for implementation of integrated regional water 

management plans and other efforts to improve statewide water management objectives. 

• Completing DWR’s role in evaluating feasible elements of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

outlined in the Record of Decision to allow the public and policy makers to decide on the best 

course of action. 

 5-5 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Resource Assumptions 

• Many tasks in this recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources over time and 

through implementation of Proposition 50. Additional and ongoing funding and local assistance are 

required for implementing integrated regional water management plans after Proposition 50 has 

been fully implemented. 

• Full and timely implementation of CALFED Bay-Delta Program elements and related local 

assistance programs will require new funding and resources or significant redirection of existing 

resources. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Developing institutional relationships with other agencies necessary for integrating information 

between different planning efforts. 

• Uncertainty in continuity of federal, State, and local funding. 

• Difficulty in achieving consensus among different stakeholders about implementation actions and 

priorities. 

Performance Measures 

• Annual funding dedicated for CALFED Bay-Delta Program, local technical and financial assistance, 

data and analytical tools development, feasibility and implementation of resource management 

strategies, groundwater management plans, urban water management plans, and regional water 

plans. 

• Measured improvements in statewide water management objectives using criteria in Table 5-2 

(Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives). 

• Progress in achieving implementation of intended outcomes. 

5-6

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 2 – Promote and Implement Integrated 

Regional Water Management 

State government must provide incentives and assist regional and local agencies and governments 

and private utilities to prepare integrated resource and drought contingency plans on a watershed 

basis; to diversify their regional resource management strategies; and to empower them to 

implement their plans. 

State government recognizes the critical role regional efforts must play in California water planning and 

management, the need for integrated resources planning across jurisdictional boundaries as regionallybased efforts, and the need for more closely coordinated water planning with land use planning and urban 

development. State government should assist cities, counties, local water agencies and private utilities to 

prepare urban and agricultural water management plans, watershed and groundwater management plans, a 

Water Element for local General Plans, and to implement existing legislation and State policies to 

improve coordination between water and land use planning. 

Action Plan 

 Regional efforts should incorporate integrated resource planning to meet multiple water 

management objectives consistent with the principles advanced in this water plan. 

 The degree and nature of the need for more groundwater and surface water storage varies from 

region to region; therefore, DWR will work with regional entities to evaluate the best ways to meet 

their groundwater and surface storage needs and the possible means of sharing storage capacity 

among regions. 

 Local governments and agencies should improve coordination between land use planning and water 

planning and management to ensure that new infrastructure has adequate water supply and that land 

uses are protective of water quality. 

 State government should give preference to applicants of Proposition 50, Chapter 81 grants who 

have plans that apply DWR and State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) grant program 

guidelines2

. 

 DWR will adapt its existing programs and develop new ones to give incentives and technical 

assistance to regional and local agencies and governments to prepare comprehensive, integrated 

water management plans that include actions to protect public trust resources and promote efficient, 

beneficial water use. 

 DWR will develop guidelines for technical and financial assistance and templates for integrated 

regional water management plans, urban and agricultural water management plans, and drought 

contingency plans. 

 

1

 Proposition 50: Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, Chapter 8 

"Integrated Regional Water Management." 

2

DWR. 2004. Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program Guidelines for Proposition 50, Chapter 8. 

Public draft Aug 16 

http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/docs/Prop_50_Chap_8_IRWM_Guidelines_Public_Draft_081604.pdf

 5-7 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

• DWR will continue to provide technical, administrative, and financial assistance to implement 

actions under the California Urban Water Conservation Council, “Memorandum of Understanding 

Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California” and the Agricultural Water Management 

Council, “Memorandum of Understanding” to improve water use efficiency in California. 

• DWR will develop the necessary tools to assist local and regional agencies be successful with the 

integrated regional water management and planning. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Disbursement of Proposition 50 funding for development of regional water plans and related 

activities including data collection and public outreach. 

• Guidelines for effective integrated regional water management in 2005. 

• Guidelines and template for urban and agricultural water management plans in early 2005. 

• Guidelines for reduction of groundwater overdraft in 2005. 

• Status report on groundwater basins management in 2006. 

• Recommendations for groundwater management plans and model ordinance in 2006. 

• Implement a Critical Water Shortage Reduction Program in 2005 along with the required updates 

for Urban Water Management Plans. 

• Communication plan to inform local and regional agencies of DWR’s programs, available 

databases, and data collection and analysis by 2005. 

Resource Assumptions 

• DWR will implement the recommendation to the extent possible with existing resources, including 

disbursement of financial assistance funded by Proposition 50. Expansion or continuation of the 

program beyond that funded by Proposition 50 would require additional funding or a redirection of 

resources from other programs. 

• It is anticipated that the full implementation of the recommendation would require many positions 

and annual funding within DWR. Funding and positions also would be required for other State 

agencies with watershed or water resource related local assistance programs. 

Implementation Challenges 

• DWR staff developing necessary relationships with local entities and identifying roles needed to 

initiate and develop integrated regional water management plans that are consistent with statewide 

water management objectives. 

• Uncertainty in continuity of State and local funding to maintain participation. 

• Maintaining interest over 3 to 5 years needed to build consensus and develop initial integrated 

regional water management plans for all regions of California. 

5-8

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Performance Measures 

• Annual funding dedicated for CALFED Bay-Delta Program, local technical and financial assistance, 

data and analytical tools development, feasibility and implementation of resource management 

strategies, groundwater management plans, urban water management plans, and regional water 

plans. 

• Number, distribution, and quality of groundwater management plans, urban water management 

plans, drought contingency plans, and integrated regional water management plans. 

• Progress in meeting actions under the California Urban Water Conservation Council, 

“Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California” and the 

Agricultural Water Management Council, “Memorandum of Understanding” to improve water use 

efficiency in California. 

• Measured improvements in statewide water management objectives using criteria in Table 5-2 

(Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives). 

 5-9 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 3 – Improve Water Quality 

State government must lead an effort with local agencies and governments to inventory, evaluate, 

and propose management strategies to remediate the causes and effects of contaminants on surface 

and groundwater quality. 

The evaluation should examine the effect of contaminants on public health, long-term sustainability of 

water resources and treatment costs, and should identify cost-effective ways to improve water quality. To 

safeguard water quality for all beneficial uses, State government should also adopt preventive programs 

that integrate source water protection, pollution prevention, matching water quality to use, and water 

treatment and distribution. 

Action Plan 

• DWR will work with the Department of Health Services, State Water Resources Control Board, 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and other State, federal, and local agencies to inventory, 

evaluate, and deal with the effects of contaminants on surface water and groundwater quality. DWR 

could participate by sharing data and conducting analysis of surface water and groundwater flow 

and transport of contaminants. 

• SWP will complete feasibility studies and recommendations for re-operation of the Delta Cross 

Channel and the Through-Delta Facility in 2005 and feasibility studies for Franks Tract 

Improvements in 2006. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Joint agency inventory and response plan for dealing with effects of contaminants. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Completing the work plan to implement the recommendation and a portion of the actual work could 

be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Full implementation of the recommendation could require significant resources depending on 

DWR’s role. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Difficulty in defining the scope of work and working with the myriad of entities responsible for 

water quality problems. 

Performance Measures 

• Level of implementation of water quality management strategies proposed in the joint agency plan. 

• Meeting statewide, regional, and local water quality objectives. 

• Number of water bodies removed from the list of impaired water bodies. 

5-10

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 4 – Maintain and Improve Aging 

Statewide Water Infrastructure 

California needs to rehabilitate and maintain its aging water infrastructure, especially drinking 

water and sewage treatment facilities, operated by State, federal, and local entities. 

State government should lead an effort, with input from public and private owners of water infrastructure, 

to identify and prioritize water infrastructure maintenance of key components with regional or statewide 

significance. This effort should also identify and implement financing strategies for continued public 

investments in the resulting infrastructure maintenance plan. 

Action Plan 

 DWR will develop and carry out a comprehensive flood management plan. DWR has prepared a 

White Paper that addresses the need for an aggressive investment in the State’s flood management 

system (DWR 2005). 

• State leads an effort with federal, State, regional, and local entities to inventory the current extent of 

unmet infrastructure and maintenance work, estimate the potential costs, and develop a strategy for 

funding the needed work, such as loans and grant programs. 

• Develop a plan to replace and/or rehabilitate those portions of the SWP that are reaching the end of 

their design life in 2006. 

• To continue operating and maintaining the SWP, DWR will: 

 Establish and maintain a risk-based management process that integrates SWP operations, energy, 

and maintenance. This program addresses the 16 strategic initiatives identified in the Future 

Operations Migration Strategy to be completed by 2009. 

 Improve fiscal information reporting for the State Water Project in 2005. 

 Obtain a new FERC License for Oroville Facilities by January 31, 2007. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Prioritized list of unmet infrastructure and maintenance work, potential costs, and strategy for 

funding the work in cooperation with federal, State, regional, and local entities. 

• Evaluation of SWP pumping and power plant units for potential refurbishment work in 2006. 

• Plan for evaluation and repair of the Santa Ana Pipeline and other pipelines, as necessary, in 2006. 

• For SWP operations: 

 Power portfolio and risk policy and procedures in 2005. 

 Suite of timely, useful, and accurate operational reports for effective SWP management in 2006. 

 Suite of timely, useful and accurate financial reports specific to SWP needs in 2006. 

 Filed application with FERC to renew the Oroville Facilities FERC license (Project 2100) on or 

before Jan. 31, 2005 & completed documentation for issuance of the new license by Jan. 2007. 

 5-11 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Resource Assumptions 

• An inventory of the SWP’s unmet infrastructure and maintenance work, potential costs, and strategy 

for funding the work could be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Additional resources would be needed or redirected from other programs for DWR to serve as the 

major coordinator of this recommendation. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Resistance to implementing new water user fees or general taxes to fund the work. 

• Making infrastructure rehabilitation projects affordable. 

Performance Measures 

• Level and continuity of funding and funding sources for infrastructure improvement projects. 

• Number of completed improvements identified in inventory of the current unmet infrastructure and 

maintenance work, potential costs, and strategy for funding the work in cooperation with federal, 

State, regional, and local entities that are completed. 

• Measured improvements in statewide water management objectives using criteria in Table 5-2 

(Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives). 

5-12

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 5 – Implement the CALFED Program 

State government must continue to provide leadership for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to 

ensure continued and balanced progress on greater water supply reliability, water quality, 

ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program needs greater federal commitment, agency involvement, spending 

authorization, and funding to ensure continued and balanced implementation. State government should 

cooperate with the federal government to review and revise the implementation plan for the CALFED 

Bay-Delta Program to reflect the current fiscal climate, and accordingly adjust progress and expectations 

in all elements of the Bay-Delta Program to achieve balanced implementation. 

Action Plan 

 DWR, in cooperation with California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) and other State and federal 

agencies, will implement actions in the Delta Improvements Package. 

 DWR, in cooperation with the CBDA and other State and federal agencies, will continue to evaluate 

and, if feasible, implement a long-term Environmental Water Account. 

 DWR, in cooperation with the regional partners, will complete feasibility studies of additional 

storage infrastructure in the CALFED Record of Decision. California should pursue projects that 

have regional support and viable financing plans. 

• CBDA works with CALFED agencies to develop a comprehensive list of tasks being conducted 

under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, to prioritize the tasks in cooperation with the CBDA public 

advisory committee, to develop a schedule for completing the tasks, and to estimate funding 

necessary to continue work. 

• DWR works with the CBDA, CALFED agencies, the Governor, and the Legislature to develop 

acceptable mechanisms for funding the work. 

• DWR promotes communication, cooperation, and collaboration among State and federal agencies 

involved in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Inventory of tasks being conducted under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and a schedule for 

completing the tasks. 

• Improve environmental and water quality conditions in the Delta. 

• A long-term Environmental Water Account. 

• Pursue implementation of CALFED storage projects that have regional support and viable finance 

plan. 

• Long-term finance plan with funding solutions for implementation of the different program 

elements of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

 5-13 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Resource Assumptions 

• Existing resources can complete the inventory of tasks being conducted under the CALFED BayDelta Program and a work plan for completing the tasks. 

• Additional resources or a redirection of existing resources will be required to complete the 

feasibility studies associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Significant additional resources 

will be required to fully implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Resistance to implementing new water user fees or general taxes to fund the work. 

• Difficulty in defining beneficiaries that could help fund the work. 

Performance Measures 

• Level, sources, and continuity of annual funding dedicated for CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

• Progress in completing the actions in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. 

• Measured improvements in statewide water management objectives using criteria in Table 5-2 

(Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives). 

5-14

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 6 – Provide Effective State Government 

Leadership, Assistance, and Oversight 

State government needs to take the lead in water planning and management activities that: (a) 

regions cannot accomplish on their own, (b) the State can do more efficiently, (c) involve 

interregional, interstate, or international issues, or (d) have broad public benefits. 

These activities include, but are not limited to: (1) preparing California Water Plan updates as a public 

forum to integrate State, federal, regional, and local plans to meet the state’s future water demands and 

water management objectives; (2) operating and maintaining the State Water Project; (3) providing 

regulatory oversight to protect public health and safety and public trust values, including water quality, 

environmental protection, flood management, and dam safety; (4) participating in major regional 

initiatives, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and (5) forming public-private partnerships to 

implement regional programs like the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. Other State 

activities are included in the recommendations that follow. 

Action Plan 

 State government should continue to provide a leadership role in the protection of public health and 

safety, especially with regard to drinking water quality, dam safety, and flood management. 

 State government should provide technical assistance for efforts involving interregional, inter-state, 

and international issues or for efforts creating broad public benefits. 

 DWR will develop and administer a Dry Year Water Transfer Program when needed to meet critical 

water needs during shortages while protecting regions with available supplies. 

 DWR will help resolve long-standing water quality issues in the state, such as Delta salinity, 

dissolved oxygen in San Joaquin River (SJR) near Stockton, salinity at Vernalis, and restoration 

flow needs for SJR, Salton Sea, and Klamath River basin. 

 DWR and State agencies should advance water planning and management that restore and protect 

watersheds and assess instream flow demands needed to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems. 

 DWR will complete the next phases of this water plan update, use the water plan update process as a 

forum to identify and resolve conflicts between regional plans, and integrate the water plan into a 

future State strategic planning process. 

• DWR will use a collaborative process to work with local, regional, State, and federal agencies and 

stakeholders to conduct regular updates of key reports on California’s water resources including the 

California Water Plan (Bulletin 160), California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118), California Water 

Atlas, and California’s Water Resources (Bulletin No. 1). 

• DWR will continue to expand its public education programs to raise public awareness of 

California’s water system, supplies and uses and various water management strategies. 

 5-15 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Intended Outcomes 

• Improve statewide and local water supply reliability and water quality. 

• Establish a Dry Year Water Transfer Program. 

• Successful resolution of interregional, inter-state and international water negotiations. 

• Updates of California Water Plan (Bulletin 160), California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118), 

California Water Atlas, and California’s Water Resources (Bulletin No. 1). 

Resource Assumptions 

• Many tasks in this recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Future updates of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160) will require annual funding to include 

professional facilitation, outreach to the public, and better coordination with local, State and federal 

water and resource agencies. Additional resources needed for analytical tools and data are included 

under Recommendation 11. 

• Future updates of California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118), California Water Atlas 

(OPR and DWR 1979), and California’s Water Resources (Bulletin No. 1) cannot be accomplished 

with existing resources unless resources are redirected from other programs. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Developing the institutional relationships with other agencies necessary for integrating information 

between different planning efforts. 

• Uncertainty in continuity of State and local funding to maintain participation. 

Performance Measures 

• Measured improvements in statewide water management objectives using criteria in Table 5-2 

(Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives). 

• Operational efficiency and effectiveness of the State Water Project. 

• Annual funding dedicated for CALFED Bay-Delta Program and updates for California Water Plan

(Bulletin 160), California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118), California Water Atlas 

(OPR and DWR 1979), and California’s Water Resources (Bulletin No. 1). 

• Frequency and quality of updates of California Water Plan (Bulletin 160), California’s 

Groundwater (Bulletin 118), California Water Atlas, and California’s Water Resources 

(Bulletin No. 1). 

• Number and implementation of interregional, inter-state, and international water agreements 

5-16

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 7 – Clarify State, Federal, and Local Roles 

and Responsibilities 

California needs to define and articulate the respective roles, authorities, and responsibilities of 

State, federal, and local agencies and governments responsible for water. 

In light of the growing role of local agencies and governments in regional water planning and 

management, State government should redefine how to empower and assist them to implement their 

regional water plans and programs. State government also needs an internal review of how State resource 

agencies do business and identify ways to make these agencies more efficient, effective, and responsive to 

Californians. Establishing an interagency water forum would strengthen coordination among State 

agencies responsible for water and would ensure that State agency strategic plans and activities are 

consistent with the Governor’s and State water policies. 

Action Plan 

 State government should lead an effort to examine where the mandates and jurisdictions of State, 

federal, and local governments and agencies conflict with or complement each other to streamline 

the roles and jurisdictions governing California water management. 

• DWR will work with the Governor and Legislature to improve DWR’s mission, functions and 

organization in relation to other State and local agencies and governments with water management 

responsibilities. 

Intended Outcomes 

• State develops a proposal to redefine the respective roles, authorities, and responsibilities of State 

agencies and local agencies and governments responsible for water. 

• DWR responds more effectively and efficiently to today’s water problems and supports integrated 

regional water resource planning and management. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Additional resources or a redirection of existing resources will be required to conduct a thorough 

review of DWR’s mission and organization and to participate in a larger review of all State water 

management agencies 

Implementation Challenges 

• Getting the needed direction and resources from the Governor and Legislature to undertake a 

comprehensive review of existing programs and evaluate alternatives. 

• Difficulty in maintaining staff morale during any significant reorganization. 

 5-17 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Performance Measures 

• Progress in implementing changes to DWR’s mission and organization to respond to today’s water 

problems. 

• Level of consistency among the strategic and capital improvement plans of State water agencies. 

• Level of participation of local, State, and federal water agencies and governments in the effort to 

redefine the respective roles, authorities, and responsibilities of State agencies and local agencies 

and governments responsible for water. 

5-18

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 8 – Develop Funding Strategies and Clarify Role 

of Public Investments 

California needs to develop broad and realistic funding strategies that define the role of public 

investments for water and other water-related resource needs over the next quarter century. 

State government needs to lead an effort to identify and prioritize funding strategies to finance regional 

and statewide water planning, programs, and infrastructure. State government needs to clearly articulate 

when, and for what actions, to use public investments from State and federal sources. California’s water 

finance plan must also recognize the critical role of local public and private funding based on the 

principle of beneficiary pays and the need for user fees. 

Action Plan 

 State government should use a benefit-based approach to develop long-term, reliable funding 

sources for water projects in a way that accurately characterizes benefits, uses public funds 

responsibly, and follows the principles of equity and environmental justice. 

• State leads an effort to develop broad and realistic funding strategies that define the role of public 

investments for water and other water-related resource needs over the next quarter century. 

• State agencies work with the Governor and the Legislature to develop policy and a work plan for 

implementing the finance plan of the CBDA, recommendations of the Commission on Building for 

the 21st Century and other efforts for financing water management and related activities, and 

develop policy regarding investment of public funds in private water utilities. 

• State agencies ensure consistency and coordination with the Capital Budget Planning Process, a 

five-year strategic planning process for capital budget planning across State agencies pursuant to 

AB 1473 and the three planning priorities in AB 857 (Stats. 2002; ch. 1016). 

Intended Outcomes 

• Greater linkage of State investments in water infrastructure and projects with the mandated capital 

budget planning process to ensure greater consistency in State policies used as the basis for 

investment decisions across State agencies. 

• Implement the finance plan of the CBDA and the recommendations of the Commission on Building 

for the 21st Century. 

• State’s water finance plan with funding strategies and criteria. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Developing the work plan can be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Implementing the work plan will likely require additional resources or the redirection of existing 

resources. 

 5-19 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Implementation Challenges 

• Resistance to implementing new water user fees or general taxes to fund the work. 

• Difficulty in defining and allocating benefits and costs among diverse sets of water users. 

Performance Measures 

• Level of implementation of the finance plan of the CBDA. 

• Level of implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Building for the 21st

Century. 

• Level and continuity of funding and variety of local, State, and federal funding sources for water 

management activities. 

5-20

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Recommendation 9 – Invest in New Water Technology 

State government should invest in research and development to help local agencies and 

governments implement promising water technologies more cost effectively. 

State government should work with California research and academic institutions, like the California 

Academy of Science, California Council on Science and Technology, the University of California, and 

other universities and colleges, to identify and prioritize applied research projects leading to the 

commercialization of new water technologies and better scientific understanding of California’s waterrelated systems. 

Action Plan 

 DWR will work with California research and academic institutions to identify and prioritize applied 

research projects. 

 State government should also encourage pilot projects and focused research incorporating 

knowledge and experience specific to each region. 

 DWR will work with other State agencies to invest in a broad and diverse scientific agenda that will 

fill the gaps of knowledge about California’s water resources. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Initiate and support research and development studies on promising water technologies. 

• Enhanced Science Program modeled upon and, integrated with, the existing Science Program of the 

CBDA. 

Resource Assumptions 

• For ongoing research and development, the State would need to invest annually to commercialize 

promising water technologies. 

• Consistent with CALFED Bay-Delta Program goals for science funding, investments in water 

science should be established within a range of 3 percent to 5 percent of total public funds (cost 

share) expended to help implement local and regional resource management strategies. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Uncertainty in continuity of State and local funding to maintain participation. 

• Participation and cooperation of local, State, and federal agencies on science and research efforts. 

Performance Measures 

• Number of initiated research and development projects. 

• Application of results of research and development studies in integrated regional water management 

plans. 

 5-21 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 10 – Adapt for Global Climate Change Impacts 

State government should help predict and prepare for the effects of global climate change on our 

water resources and water management systems. 

State government should work with and assist researchers to monitor, predict and prepare for the effects 

of global climate change on California’s water systems and the environment. DWR should develop 

alternative flow data to help State, federal, and regional planners test the potential effects of global 

climate change on different resource management strategies; and to help water facility operators test 

alternative reoperation strategies, including the State Water Project. 

Action Plan 

 DWR will evaluate management responses to potential impacts of global climate change on the 

State Water Project and California’s hydrology. 

• DWR will work with climate change experts to develop alternative flow data to help State and 

regional planners test potential effects of global climate change on different management strategies. 

• DWR will seek funding to establish a position to participate with ongoing global climate change 

studies and manage staff work related to global climate change research. Alternatively, existing 

resources may be redirected from other programs to establish the position. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Establishing a position to coordinate DWR’s participation in Global Climate Change studies. 

• Beginning implementation of the plan responding to the impact of global climate change on the 

management of the State Water Project. 

• Alternative flow data characterizing potential climate change impacts. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Establishing a position to coordinate DWR’s participation in Global Climate Change studies would 

require additional resources or redirection of existing staff and annual funding to improve data and 

analytical tools to more accurately predict impacts of global climate change. 

• Evaluating impacts of global climate change on the management of the State Water Project can be 

done with existing resources. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Uncertainty in continuity of State and local funding to maintain participation. 

• Participation and cooperation of local, State, and federal agencies on science and research efforts. 

5-22

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Performance Measures 

• Funding provided to California’s universities and local, regional, and State agencies for ongoing 

global climate change studies and manage staff work related to global climate change research. 

• Progress in implementing of the plan responding to the impact of global climate change on the 

management of the State Water Project. 

• Number of planning studies that evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the alternative 

management strategies and infrastructure they consider and select. 

 5-23 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 11 – Improve Water Data Management and 

Scientific Understanding 

DWR and other State agencies should improve data, analytical tools, and information management 

needed to prepare, evaluate, and implement regional integrated resource plans and programs in 

cooperation with other federal, tribal, local, and research entities. 

California needs better data and analytical tools to produce useful and more integrated information on 

water quality, environmental objectives, economic and equity issues, and surface water and groundwater 

interaction. A consortium of public and private entities, with State leadership and stakeholder input, 

should prepare a long-term plan to improve and peer review data and analytical tools, as well as to 

develop presentation and decision-support tools to make complex technical information more accessible 

to decision-makers and resource managers. DWR should build and maintain the Water Plan Information 

Exchange (Water PIE), an online information management system to assist regional and local agencies 

and governments, which would include information from locally-developed urban and agricultural water 

management plans and local general plans. 

Action Plan 

 DWR with regional input will develop a general checklist of issues, resources, data, and analytical 

tools as well as guidelines to aid regional integrated resource planning. 

 DWR will select and/or develop the analytical tools and data in support of California Water Plan 

Update 2010. 

 DWR will develop the Water Plan Information Exchange (Water PIE) for collecting and sharing 

data, and networking existing databases and websites, using GIS software to improve analytical 

capabilities and developing timely surveys of statewide land use, water use, and estimates of future 

implementation of resource management strategies. 

 DWR will participate in efforts by the California Water and Environmental Model Forum to 

develop and carry out a plan for long-term improvement of analytical tools and data for statewide 

planning. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Strategic plan for the long-term improvement of analytical tools and data for statewide planning. 

• Inventory of existing data and tools, resulting in identification of key data and tool gaps. 

• A conceptual analytical framework and analytical work plan for Update 2010 that is accepted by 

water stakeholders. 

• Begin implementation of elements of the Water Plan Information Exchange. 

5-24

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Resource Assumptions 

• Developing the long-term plan for analytical tools and data and the work plan for the Water Plan 

Information Exchange could be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Limited implementation could be accomplished with existing resources, but full implementation 

would require additional resources or redirection of existing staff. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Developing the institutional relationships with other local, State, and federal agencies necessary for 

integrating information between different planning efforts. 

• Adoption of data and data management guidelines, principles and standards by local, State, and 

federal agencies and programs needed to promote data and information sharing. 

• Inadequate resources to develop Water Plan Information Exchange database. 

Performance Measures 

• Progress in completing and implementing plan for the long-term improvement of analytical tools 

and data for statewide planning. 

• Progress in completing and implementing the work plan for the creation of the Water Plan 

Information Exchange. 

• Progress in evaluating the performance of alternative mixes of management strategies using 

multiple future scenarios and the evaluation criteria in Table 5-2 (Evaluation criteria for achieving 

water management objectives). 

 5-25 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 12 – Protect Public Trust Resources 

DWR and other State agencies should explicitly consider public trust values in the planning and 

allocation of water resources and protect public trust uses whenever feasible. 

State government should exercise continuous supervision over its navigable waters, the lands beneath 

them, and the flows of their tributary streams and protect the public’s rights to commerce, navigation, 

fisheries, recreation, ecological preservation, and related beneficial uses. 

Action Plan 

• DWR will protect the public trust when carrying out its role in water planning, including the 

preparation of this water plan. 

• DWR will protect the public trust in connection with the planning, design, construction, and 

operation of SWP facilities and other projects in which DWR is a participant. 

• Where DWR is the owner of a dam, it will make releases in compliance with Fish and Game Code 

section 5937. 

• DWR will take the public trust into account when acting as a party to a transfer, or when approving 

use of SWP facilities by others. Where approval of the State Water Resources Control Board is not 

required, as in the case of transfers of pre-1914 rights, DWR will consider all available information 

and protect public trust uses whenever feasible and reasonable. 

• DWR will develop consistent, department-wide guidelines and methodology for how it will evaluate 

its public trust responsibilities. 

• DWR will participate in efforts to coordinate implementation of public trust responsibilities with 

other State agencies. 

• DWR will assist the State Water Resources Control Board by conducting and presenting studies and 

investigations regarding the needs of trust resources. 

Intended Outcomes 

• DWR guidelines and methodology for how DWR will evaluate its public trust responsibilities. 

• Institutional mechanism for coordinating public trust responsibilities with other agencies. 

• Complete and balanced evaluation and environmental review and documentation for planning, 

projects and operations. 

Resource Assumptions 

• A portion of the necessary work could be accomplished with existing resources. 

• Full implementation would require additional resources and/or redirection of existing resources. 

5-26

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Implementation Challenges 

• Difficulty in quantifying public trust responsibilities. 

• Developing the institutional relationships with other agencies necessary for coordinating 

implementation of public trust responsibilities. 

Performance Measures 

• Progress in completing department-wide guidelines and methodology for how DWR will evaluate 

its public trust responsibilities. 

• Progress in implementing an institutional mechanism for coordinating public trust responsibilities 

with other agencies. 

• Explicit evaluation of public trust resources and values in DWR and other State environmental 

review documents and reports. 

 5-27 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 13 – Increase Tribal Participation and 

Access to Funding 

DWR and other State agencies should invite, encourage, and assist tribal government 

representatives to participate in statewide, regional, and local water planning processes and to 

access State funding for water projects. 

State agencies should include tribal water concerns and water uses in future water plan updates and 

should engage appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to resolve tribal water issues that are 

identified. 

Action Plan 

• State government engages tribes at all stages of State's water planning processes and provides 

assistance for meeting participation. 

• DWR will conduct outreach to tribal associations and California tribes seeking their participation in 

the California water plan updates, particularly for identifying and evaluating tribal water concerns 

and water uses. Some of the potential areas of interest identified through tribal outreach conducted 

in 2003 follow. 

• Tribal, State, and federal governments work cooperatively to ensure safe and piped potable water 

for all Californians, including its tribes. 

• Tribal, State, and federal governments jointly assess surface water and groundwater quantity and 

quality needed to support tribal fishing rights and cultural practices. 

• California Water Plan Update 2005 addresses tribal water rights in California and considers needed 

changes. 

• Tribal, State, and federal governments cooperatively engage in sourcing funds for projects to 

improve tribal water supplies and quality and ecosystem restoration. 

• Reinstate question for "Source of Water" and "Sewage Disposal" in the U.S. Census questionnaire. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Incorporate tribal water concerns and water uses in the next update of the California Water Plan. 

• Identify responsibilities of State agencies to address tribal water rights and other tribal water issues. 

• Safer and piped potable water for tribes. 

• Assessment of surface water and groundwater quantity and quality needed to support tribal fishing 

rights and cultural practices. 

• Fund sources for projects to improve tribal water supplies and quality and ecosystem restoration. 

• Reinstated question for "Source of Water" and "Sewage Disposal" in the U.S. Census questionnaire. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Limited outreach could be accomplished with existing resources. Greatly expanded outreach would 

require additional resources or redirection of existing resources. 

5-28

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Implementation Challenges 

• Developing the institutional relationships with California tribes and appropriate federal, State, and 

local agencies and programs necessary for integrating information into the California Water Plan 

Update. 

Performance Measures 

• Number and geographic representation of California tribes participating in statewide, regional, and 

local water planning processes. 

• Level of support among California tribes of the findings and recommendations of the California 

Water Plan update. 

• Successful implementation of tribal-related water policies, programs, and projects. 

 5-29 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Recommendation 14 – Ensure Environmental Justice across 

All Communities 

DWR and other State agencies should encourage and assist representatives from disadvantaged 

communities and vulnerable populations, and the local agencies and private utilities serving them, 

to participate in statewide, regional, and local water planning processes and to get equal access to 

State funding for water projects. 

Recent State policy establishes social equity and environmental justice as a State planning priority to 

ensure the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income, in particular those having 

experienced significant disproportionate adverse health and environmental impacts. 

Action Plan 

• DWR will incorporate environmental justice issues of precautionary applications, cumulative health 

impact reductions, public participation, community capacity building and communication, and 

meaningful participation into current and future California Water Plan Update processes and other 

DWR programs. 

• DWR will conduct outreach to disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations and their 

advocates seeking their participation in the California Water Plan Update, particularly for evaluating 

how they might be affected by different water management strategies. 

• DWR will monitor or participate in activities of other federal, State, regional, and local 

governmental programs and processes which may have environmental justice interests relevant to 

the California Water Plan update. 

Intended Outcomes 

• Reporting the results of outreach to disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations in the 

next California Water Plan Update, particularly the evaluation of how they might be affected by 

different water management strategies. 

• Increased awareness of EJ issues by DWR Program Managers and other local and regional planning 

efforts. 

Resource Assumptions 

• Limited outreach could be accomplished with existing resources. Greatly expanded outreach would 

require additional resources or redirection of existing resources. 

Implementation Challenges 

• Developing the institutional relationships with local, State, and federal agencies serving, and 

advocates for disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations to conduct outreach and 

integrate information into the California Water Plan update. 

5-30

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 

Performance Measures 

• Number and geographic representation of representatives from disadvantaged communities and 

vulnerable populations participating in statewide, regional, and local water planning processes. 

• Level of support among representatives from disadvantaged communities and vulnerable 

populations of the findings and recommendations of the California Water Plan update. 

 5-31 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

5-32

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-1 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

California Water Plan Update 2005 

References 

-----General plans. Various cities and counties. 

-----CEQA documents from various projects. 

-----. 1990, 1995, and 2000. Urban Water Management Plans (AB 797). Various agencies. 

-----. 2000. Assem. Conc. Res. No. 185--Relative to Native American tribal rights. stats. 2000 res. ch 150. 

-----. 2003. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for Purposes 

of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2001. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. 

American Sportfishing Association. 2003. Fishing Statistics: Demographics and Economic Impacts. 

www.asafishing.org. March 12, 2003. 

[AMS] American Meterological Society. 1998. Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification. Boston, MA. 2 p. 

Anderson SW and others. 2001. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 2000, Vol. 3. Sacramento: US 

Geological Survey. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to Augment Precipitation. 

Reston, VA: ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 81. 168 p. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 2003. Progress Report for America's Infrastructure. 

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm. 

[ASCE] American Society of Civil Engineers. 2003. Atmospheric Water Resources Management. 

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=149. 

[ASCE and EWRI] American Society of Civil Engineers and Environmental and Water Resources Institute. 2004. 

Standard Practice for the Design and Operation of Precipitation Enhancement Projects. Reston, VA: 

Forthcoming. 

Associated Press. 2003 May 25. Key elements of Colorado River water deal. 

Association of Groundwater Agencies. 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California. 

Awwa Research Foundation. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water (Project #241A). 

Beach D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. 

Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. 

Bednarek Angela T. 2001. Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environment 

Management 27:803-814. 

Belitz Kenneth, Neil M Dubrovsky, Karen Burow, Bryant Jurgens, Tyler Johnson. 2003. Framework for a GroundWater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program for California. Sacramento: US Geological Survey. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4166. 

Blomquist William, Edella Schlager, Tanya Heikkila. 2004. Common Waters, Diverging Streams; Linking 

Institutions and Water Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Washington D.C.: Resources for 

Future. 205 p. 

Bookman-Edmonston Inc. 1979. Water Resources Management in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Bookman-Edmonston Inc. 1994. Mojave Water Agency Regional Water Management Plan. Glendale, CA. 

Borcalli & Associates Inc. 1999. Water Needs Assessment. Mountain Counties Water Resources Association. 

Brunke H, Howitt R, and Sumner D. 2004. Future Food Production and Consumption in California under 

Alternative Scenarios. University of California Agricultural Issues Center. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-2

Bryant D. 2002. Salinas Valley Survey Sets Nitrate Practices Baseline. Western Farm Press (5 Dec). 

Burt CM and others. 2002. Evaporation from Irrigated Agricultural Land in California. Irrigation Training and 

Research Center, California Polytechnic State University. ITRC Report R 02-0001. 144 p. 

[Cal/EPA and others] California Environmental Protection Agency, The Resources Agency. 2002. Environmental 

Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). 

Calaveras County Water District. 1995. County Water Master Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Conjunctive Use Assessment. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Final Programmatic EIS/EIR: Water Use Efficiency Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Flow Regime Requirements for Habitat Restoration along the Sacramento 

River between Colusa and Red Bluff. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Initial Surface Water Storage Screening Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Net Water Estimates. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Phase II report : final programmatic EIS/EIR technical appendix / CALFED 

Bay-Delta Program. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Programmatic Record of Decision. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Programmatic Record of Decision. Conveyance Program. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration. 73 p. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Water Quality Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Water Transfer Program Plan. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2001. CALFED Bay-Delta Program: CALFED Primary Objectives. 

http://calwater.ca.gov/AboutCalfed/PrimaryObjectives.shtml. Accessed on May 6, 2004. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2002. Contra Costa Water District's Draft Project Concept Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2002. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, In-Progress Review, 

Initial Surface Storage Options Screening. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2003. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Phase 1 Investigation 

Report. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In progress. Common Assumptions, Conjunctive Use Inventory. 

California Coastal Commission. 1993. Seawater Desalination in California. 

California Coastal Commission. 2003. Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. 

California Commission on Building for the 21st Century. 2001. Invest for California: Strategic Planning for 

California's Future Prosperity and Quality of Life. Sep. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in 

California 1997. http://www.parks.ca.gov/. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2002. California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2002. 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2002. The State Park System Plan 2002: Initiatives for Action. 56 p. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in 

California 2002. 

California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. 1930. State Water Plan 1930. Presented to the 

California Legislature of 1931. Bulletin 25. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-3 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

California Department of Tourism. 2002. Domestic Leisure Travel to California 1998-2001. 

http://www.gocalif.ca.gov/state/tourism/tour_homepage.jsp. June 9, 2003. 

California Energy Commission, Integrated Energy Policy Report Workshop. 2003. Hydropower System--Energy 

and Environment. 

California Floodplain Management Task Force. 2002. California Floodplain Management Report. Final 

Recommendations Report. 29 p. Dec. Availability: http://fpmtaskforce.water.ca.gov/. 

California State Advisory Commission on Indian Affairs. 1969. Final report to the Governor and the Legislature. 

Sacramento. 

California State Lands Commission. 1993. California Rivers, A Public Trust Report. 334 p. 

California State University Sacramento, UC Davis, California Department of Transportation. 2001. Caltrans 

Stormwater Management Program. Stormwater Journal. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - 

Construction Activity. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and 

Associates, Resource Planning Associates. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - 

Industrial/Commercial. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and 

Associates, Resource Planning Associates. 

California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Handbook - Municipal 

Activity. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resource 

Planning Associates. 

California Urban Water Conservation Council. 2004. Rinse & Save Program: Report to the California Public 

Utilities Commission. 

California's Recycled Water Task Force. 2003. Water Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California's Recycled 

Water Task Force. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources. 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/docs/TaskForceReport.htm. 

Camp Dresser & McKee. 1999. Description of Existing Investigations and Data Relevant to the Owens Lake 

Groundwater Evaluation. Inyo County, CA. 

Carlson C. 2003 Jun 5. County Farmland Falling Victim of Urbanization. Merced Sun-Star. 

Carlson K. 2003 Apr 17. Valley Counties Among Growth Leaders Due to Internal Migration. Modesto Bee. 

[CBDA and others] California Bay-Delta Authority, California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of 

Reclamation. 2004. California Bay-Delta Surface Storage Program Progress Report. 

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2003. Developing Bay-Delta Program Finance Options - Framework & 

Issues Report. 26 p. Oct. Availability: 

http://calwater.ca.gov/FinancePlanning/Final_Framework_Issues_Report_9-23-03.pdf.

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2003. Annual Report. Availability: 

http://www.calwater.ca.gov/AboutCalfed/AnnualReport2003/AnnualReport_2003.pdf. 

[CBDA] California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004. Draft Finance Options Report. 361 p. May. Availability: 

http://calwater.ca.gov/FinancePlanning/Draft_Finance_Options_Report_5-11-04.pdf. 

[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture. Annual Resource Directories. 

[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2004. California Preliminary 2002 Census Results. Release 

Number: CDFA04-008. Feb 20. Availability: 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/pa/pressreleases/PressRelease.asp?PRnum=04-008

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. California's Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection 

(DWSAP) Program. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-4

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/chemindex.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water: Overview of Monitoring Results, 1994-2002, 

and an Indication of Dominant Contaminants. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/monitoring/results94-02.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Specific Contaminants of Current Interest: arsenic, chromium-6, 

manganese, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), perchlorate, 1, 2, 3-

trichloropropane. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 1998. Salinity Management Study. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Drinking Water Action Level, Chemicals with Recent 

Detections. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/AL/actionlevels.htm. 12 Jun. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Drinking Water Action Levels, Historic Action Levels and 

Action Levels for Contaminants Detected Infrequently. June. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Perchlorate in California Drinking Water: Status of 

Regulations and Monitoring. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Chromium-6 in Drinking Water: Background Information. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 2003. Chromium-6 in Drinking Water: Regulation and 

Monitoring Update. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water. 1993. Drinking Water into the 21st 

Century: Safe Drinking Water Plan for California, a Report to the Legislature. Sacramento. 443 p. 

Center for Clouds Chemistry and Climate. 2002. The Asian Brown Cloud: Climate and Other Environmental 

Impacts. Nairobi: UNEP. 

Center for Collaborative Policy. 2003. Draft Desalination Issues Assessment Report. California State University. 

CH2M Hill. 1994. Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan: Phase III Report Implementation Plan. 

Prepared for City of Fresno. 

City of Santa Monica. Stormwater Best Management Practices for New Developments. 

City of Santa Monica. Working for a Cleaner Bay. 

Clemings R. 2002 Jan 3. Fresno Growth Plan Limits Sprawl. Fresno Bee. 

Coleman DE. 2003 Jan 28. Toast of the Town. Fresno Bee. 

Congressional Budget Office. 2002. Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. Congress 

of the United States. 

Contra Costa Water District. 1998. Future Water Supply Implementation. 

Cooper A. 2003 Apr 17. Valley Dairies Face Beefed Up Water Rules. Stockton Record. 

[CPR] California Performance Review. 2004. Government for the People for a Change. Commissioned by the 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. 4 volumes. July. Availability: http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/. 

[CUWA] California Urban Water Agencies. 1998. Bay-Delta Water Quality Evaluation. 

Dallman Suzanne and Thomas Piechota. 2000. Stormwater: Asset not Liability. Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers 

Watershed Council. 

Delacy R. 2003 Raising Tuolumne Lake Level Explored. Modesto Bee. 

Devine D. 2003 Feb 8. Desalination proposed. Salinas Californian. 

Devine D. 2003 Feb 8. Voters weight water ballot. Salinas Californian. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-5 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division, Native Anadromous Fish and 

Watershed Branch. 2002. Sacramento River Spring-run Chinook salmon: 2001 Annual Report. 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. 2003. California's Plants 

and Animals. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/species.shtml. 

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, License and Revenue Branch. 2003. Sport Fishing Fees: By 

licensed year as of January 31, 2003. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/index.html. Mar 14, 2003. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. Population Projections. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. 2004. California's Annual Population Growth Exceeds Half a Million For 

Fifth Year. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/e-1press.doc. May 6. 

[DOF] California Department of Finance. 2005. California Population Tops 36.5 Million in 2004, Adds Nearly 

600,000 According to New State Demographic Report. Press Release. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-2_PR_Jul04.pdf. Feb 7. 

[DOI] US Department of the Interior. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement 

Agreement for purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

[DOI and MWDSC] US Department of the Interior and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1998. 

Salinity Management Study. 

Dowall David E, Jan Whittington. 2003. Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure. San 

Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Mar. Availability: 

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_303DDR.pdf. 

Doyle M. 2003 May 6. US Sees Big Water Problem in Delta. Sacramento Bee. 

[DRI] Desert Research Institute. 2003. Report on Nevada Cloud Seeding Program. Reno, NV. 43 p. 

Driscoll Fletcher G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. St. Paul, Minn.: Johnson Division. 

Duerr S. 2003 Apr 11. Our County's Next 100,000. San Luis Obispo Tribune. 

Dunne Thomas, Leopold B. Luna. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and 

Company. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Bulletin 166 series. Urban water use in California. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Calaveras County Area Investigation. Bulletin 94. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, San Joaquin 

District. Desalting in California. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. State Water Project Analysis Office. Water Deliveries from the 

SWP [online]. http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/deliveries/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1957. The California Water Plan. Bulletin no. 3. maps, 246 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1963. Alameda County Investigation. Bulletin 13. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1966. Implementation of the California Water Plan. Bulletin 

160-66. 143 p. Mar. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1967. Implementation of the California Water Plan Appendixes 

A through F. Bulletin 160-66 appendixes. Aug. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1970. Water for California: The California Water Plan Outlook 

in 1970. Bulletin 160-70. 170 p. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1974. The California Water Plan Outlook in 1974. Bulletin 160-

74. Nov. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1975. Vegetative Water Use in California. Bulletin 113-3. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-6

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1980. Ground Water Basins in California - A Report to the 

Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924. 73 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1980 through 2002. Public Water Systems Statistics Survey 

Forms. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California Water Plan: Projected Use and Available 

Water Supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160-83. 268 p. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1983. Eel-Russian River Water Allocation 

Studies. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1986. Crop Water Use in California. Bulletin 113-4. 116 p. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1987. California Water: Looking to the Future. 125 p. Nov. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1989. El Dorado Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1990. Amador County Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1990. Colusa Basin Appraisal. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993. Butte and Sutter Basins. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Northern District. 1993. Napa River Trial Distribution Program. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1993. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Atlas. Reprinted July 

1995. 122 p. Availability: http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/delta_atlas.fdr/datp.html. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1993. Water Recycling Survey. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California Water Plan Update 1993. Bulletin 160-93. Oct. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Central District. 1995. American Basin Conjunctive Use 

Project. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1998. California Water Plan Update 1998. Bulletin 160-98. 

Nov. Availability: http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/b160index.html. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1999. Groundwater Management in California: a report to the 

Legislature pursuant to Senate Bill 1245 (1997). Prepared by Carl J. Hauge and others. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1999. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2000. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation 

Progress Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2000. Preparing for California's Next Drought: Changes Since 

1987-92. July. Availability: http://watersupplyconditions.water.ca.gov/rep1987-92.htm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2001. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. Bulletin 132-00 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. In-Delta Storage Program Draft Summary Report and 

supplemental reports on operations, water quality, engineering, environmental, and engineering 

evaluations. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Sacramento. Bulletin 132-01 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2002. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Scoping Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Bay Delta Office. 2002. The State Water Project Delivery 

Reliability Report. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Update 2003. Bulletin 118. Oct. 

Availability: http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-7 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Update 2003 Draft. Bulletin 

118. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement and 

Related Agreements and Documents to which State and Southern California Agencies are Signatories. 

http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov/crqsa/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Draft EIR/S for the Environmental Water Account. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Fish Passage Improvement 2003: An Element of 

CALFED's Integrated Storage Investigations Program. Bulletin 250-2003. Feb. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and 

Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use 

planning. Oct 8. Availability: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/Guidebook_101003.pdf. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Water Desalination - Findings and Recommendations. 

Report to the Legislature (Stats. 2002, ch. 957). Oct. Availability: 

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/Findings-Recommendations.pdf. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Water Transfer Papers for Water Transfers in 2002 

Involving the Department of Water Resources. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management. 2004. After Action Report: 

2004 Jones Tract Flood Incident. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Office of Water Use Efficiency (OWUE). 2004. California 

Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather station data. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. In-Delta Storage State Feasibility Study Draft Reports. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program 

Guidelines for Proposition 50, Chapter 8. Public draft Aug 16 

http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/docs/Prop_50_Chap_8_IRWM_Guidelines_Public_Draft_081604.pdf

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Management of the California State Water Project. 

Bulletin 132-02. Jan. Availability: http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/publications/. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project Analysis Office (SWPAO). 2004. Water 

Deliveries from the SWP. http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/deliveries/. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Management of the California Water Project. 

Bulletin 132-03. Jan. Availability: http://www.swpao.water.ca.gov/publications/. Dec. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Flood Warnings: Responding to California's Flood Crisis. 

http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/newsreleases/2005/01-10-05flood_warnings.pdf

[DWR and others] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Bay-Delta 

Authority. 2005 Apr. CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Progress Report. Draft. 

Forthcoming. 

[DWR and others] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation, Contra Costa Water 

District. 2002. Draft Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Studies. 

[DWR and USBR] California Department of Water Resources, US Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. California BayDelta Surface Storage Program Report. Apr. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1993. EBMUD Water Supply Management Program. 

Egelko B. 2003 Apr 18. Deal to revive dammed-up San Joaquin falters, environmentalists, farmers stop talking. San 

Francisco Chronicle. 

[EID] El Dorado Irrigation District. 2003. FERC Economic Analysis Critique--El Dorado Hydroelectric Project. 

Prepared for EID by Mead & Hunt. 

[EID] El Dorado Irrigation District. 2003. Operational Modeling. Prepared by Hydrologics for EID. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-8

[EID] El Dorado Irrigation District. 2003. The Waterfront. 

Environmental Science Associates. 2003. Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant 2020 Facilities Plan EIR, District 14, 

Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. Whittier, CA: Prepared for County Sanitation District 14 of Los 

Angeles County. 

Environmental Water Caucus. 1998. Blueprint for an Environmentally and Economically Sound CALFED Water 

Supply Reliability Program. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. 

www.epa.gov/OGWDW/needs.html. 

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

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory (305(b) report). 

http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban 

Runoff Program--Final Report. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Our Built and Natural Environment. Washington DC. EPA 231-

R-01-002. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure GAP 

Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. 50 p. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological 

Review and Risk Characterization. 

Escalon Times Staff Writer. 2004 Jan 8. Farmington program web site goes online. 

Fetter CW. 1994. Applied Hydrogeology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. 

Fleckenstein J.H., M Anderson, G.E. Fogg, J. Mount. 2003 (in press). Managing surface water-groundwater to 

restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 

Focazio Michael J, Thomas E. Reilly, Michael G. Rupert, Dennis R. Helsel. 2002. Assessing Ground-Water 

Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifically Defensible Information for Decision Makers. 

US Geological Survey. Circular 1224. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1998. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Crop 

Evapotranspiration, Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. 300 p. 

Frayer W.E., D.D. Peters, H.R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley, Status and Trends 1939 to 

mid 1980s. Portland, OR: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 29 p. 

Freeze R. Allan and John A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 604 p. 

[FWUA] Friant Water Users Authority. 2002. Water Supply Study, Development of Water Supply Alternatives for 

Use in Habitat Restoration for the San Joaquin River. 

Giannopoulus James (State Water Resources Control Board), Karen Baker (Department of Toxic Substances 

Control). Percholate Contamination of California's Groundwater Supplies. 

Givati A., D. Rosenfeld. 2004. Quantifying Precipitation Suppression Due to Air Pollution. Journal of Applied 

Meterology 43(1038-1056). 

Goldberg Carole, and Duane Champagne. 1996. A Second Century of Dishonor: Federal Inequities and California 

Tribes. Prepared by the UCLA American Indian Studies Center for the Advisory Council on California 

Indian Policy. Availability: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ca/Tribes.htm (Chapters may be updated 

periodically.) 

Gleick Peter H., Dana Haasz, Christine Henges-Jeck, Veena Srinivasan, Gary Wolff, Katherine Kao Cushing, 

Adardip Mann. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. 

Pacific Institute. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-9 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

Governor's Advisory Drought Planning Panel. 2000. Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Dec 29. 

Availability: http://watsup2.water.ca.gov/contingency_plan.cfm. 

Great Valley Center. 2001. Economic Forecast for California's Central Valley. 69 p. 

Groundwater Resources Association of California. 2002. Perchlorate and NDMA: Rocket Fuel Contaminants a 

Serious Challenge to Drinking Water Supplies. 

Groundwater Resources Association of California, 2005. California Groundwater Management. GRAC, Sacramento, 

California. 

Hanak Ellen. 2002. California's Water Market, By the Numbers. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of 

California. 36 p. 

Hanak Ellen. 2003. Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California? Third-party Issues and the Water Market. 

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 196 p. 

Hayes P.D. and others. 1999. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 1998 Vol 3. Sacramento: US 

Geological Survey. 

Heath Ralph C. 1983. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology. US Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper 2220. 

Hess W.N. 1974. Weather and Climate Modification. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 842 p. 

Hildebrand Gary, (Los Angeles County. Department of Public Works). 2003. 

Hogue Cheryl. 2003. Rocket-Fueled River. Chemical and Engineering News 81(33):37-46. 

Howe K. 2003 Feb 17. Carmel River Dam in danger. Monterey County Herald. 

Hydrologics. 2003. Operational Modeling. Prepared for El Dorado Irrigation District. 

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. The Scientific Basis: IPCC Third Assessment Report. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Jahagirdar S. 2003. Down the Drain. Los Angeles, CA: Environmental California Research and Policy Center. 25 p. 

Jarma A. 2003 Apr 10. Nacimiento drawdown approved. San Luis Obispo County Tribune. 

Jenkins Marion W et al. 2001. Improving California Water Management: Optimizing Value and Flexibility. 

University of California Davis. 

Johns G. 2003. Where is California Taking Water Transfers. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 

129(1):5. 

Kasler D. 2002 Jul 14. Kern, a Hub of the Water Trade. Sacramento Bee. 

[KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. Water Age newsletter. 

[KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. 2002. Annual Water Supply Reports, 1998. 

[KCWA] Kern County Water Agency. 2003. Annual Water Supply Reports, 1999. 

Kelley Robert. 1998. Battling the Inland Sea. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Antelope Valley Water Group. 1995. Antelope Valley Water Resource Study. 

Kessler John S (Kessler and Associates LLC). 2003. Personal communication. 

Knowles Noah, Cayan D. 2002. Global Climate Change: Potential Effects on the Sacramento/San Joaquin 

Watershed and the San Francisco Estuary. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18). Availability: 

http://cirrus.ucsd.edu/~pierce/crd/globalwarming/knowles_cayan_2002.pdf. 

Kuminoff NV, AD Sokolow, and DA Sumner. 2001. Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities. Agricultural 

Issues Center, Issues Brief(No 16). Availability: http://aic.ucdavis.edu/pub/briefs/brief16.pdf. 

Laird [The Honorable] J (Assembly Member D-Santa Cruz 27th District). 2003 Jun 22. Commentary: SB 149 will 

not solve the Peninsula's water problems. Monterey County Herald. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-10

Lawton K. 2003. In the Year 2013... Farm Industry News. 

Lerner P. 2003 May 4. Whither the Lawn: What Southern California's Booming Population and Looming Water 

Crisis Mean for the Great Green Carpet of Suburbia. Los Angeles Times. 

Los Angeles (City of). 1992. A Consensus Approach to Water Rates. 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 2003. Urban Water Management Plan: Fiscal Year 2002-2003 

Annual Update. 

Los Angeles Times Editorial Desk. 2001 Oct 16. Why Land Retirement Makes Sense for Westlands WD. Los 

Angeles Times. 

Maddaus William, Gleason Gwendolyn, Darmody John. 1999. Integrating Conservation into Water Supply 

Planning. Bloomfield, CO: MWH. 

Madrid Carlos. 1988. Artificial Ground Water Recharge in Southern California. In: Finlayson AIJaDJ, editor. 

Artificial Recharge of Ground Water: American Society of Civil Engineers. 

McKinney J. 2003. California Hydropower System: Energy and Environment. California Energy Commission. 

Environmental Performance Report. Appendix D. Oct. 

McMahan Nicki. 1998. Preserving Agricultural Land in the Monterey Bay Area - Who's Doing What and How You 

Can Help. Landwatch Monterey County. 

McNiesh C. 2003 Sep 24. Stopping Seawater Intrusion. Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. 

[MCWRA] Monterey County Water Resources Agency. 1995-1998. Groundwater Extraction Reports. Salinas. 

Mead & Hunt. 2003. FERC Economic Analysis Critique--El Dorado Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for El Dorado 

Irrigation District. 

Mitchell David L and W. Michael Hanemann. 1994. Setting Urban Water Rates for Efficiency and Conservation: A 

Discussion of Issues.: California Urban Water Conservation Council. 

Monterey County. 1999. Draft Monterey Co. Existing Conditions Report. Monterey. 

Monterey County. 2002. Monterey County General Plan. Monterey. 

Montgomery Watson. 2001. Palmdale Water District Final Water System Master Plan. 

Moran D. 2003 Apr 4. Plans for desalination plants move forward. Monterey County Herald. 

Moran D. 2003 Jul 9. Water supply bill could be tied to affordable housing. Monterey County Herald. 

Moran D and K Ramsayer. 2003 Apr 27. River of Slow Return. Monterey County Herald. 

[MPWMD] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. 2001. Water Allocation EIR. Salinas. 

[MPWMD] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. 2002. Annual Report. 

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/annrpt02/annrpt2002.htm. 

Mullin J, Nady P. 1985. Water Budgets for Major Streams in the Central Valley California 1961-77. Sacramento: 

US Geological Survey. 87 p. 

[MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Local Resources Program. 

http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/sb60/old/sb60%5Frecycling.html. 

[MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2004. Annual Progress Report to the California State 

Legislature: Snapshots of the Past...Portrait of a New Reality. 

National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. Private Lands, Public Benefits: A Policy Summit on 

Working Lands Conservation; 2001 Mar 16; Washington D.C. 

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. 2001. Private Lands, Public Benefits: Principles for 

Advancing Working Lands Conservation. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-11 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Climatological Data California December 1997. 

Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. Climatological Data California December 1998. 

Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Climatological Data California December 1999. 

Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Climatological Data California December 2000. 

Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. Climatological Data California December 2001. 

Asheville, NC: US Department of Commerce. 75 p. 

National Research Council. 2003. Critical Issues on Weather Modification Research. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

National Water Research Institute. 2003. Seawater Desalination: Opportunities and Challenges-Workshop Report. 

Natural Heritage Institute. 1998. Feasibility Study of a Maximal Program of Groundwater Banking. Dec. 

Natural Heritage Institute. 2000. Designing Successful Groundwater Banking Programs in the Central Valley. Feb. 

Natural Heritage Institute. 2001. The Hydrogeological Suitability of Potential Groundwater Banking Sites in the 

Central Valley. 

Natural Heritage Institute. 2002. Estimating the Potential for In-Lieu Conjunctive Management in the Central 

Valley. Feb. 

Newlin BD, MW Jenkins, JR Lund, RE Howitt. 2002. Southern California Water Markets: Potential and 

Limitations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 128(1):21-32. 

Newton M, Crowley K, Curry D. 2001. Environmental Water Account, Need for Legislation Definition and 

Oversight. Sacramento: California Legislative Analyst's Office. 12 p. 

North American Interstate Weather Modification Council. 2004. Response to "Critical Issues in Weather 

Modification Research, A Report by the National Research Council". 

Obasi GOP (Secretary-General). 1999. Statement at the Italian Senate Hearing on Weather Modification on WMO's 

Activities on Weather Modification. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meterological Organization. p 8. 

O'Connell J. 2003. Down on the Farm. California Journal. 

[OEHHA] Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of California Environmental Protection Agency and 

The Resources Agency. 2002. Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). 282 p. 

[OPR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2003. Governor's Environmental Goals and Policy 

Report. Nov. Availability: http://www.opr.ca.gov/EnvGoals/PDFs/EGPR--11-10-03.pdf. 

[OPR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines. 

290 p. Oct. Availability: http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf. 

[OPR and DWR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research and California Department of Water 

Resources. 1979. The California Water Atlas. Sacramento: Distributed by William Kaufmann of Los Altos, 

Calif. 

Parsons J. 1987. A Geographer Looks at the San Joaquin Valley. UC Berkeley. 

Parsons L. 2003 Jan 15. Water project vote set. Salinas Californian. 

Parsons L. 2003 Feb 13. Cal-Am OKs Moss Landing desal plant. Salinas Californian. 

Parsons L. 2003 Apr 9. 85 Percent of Ballots Approve It. Salinas Californian. 

Pitt R., S. Clark, K. Parmer. 1994. Potential Groundwater Contamination from Intentional and Non-intentional 

Stormwater Infiltration. Upland, Penn.: Diane Press. 120 p. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-12

Pollock D. 2003 Mar 9. Uprooted Vines, Overturned Lives. 

[PPIC] Public Policy Institute of California. 2003. What Should the State Do About California's Infrastructure. San 

Francisco. 2 p. 

[PPIC] Public Policy Institute of California. 2004. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central Valley. 

Public Research Institute. 1998. The Boating Clean and Green Survey, California Coastal Commission. 

[PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. 

[PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Revised Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. 

[PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Study of Applied Water by Selected Crops. 

Watsonville. 

[PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Total Water Use Study 1998-2001 (preliminary data). 

Watsonville. 

Ramanathan V, PJ Crutzen, JT Kiehl, D Rosenfeld. 2001. Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrologic Cycle. Science. 

Reason Foundation. 1993. Water-Utility Regulation: Rates and Cost Recovery. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley. Basin Plans. 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Various regions. Water Quality Control Plans. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast. 2002. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Water Quality 

Issues in the Los Osos Community. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/WMI/LosOsos/FAQ1.pdf. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast. 2002. Watershed Management Initiative. 

Rourke Daniel (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District). 2003. 

Salinas Californian Editorial Staff. 2003 Feb 7. Votes 'Yes' on Salinas Valley Water Projects. Salinas Californian. 

Salinas Californian Staff. 2003 Jan 24. District to buy Central Valley water for $25M. Salinas Californian. 

San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2003. The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Contamination in the 

San Francisco Estuary. Oakland. 

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2002. Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan. 

Santa Barbara County Water Agency. 2000. Water Resources of Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara. 

Santa Clarita Valley Water Purveyors. Annual Report. 

Seals B. 2003 Feb 23. Water woes cause area to give desalination plants a second look. Santa Cruz Sentinel. 

Seals B. 2003 Apr 6. Sea water may quench Central Coast's thirst. Santa Cruz Sentinel. 

[SFPUC] San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Fact Sheet: Proposal to Rebuild San Francisco’s Water 

System. http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MSC_ID/6/MTO_ID/38/MC_ID/7/C_ID/543/holdSession/1. 

Shaffer B and others. 2000. Central Valley Wetlands Water Supply Investigations, CVPIA 3406 (d)(6)(A,B), A 

Report to Congress. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Bureau of Reclamation. 

Shapiro Neal (City of Santa Monica). 2003. Personal communication 

Sherman Leroy K, George W. Musgrave. 1942. Infiltration. In: Meinzer OE, editor. Hydrology. New York: Dover 

Publications Inc. 

Smith F. 1980. A short review of the status of riparian forests in California. In: Sands A, editor. Riparian Forests in 

California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Smith R. 1994. Sinking and Swimming in Water Policy. Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government 

17(3). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-13 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

Smithson JR and others. 2002. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year 2001. Vol 3. Sacramento: US 

Geological Survey. 

Sneed D. 2003 Jun 1. Aquifer troubles alarming Paso. San Luis Obispo Tribune. 

Snyder RL and others. 2002. Crop Coefficients. 

Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2001 Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP). Modesto. 

Stapley G. 2003 Mar 16. Dryspell for Wells. Modesto Bee. 

Starr Kevin. 2000. California: the Dream and the Challenge in the Twenty-first Century. Essay. Availability: 

http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_homepage.jsp Link: History and Culture of California. 

State of California. Water Resources Board. 1954. Placer County Investigation. Bulletin 10. Jul 

State Water Conservation Coalition, Reclamation/Reuse Task Force, Bay Delta Reclamation Sub-Work Group. 

1991. Water Recycling 2000: California's Plan for the Future. 

Statutes of 2001 (California), ch 642. (Senate Bill 221), an act to amend § 11010 of the Business and Professions 

Code, and to amend § 65867.5 of, and to add §§ 66455.3 and 66473.7 to, the Government Code, relating to 

land use. 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=97580825206+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Statutes of 2001 (California), ch. 643. (Senate Bill 610), an act to amend § 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, 

and to amend §§ 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, to repeal § 10913 of, and to add and 

repeal Section 10657 of, the Water Code, relating to water. 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20011009_chaptered.html

Statutes of 2002 (California), ch. 1016. (Assembly Bill 857), an act to amend §§ 13102, 13103, 65041, 65042, 

65048, 65049, and 66037 of, and to add §§ 65041.1 and 65404 to, the Government Code, relating to state 

planning. 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=97596026162+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Swift CC, Haglund TR , Ruiz M , and Fisher RN. 1993. The status and distribution of freshwater fishes of Southern 

California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 92:101-167. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco 

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Sacramento. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. A Guide to Water Transfers. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Addressing the Need to Protect California's Watersheds: 

Working with Local Partnerships, Report to the Legislature (as required by AB 2117, Chapter 735, Statutes 

of 2000). Apr. Availability: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/legislative/docs/ab2117legrptdraft032102.pdf. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Water Transfer Issues in California: Final Report to the 

California State Water Resources Control Board by the Water Transfer Workgroup. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California 305(b) Report on Water Quality 2002. California 

Environmental Protection Agency. 246 p. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. A Comprehensive Goundwater Quality Monitoring Program 

for California (AB 599 Report to the Governor and Legislature). California Environmental Protection 

Agency. 98 p. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California Nonpoint Source Program Five-Year 

Implementation Plan July 2003 through June 2008. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. Municipal Wastewater Recycling Survey. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/index.html. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-14

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission. 2000. Nonpoint Source Program 

Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 (PROSIP). 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2000. California State Water 

Resources Control Board Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2002. Municipal Wastewater 

Reclamation Survey. 

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 2001. Strategic Plan. 

California Environmental Protection Agency. 28 p. 

Taugher M. 2004 Jan 31. Los Vaqueros expansion debate hits boiling point. Contra Costa Times. 

Thompson Willard (Pacific Coast Producers). 2001. California's Water Woes. 

http://www.pcoastp.com/news/newslst_detail.asp?news_id=36. 

Tule River Association. 1999. Annual Report, 1998 Water Year. Porterville, CA. 

Tule River Association. 2001. Annual Report, 2000 Water Year. Porterville, CA. 

Tule River Association. 2002. Annual Report, 2001 Water Year. Porterville, CA. 

UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Cost and return studies on field, 

orchard, vineyard, truck, pasture, and rice crops. 

UC Cooperative Extension, Vegetable Research and Information Center. Vegetable Crop Series. 

Umbach K. 2002. San Joaquin Valley: Selected Statistics on Population, Economy, and Environment. California 

Research Bureau. 79 p. 

Umbach Kenneth W PhD. 1998. A Statistical Tour of California's Great Central Valley - 1998: Prepared at the 

Request of Assembly Member Dennis Cardoza. http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/09/. 

US Bureau of Census. 2000. Census. 

US Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave 

Plan. 

US Department of Energy. 1998. Performance Based Contracting Guide. 

US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NIOSH Pocket Guide 

to Chemical Hazards (NPG). www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html. 

US General Services Administration. Federal Water Recycling Program. 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=11574&n

oc=T. 

[USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Conjunctive Use for Flood Protection. 

[USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers, The Reclamation Board (California). 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin 

River Basins California Comprehensive Study. Interim Report. Sacramento. Dec 20. Availability: 

www.compstudy.org. 

[USACE and others] US Army Corps of Engineers, The Reclamation Board, California Bay-Delta Authority. 2004. 

Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration, California. Draft Feasibility Report 

and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Mar. Availability: 

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/civ/compstudy/docs/hamiltoncity_draft_eiseir/hamiltoncity_draft_eiseir_fu

ll.pdf. 

[USACE and VCWPD] US Army Corps of Engineers (Los Angeles District) and Ventura County Watershed 

Protection District [VCWPD]. 2004. Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 705 Report. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Operations Office. Report of Operations Monthly Delivery 

Tables. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/deliv.html. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-15 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Central Valley Operations Water Deliveries from the CVP [online]. 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/deliv.html. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project: Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Denver. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Incentive Pricing Handbook for Agricultural Districts. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse 

Study, Phase II. Final Report (Draft). 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 

Grassland Bypass Project, Executive Overview. 11 p. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. "Drought or Opportunity." Remarks prepared for delivery by John W. 

Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation; Dec 12; Las Vegas, Nev: Colorado River Water Users 

Association 2003 Annual Meeting. Availability: http://www.usbr.gov/main/news/speeches/03-12-12.html

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA). 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft Phase I 

Investigation Report, Initial Surface Storage Options Screenings. 

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture. 2004. NRCS Activities in the Klamath River Basin. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/klamath/. Accessed on May 21, 2004. 

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. State Soil Geographic 

Database (STATSGO) for California. 

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography and 

Geospatial Center. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (for Alameda, Contra Costa, El Dorado, 

Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, 

Yolo, and Yuba counties). http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/products/ssurgo/. 

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pacific Southwest Major Land 

Resource Area Soil Survey Office Region #2. Soil Surveys (of all or part of Alameda, Amador, Contra 

Costa, El Dorado, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, 

Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties). http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/. 

[USFS] US Forest Service. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. 

[USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. Grassland Bypass Project Contaminants Investigation. 

http://sacramento.fws.gov/ec/grassland.htm. 

[USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 105 p. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. National Water Quality Assessment Program. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 1995. Potential for Chemical Transport beneath a Storm Runoff Recharge 

(Retention) Basin for an Industrial Catchment in Fresno, California. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 2002. Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceedings, Sacramento, California, April 2-

4. Open-File Report 02-89. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 2002. Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing 

Scientifically Defensible Information for Decision Makers. USGS Circular 1224. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 2002. Ground Water and Surface Water, A Single Resource. USGS Circular 1139. 

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031. By 

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. Open-File Report 03-214. Availability: 

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of03-214/. 

Visalia Times-Delta Editorial Staff. 2003 Apr 30. Living with Cows and Living with People. Visalia Times-Delta. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-16

Walsh D. 2003 May 6. Federal Suit Aims to Halt Resort. Sacramento Bee. 

Water Desalination Task Force. (Stats. 2002, ch 957) California Water Code § 12949.6 (2002) 

Water Education Foundation. 1997. Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Study. 

Water Education Foundation. 2000. Layperson's Guide to the Delta. 

Water Education Foundation. 2003. Tapping the World's Largest Reservoir: Desalination. Western Water Jan/Feb. 

Water Resources Center (University of California). Biennial Groundwater Conference and Annual Meeting of the 

Groundwater Resources Association of California Abstracts; 2001. 

Weather Modification Association. 2004. Response to "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research," report of 

a review panel. Journal of Weather Modification 36:53-82. 

Westlands Water District. Annual Reports. http://www.westlandswater.org/wwd/default2.asp?cwide=1024. 

Westlands Water District. 2001. Annual Report 2000/2001. 17 p. 

Westlands Water District. 2001. Water Resources Inventory. Fresno. 

Whipple D. 2003 Analysis: Land Use Climate Change Linked. UPI. 

Whitcomb John B PhD, Bill Hoffman, Jane H. Ploeser. 2001. BMP 9 Handbook: A Guide to Implementing 

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water Conservation Programs as Specified in Best Management 

Practice 9. Sacramento: Prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council. 30 p. 

Whitcomb John B PhD. 2003. Urban CII Landscape Water Use and Efficiency in California. Sacramento: Prepared 

for California Landscape Contractors Association. 8 p. 

White B. 2003 Jul 24. Ground broken for Woodward water plant. Modesto Bee. 

Wilber Monique. 2003. Californians Without Safe Water. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources. 

43 p. 

Wilkinson R. 2000. Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems and An 

Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures. 

California Institute for Energy Efficiency, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Jan. 

Williams (Dr.) Brian. 2004. Assessment of the Environmental Toxicity of Silver Iodide and Indium Iodide. Cooma, 

NSW, Australia: Snowy Hydro Limited. 

Wolff Jane. 2003. Delta Primer, a field guide to the California Delta. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers. 

196 p. 

Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 1999. Watermaster Report 1997-1998. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. 

Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2000. Watermaster Report 1998-1999. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. 

Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2001. Watermaster Report 2000-2001. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. 

Woodman DJ, Provost JR. 2002. Watermaster Report 2001-2002. Fresno: Kings River Water Association. 

World Meterological Organization. Statement on the Status of Weather Modificiation, Report to the 53rd session of 

the Executive Council, Annex III. http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html. 

Yap F. 2003 Jun 26. Atascadero Development Must Include Cheaper Housing. San Luis Obispo Tribune. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-17 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

Web sites 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California County Agricultural Commissioners. Annual. County Annual Crop Reports [Web site]. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agcom/indexcav.htm. 

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

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The California Fire Plan [Web site]. 

http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergencyResponse/FirePlan/FirePlan.asp. 

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

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

California Polytechnic State University. Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) [Web site]. 

http://www.itrc.org/. 

California State University Fresno. Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) [Web site]. 

http://www.atinet.org/newcati/cit/. 

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

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

[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [Web 

site]. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. List of Drinking Water Contaminants and MCLs [Web site]. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/mcl/mclindex.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List [Web site]. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/DLR/dlrindex.htm. 

[CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Regulations and Guidance [Web site]. 

http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/regulations/. 

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

[CERES] California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. 2004. California Natural Diversity Database. 

California's Plantlife [Web site]. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/plantlife.html. Accessed on April 15 and 

May 22, 2004. 

[CERES] California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. Links to California county information [Web 

site]. http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/counties. 

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

[DFG] California Department of Fish and Game, License and Revenue Branch. [Web site]. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/index.html. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Grants and loans [Web site]. 

http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/choose/index.cfm. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan 

 References 

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 1-18

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage [Web site]. 

http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/northdelta/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. In-Delta Storage [Web site]. 

http://www.storage.water.ca.gov/indelta/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Office of Water Use Efficiency [Web site]. 

http://wwwowue.water.ca.gov/. Mar. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater laws and legislation [Web site]. 

http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/water_laws/index.cfm. 

[DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Statewide Water 

Planning. Agricultural and Urban Water Use [Web site]. 

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/wateruse/wuindex.htm. 

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

Environmental Design Library. California Planning Online [Web site]. 

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ENVI/calplan.html. 

[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ground water and drinking water. Perchlorate. [Web site]. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/perchlorate/perchlorate.html. Jan 23. 

Farmington Groundwater Recharge Program. [Web site]. http://www.farmingtonprogram.org/. 

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

[FWUA] Friant Water Users Authority. [Web site]. Friant Waterline: The Journal of the Friant Water Users 

Authority. http://www.fwua.org/

Giannini Foundation. [Web site]. http://giannini.ucop.edu/. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs. Groundwater Ambient 

Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program [Web site]. www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/. 

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

University of California Cooperative Extension. Agriculture and Natural Resources [Web site]. 

http://ucanr.org/CES.CEA.shtml. 

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

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigations [Web site]. 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri. 

[USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation [Web site]. 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft 

References 

1-19 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at the time of writing 

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service [Web site]. 

http://pwa.ars.usda.gov/locations.shtml. 

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

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Recreational activities [Web site]. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/state_list.shtml#California. 

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

[USGS] US Geological Survey. Water Resources Data and Water-Data Reports [Web site]. 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wdr/#CA. 

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

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

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

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
A Framework for Action

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
If you need this publication in alternate form, contact the Public Affairs Office at 1-800-272-8869.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft

Table of Contents

Volume 2 - Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Agricultural Lands Stewardship

Chapter 3: Agricultural Water Use Efficiency

Chapter 4: Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage

Chapter 5: Conveyance

Chapter 6: Desalination

Chapter 7: Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution

Chapter 8: Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing)

Chapter 9: Ecosystem Restoration

Chapter 10: Floodplain Management

Chapter 11: Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation

Chapter 12: Matching Water Quality to Use

Chapter 13: Pollution Prevention

Chapter 14: Precipitation Enhancement

Chapter 15: Recharge Area Protection

Chapter 16: Recycled Municipal Water

Chapter 17: Surface Storage--CALFED

Chapter 18: Surface Storage--Regional/Local

Chapter 19: System Reoperation

Chapter 20: Urban Land Use Management

Chapter 21: Urban Runoff Management

Chapter 22: Urban Water Use Efficiency

Chapter 23: Water Transfers

Chapter 24: Water-Dependent Recreation

Chapter 25: Watershed Management

Chapter 26: Other Resource Management Strategies

Chapter 27: References

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Introduction 

1-1 

Introduction – Resource Management Strategies 

A resource management strategy is a project, program or policy that helps local agencies and 

governments manage their water and related resources. For example, urban water use efficiency is a 

strategy to reduce urban water use. A pricing policy or incentive for customers to reduce water use also is 

a strategy. New water storage to improve water supply, reliability and quality is another strategy. 

Think of these strategies as tools in a tool kit. Just as the mix of tools in the kit will depend on the job, the 

combination of strategies will vary from region to 

region depending on climate, projected growth, 

existing water system, and environmental and 

social conditions. At the local level, it is important 

that the proposed strategies complement the 

operation of the existing water system. Some 

strategies may have little value in some regions. 

For example, because of geology, the opportunity 

for groundwater development in the Sierra is not 

nearly as significant as in the Sacramento Valley. 

Other strategies may have little value at certain 

times. For example, precipitation enhancement may 

not be effective during droughts. 

A key objective of the California Water Plan is to 

present a diverse set of resource management 

strategies to meet the water related resource 

management needs of each region and statewide. 

Chapter 2 of Volume 1 describes the importance of 

regional planning and presents general 

considerations for preparing sustainable integrated 

resource plans suitable for each region’s unique 

character. Volume 2 describes 25 resource 

management strategies (listed alphabetically in the 

adjacent box and in the articles following the 

introduction) that can be combined in various ways to meet the water management objectives and goals of 

different regions and to achieve multiple resource benefits. 

Planning a Diversified Portfolio 

As California changes, local agencies and governments continue to use different methods of managing 

water. Growing population, changing regulations, and evolving public attitudes and values are a few 

conditions that have influenced recent decisions about water. 

Strategies are the tools that local agencies and governments should consider when they plan. The basic 

intent is to prepare good plans that are diversified, satisfy regional and state needs, meet multiple 

objectives, include public input, address environmental justice, mitigate impacts, protect public trust 

Resource Management Strategies 

Agricultural lands stewardship 

Agricultural water use efficiency 

Conjunctive management and groundwater storage 

Conveyance 

Desalination 

Drinking water treatment and distribution 

Economic incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) 

Ecosystem restoration 

Floodplain management 

Groundwater remediation / Aquifer remediation 

Matching water quality to water use 

Pollution prevention 

Precipitation enhancement 

Recharge areas protection 

Recycled municipal water 

Surface storage - CALFED 

Surface storage - regional/local 

System reoperation 

Urban land use management 

Urban runoff management 

Urban water use efficiency 

Water-dependent recreation 

Watershed management 

Water transfers 

Other resource management strategies (includes crop 

idling for water transfers, dewvaporation, fog collection, irrigated 

land retirement, rainfed agriculture and transoceanic water bags)

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Introduction 

1-2

assets, and are affordable. Recommendations for planning and implementation can be found in Chapter 5 

of Volume 1. 

While the strategies are based on the best available information, 

DWR has not conducted detailed studies to verify this 

information on a statewide basis because the performance of 

individual strategies will depend on how they are combined and 

used in each region. DWR, with the help of an Advisory 

Committee, is developing a plan for more comprehensive data 

and analytical tools for use in the Water Plan Update in 2010. 

Additional analyses (described in Chapter 4 of Volume 1) will provide policy makers and resource 

managers more quantitative information on the performance of various strategies, interactions between 

strategies, tradeoffs, and potential groupings of strategies. DWR will consider several different future 

scenarios in the future Water Plan Update 2010 that can be used by planners to test the performance of 

alternative strategy mixes (see Chapter 4 of Volume 1). 

Organization of Resource Management Strategy Articles 

While the articles were written by different experts, the narratives for each strategy are organized 

similarly. Each includes: 

• A short definition and background material on the strategy. 

• A section on the current use of the strategy in California provides an overview of what is happening 

today. 

• A section on benefits includes a discussion on how much water, demand reduction, ecosystem 

restoration, or other benefits could be achieved statewide by 2030. Since the application of these 

strategies can vary widely among regions, the strategy descriptions are from a broader, statewide 

perspective. More detailed information on some of the strategies is also presented in the Reference 

Guide (Volume 4). 

• Estimates on implementation costs when available. In most cases, costs are highly dependent on 

where they are done and can only be estimated in broad ranges in these brief narratives. 

• Recognizes there are tradeoffs and challenges associated with implementing each strategy. Each 

strategy narrative includes a summary of major issues facing the strategy. For instance, with ocean 

water desalination there are issues with water intakes and brine disposal. 

• Contains recommendations on how the strategy could be implemented over the next 25-30 years to 

minimize its impacts, as well as how to promote additional implementation. Many of the 

recommendations are for the State to enact technical support to help regional groups make better 

decisions in the use of the strategies. The narratives do not include specific recommendations for 

funding of individual strategies since local and regional efforts will need to complete additional 

analysis before making decisions to proceed with strategies. General recommendations that would 

apply to all strategies are presented in Chapter 5 of Volume 1 rather than in the individual strategy 

narratives. Common recommendations include the need for monetary investment and consideration 

of public trust, environmental justice, and environmental impacts. 

While the resource management strategies are presented individually, they can complement each other or 

there may be trade-offs between strategies to be considered. For instance, water from a recycling project 

Resource managers need to 

examine all of these strategies to 

identify the best mix for their 

region. The more a region can 

diversify its portfolio, the more 

robust and resilient it will be in 

facing future unknowns. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Introduction 

1-3 

could contribute to ecosystem restoration and groundwater recharge, while upstream water use efficiency 

might reduce the opportunity for downstream recycling and reuse. 

In addition, the strategy narratives recognize the relationship of water and other resources. However, 

DWR does not have authority over some of these resources. As appropriate, these policies and programs 

are articulated in the various resource management strategy narratives.

Strategy Summary Table 

The Strategy Summary Table is a one-page overview of the 25 resource management strategy articles. 

The data and information presented in Table 1-1 and the Volume 2 strategy narratives was developed by 

DWR in consultation with other experts and stakeholders. The actions in the table are grouped by 

resource management strategies (top section) and essential support activities (bottom section), such as 

planning and research and development. The table presents the resource management strategies in 

subgroups, which include demand reduction, operational efficiency & transfers of water, water supply, 

water quality, and resource stewardship. Table columns include: 

• Left column – shows the Resource Management Strategies (top section) and Essential Support 

Activities (bottom section) that are available to regions to achieve various water management 

objectives. 

• Center columns show Water Management Objectives that could be achieved by implementing a 

particular strategy. The table shows dots (z) where the resource management strategy articles 

indicate that the strategies could have direct and significant benefits for various water management 

objectives. Note that most resource management strategies can help achieve multiple water 

management objectives. 

• Right column – shows a range of Cumulative Costs for each Option by 2030 of implementing a 

strategy or performing a support activity to achieve the indicated benefits by 2030 (not including 

ongoing operation and maintenance costs). Note that the costs in the table are displayed as the 

cumulative sum (over about 25 years in 2004 dollars) of expected costs by year 2030. Backup for 

each cost estimate are contained in the strategy narratives. Details on implementation and financing 

are presented in Chapter 5 of Volume 1. 

The dot placement can be viewed either horizontally for a given resource management strategy or 

vertically for a given water management objective. As shown (vertically) in the table, most of the 

resource management strategies can provide water supply benefits. Likewise, many strategies can 

contribute to improved water quality, environmental benefits and other water management objectives. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Introduction 

1-4

Table 1-1 - Strategy Summary Table1

Water Management Objectives 

Resource Management Strategies 

Provide Water Supply Benefit Improve Drought Preparedness Improve Water Quality Operational Flex & Efficient Reduce Flood Impacts Environmental Benefits Energy Benefits Recreational Opportunities Reduce GW Overdraft 

Cumulative 

Cost 

of Option 

by 2030 

($ Billion) 

 See 

narratives for 

backup 

Reduce Water Demand 

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency z z z z z z z 0.3 – 4.0 

Urban Water Use Efficiency z z z z z z 

Improve Operational Efficiency & Transfers 

Conveyance z z z z z z z z z 0.2 – 2.4 

System Reoperation z z z z z z z 

Water Transfers z z z z 

Increase Water Supply 

Conjunctive Management & 

Groundwater Storage z z z z z z z 1.5 – 5.0 

Desalination – Brackish z z z z z 0.2 – 1.6 

 -- Seawater z z z z z 0.7 – 1.3 

Precipitation Enhancement z z z 0.2 

Recycled Municipal Water z z z z z z z z 6.0 – 9.0 

Surface Storage – CALFED z z z z z z z z z 0.2 – 5.6 

Surface Storage – Regional/Local z z z z z z z 

Improve Water Quality 

Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution z 17.0 – 21.0 

Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation z z z z 20.0 

Matching Quality to Use z z z 0.1 

Pollution Prevention z z z 15.0 

Urban Runoff Management z z z z z z z 

Practice Resource Stewardship 

Agricultural Lands Stewardship z z z z z z z z z 5.3 

Economic Incentives 

(Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) z z z z z z

Ecosystem Restoration z z z z z 7.5 – 11.3 

Floodplain Management z z z z 0.5 

Recharge Areas Protection z z z z z 

Urban Land Use Management z z z z z z

Water-Dependent Recreation z 3 – 6% of total 

Watershed Management z z z z z z 0.5 – 3.6 

Other Resource Management Strategies Objectives vary by strategy (see narratives in remainder of 

Volume 2)

The following support activities are essential for successfully integrating packages of these resource management strategies. Compared with the costs of 

implementing the resource management strategies, the costs are relatively small for the essential support activities shown below (see Chapters 2 and 4 of Volume 1). 

Essential Support Activities to Integrate Strategies and Reduce Uncertainty

Regional Integrated Resource Planning & 

Management 0.25 

Statewide Water Planning 0.17 

Data & Tool Improvement 0.25 

Research & Development 0.25 

Science 3 – 5% of total 

 

1 Note that the resource management strategy estimates are not additive. Although presented individually, they are in most cases 

alternatives that will either complement each other or compete for limited system capacity, funding, water supplies or other 

component necessary for implementation.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Introduction 

1-5 

While most of the resource management strategies have the potential to contribute to multiple water 

management objectives, any individual site specific project or program within a resource management 

strategy may contribute to only one, or a few of the objectives. For example, it is unlikely that the 

agricultural land stewardship practices on a single farm will contribute to all the water management 

objectives (as indicated in Table 1-1). In aggregate, however, the combined agricultural land stewardship 

practices on many farms can contribute to all the water management objectives as shown in the table. 

As part of the strategy narratives, DWR prepared preliminary estimates of water supply benefits which 

can include water supply increases and water demand reductions. Those estimates are shown as ranges in 

Figure 1-1 for some of the management strategies. The figure shows that there is considerable capacity to 

provide water supply benefits between the eight strategies included in the figure. In some cases, the 

values represent a local or regional benefit and may not provide statewide benefits. In addition, 

implementing some strategies, like water dependent recreation or ecosystem restoration may increase 

total water demands. Many strategies were not included in the figure because their potentials for 

additional water supply are either incidental (small), or have not yet been estimated. Supply benefits will 

be better quantified during the subsequent water plan update. Some strategies do not produce water 

supply benefits. 

Figure 1-1 

Eight resource management strategies and their potential range of water supply benefits by 2030 

The water supply benefits of the resource management strategies are not additive. As presented here, 

urban water use efficiency includes reduction in both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses while 

agricultural water use efficiency includes reduction in only consumptive uses. As detailed in Chapter 3, 

agricultural WUE could reduce consumptive use by 0.7 MAF and nonconsumptive use by 2.2 MAF by 

2030. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Urban WUE

Conjunctive Mgmt & GW Storage

Recycled Municipal Water

Surface Storage - CALFED

Agricultural WUE

Desalination

Conveyance

Precipitation Enhancement

Additional Water Suppl

y

(MAF per year)

Low Estimate High Estimate

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Introduction 

1-6

The information and data in Table 1-1, Figure 1-1 and the Volume 2 strategy narratives should be treated 

as preliminary indicators of the scale and type of potential benefits and associated costs. In most cases, 

assumptions and methodologies are unique to given strategies and neither benefits nor costs are additive 

among different strategies. The costs, benefits, and negative impacts of actually implementing these 

strategies in real-world locations could vary significantly depending upon local factors and project-level 

complexities. Project-level considerations include the extent of the management strategies already 

incorporated into the existing system, proposed location of new strategies, operations, mitigation, system 

integration, presence of cultural or environmental resources. Therefore, local and regional water 

management efforts should develop their own estimates of costs, potential benefits, as well as other 

tradeoffs associated with application of any particular strategy. 

The table can help guide selective reading of the following 25 articles. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

2-1 

Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship

Agricultural lands stewardship broadly means conserving natural resources and protecting the 

environment by land managers whose stewardship practices conserve and improve land for food, fiber, 

watershed functions, soil, air, energy, plant and animal and other conservation purposes. Agricultural 

lands stewardship also protects open space and the traditional characteristics of rural communities. 

Moreover, it helps landowners maintain their farms and ranches rather than being forced to sell their land 

because of pressure from urban development. For this paper, “agricultural lands stewardship” means farm 

and ranch landowners – the stewards of the state’s agricultural lands – producing public environmental 

benefits in conjunction with the food and fiber they have historically provided while keeping land in 

private ownership. This paper describes methods used to encourage implementation of stewardship 

practices. 

This strategy is focused on agricultural land (cropped and grazed land) as defined by the California Land 

Conservation (Williamson) Act. Other resource-based land uses, such as forestry and mining, are 

addressed by the watershed management strategy later in this volume. Agricultural land stewardship can 

take place on a particular parcel of land, on multiple parcels in one landowner’s possession, or in an 

integrated manner on agricultural lands regionally or statewide. The goal of this approach is to promote 

sustainable agricultural practices with an economic return, while managing these productive lands for 

multiple benefits, including water management improvements. The box on the following page shows 

examples of agricultural lands stewardship practices. 

There are many ways that agricultural lands can be profitably managed. Crop lands can be managed to 

reduce or avoid stream bank erosion or stormwater runoff. Stream bank stabilization may include a buffer 

strip of riparian vegetation which slows bank erosion and filters drainage water from the fields. These 

measures can minimize or reduce the effects of agricultural practices on the environment and help meet 

governmental regulatory requirements while also reducing long-term maintenance problems for the 

landowner. 

Stream bank protection is often needed when stream configuration is modified. Use of willow mattresses 

helps protect these reshaped stream banks. The willows grow into a stable plant community that provides 

food, habitat, and overhanging shade which helps maintain cool stream water temperature for fish. Other 

fish friendly techniques, such as the use of logs and overhangs are also incorporated into stream bank rock 

to provide shade for fish. Some portions of the property may be left untouched to allow for natural 

flooding. Removing non-native plants, such as mugwort, vinca and other exotics, enables native plants to 

become established. Combining these measures along stream banks avoids the need to use 

environmentally damaging riprap. 

Other agronomic practices include planting cover crops to encourage beneficial insects and reducing or 

eliminating the need for pesticides, using recycled compost and other sources for fertilizer, and reusing 

waste water for irrigation. Farm ponds contribute to flood management and groundwater recharge as well 

as nesting and feeding habitat for various species of waterfowl and terrestrial animals. Farm ponds also 

can be used to help correct field drainage problems and capture wastewater. Agricultural pond 

management for water quality also may be a source of water for wildlife with appropriate water quality 

management. Wetlands can be created on farmland by incorporating rice straw into the soil after harvest. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

 2-2

Examples of Agricultural Lands Stewardship Practices 

• Wetland Restoration - Wetland acreage improves water quality by filtering out pollution and 

sediments. It also helps flood management by slowing the flow of water. Healthy wetlands are 

indispensable for recharging underground aquifers and providing specific wildlife habitat. 

• Shallow-Water Wildlife Areas - Shallow water areas provide habitat and water for wildlife. 

Temporary rice field habitat also provides resting and feeding grounds for waterfowl and 

shorebirds and related terrestrial species. Rice field flooding speeds the decomposition of rice 

straw, reduces air pollution, improves soil fertility and helps with the decomposition of agricultural 

chemicals. 

• Windbreaks – Rows of trees or shrubs along field boundaries help control soil erosion, conserve 

soil moisture, improve crop protection, provide livestock shelter and wildlife habitat, reduce 

drainage water, and increase carbon sequestration (removal of carbon dioxide from the 

atmosphere). 

• Irrigation Tailwater Recovery – Collection, storage and transportation facilities help capture and 

reuse irrigation runoff water to benefit water conservation and off-site water quality. [See the 

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency strategy] 

• Filter Strips, Grassed Waterways, Contour Buffer Strips – These are practices to reduce erosion 

and provide water quality protection, with some wildlife benefits depending on management. 

• Conservation Tillage – Tillage of soils increases water infiltration and soil water conservation, 

reduces erosion and water runoff, sequesters carbon, and improves soil ecosystem and habitat 

quality. 

• Noxious Weed Control – This practice establishes self-sustaining populations of “control 

organisms” to control or prevent weed infestations. Mowing, discing, plowing, and grazing, etc. are 

some of the practices that can be used for noxious weed control. 

• Riparian Buffers - Areas of trees, shrubs, and grasses adjacent to streams or drains help filter 

runoff by trapping sediments, nutrients, and pesticides. Riparian buffers also provide wildlife 

habitat. 

• Livestock Access – This practice restricts or controls livestock access to surface waters to reduce 

sediment and nutrient nonpoint source pollution. 

Fencing can be installed to keep cattle out of creeks. Installing fish screens on ditches prevents 

entrapment of fish. Water diversions can be designed to operate without creating obstacles to migrating 

fish. 

Crop idling is an agronomic practice to benefit the soil or for other management purposes. Crop idling 

may be used in conjunction with drought management programs. Drought payments to farmers could be 

used on farm-related investments, purchases and debt repayment, or may be spent or invested outside the 

community. Crop idling that is strictly for the purpose of water transfers is addressed in a separate 

strategy under the Other Resource Management Strategies article in this volume. 

 

Integrated on-farm drainage management (IFDM) can be use to protect and enhance farmland, wildlife 

and water resources in drainage problem areas. The goal of IFDM is to eliminate the need for discharging 

subsurface drainage water from farms into waterways or evaporation ponds. The IFDM system manages 

irrigation water on salt-sensitive high-value crops and reuses subsurface drainage and tailwater on 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

2-3 

Initiatives that Exemplify Agricultural Lands Stewardship Strategy 

• Proposition 50 Ecosystem Restoration Program’s Proposed Working Landscapes Grants. 

Allocated not less than $20 million “for projects which assist farmers in integrating agricultural 

activities with ecosystem restoration.” These funds could be used as “matching funds” with 

the Farm Bill, thus leveraging State money with federal money. 

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Conservation Security Program. Offers 

incentives and rewards to growers who implement resource conservation plans for parts or all 

of their lands. The Conservation Technical Assistance Program provides technical 

assistance to design and implement stewardship practices. The Wetland Reserve Program 

(WRP) offers incentives to restore wetlands in order to replace marginal croplands to help 

restore the biological diversity of plant and animal species, particularly, migratory waterfowl. 

The Grasslands Reserve Program provides rental payments and easements on working 

grasslands in exchange for protection against conversion t other land uses. The Farm and 

Ranchland Protection Program is used to secure easements to prevent conversion from 

agricultural land to urban land use. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides up to 75 

percent cost-share to reimburse participants for installing practices beneficial to wildlife. 

• Department of Water Resources Flood Protection Corridor Program. Grants for nonstructural 

flood management that enhance wildlife habitat or protect agricultural uses on private lands. 

• Department of Fish and Game Private Lands Management Program. Pays ranchers and 

farmers to improve habitat for wildlife through fishing and hunting. 

• Wildlife Conservation Board Rangeland, Grazing Land and Grassland Protection Act of 2002. 

Grants to prevent rangeland conversion to more intensive uses, and to improve grazing and 

wildlife.

increasingly salt-tolerant crops. Biological filters, drainage and tail water systems, crop management and 

salt harvesting in an evaporation system improve water use efficiency, provide for the use of concentrated 

drainage water, and eliminate the need to dispose of agricultural drainage water. This approach to the 

management of agricultural lands affected by saline water and perched water tables has primarily been 

used on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. It offers an alternative to retirement of agricultural lands. 

Agricultural Lands Stewardship Initiatives 

Agricultural lands stewardship is not a new concept. Under various names, it has been practiced and 

encouraged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service and various non governmental entities for many years. The California Resource Conservation 

Districts (RCDs), and other entities, specialize in working with private landowners in watershed 

management and coordination strategies. Governmental land acquisition programs are not agricultural 

stewardship because they take farm lands out of production. These programs are limited because they 

affect only small areas. Since these acquisition programs only can affect a small portion of agricultural 

lands, stewardship is increasingly considered by governmental and nongovernmental organizations for 

protecting natural resources while keeping the lands in productive private ownership. 

A range of private and public programs and initiatives already exist that fit the stewardship model (see 

box). Many public programs provide technical assistance on what crops to plant, and how to plant, 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

 2-4

BDPAC Working Landscapes Approach 

The working landscape is defined as an 

economically and ecologically vital and 

sustainable landscape where agricultural 

and other natural resource-based 

producers generate multiple public 

benefits while providing for their own, and 

their communities’, economic and social 

well-being. 

cultivate and irrigate them. Others provide 

technical help on wildlife-friendly farming 

techniques for wildlife and aquatic ecosystems. 

Additional types of programs cover soil, water, and 

habitat conservation planning. These efforts can 

identify suitable areas for farming and habitat 

management. Urban planning programs can also be 

used to avoid agricultural land fragmentation and 

permanent loss of valuable agricultural land 

because of urban development (see the urban land 

use management strategy). And finally, there are programs that limit or cease commercial agricultural use 

to promote wetlands and other wildlife sensitive areas, while keeping lands in private ownership and 

stewardship. 

The following examples describe a range of stewardship programs. 

The CALFED Working Landscapes Subcommittee 

The Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee established a Working Landscapes Subcommittee to advise it 

in the formulation of a working lands management approach for Bay-Delta Programs. The Working 

Landscape Subcommittee seeks to provide the committee with creative and practical strategies that: (1) 

enhance the sustainability of California agriculture; and (2) provide for participation of local 

communities, landowners and managers; while (3) significantly fulfills the CALFED Record of Decision 

to restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial use of the Bay-Delta system 

while minimizing harm to agriculture. 

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

The reauthorized national Farm Bill 2002 provides several new and traditional agricultural conservation 

programs that exemplify an agricultural lands stewardship strategy. All programs are voluntary. Many 

programs may include technical assistance, financial incentives, or temporary and permanent set-aside 

payments for various purposes. 

Potential Benefits 

Agricultural lands stewardship can be included as an integral component of regional integrated resource 

planning, including watershed planning and implementation. Agricultural lands stewardship can use 

stewardship practices to protect the health of environmentally sensitive lands, recharge groundwater, 

improve water quality, provide water for wetland protection and restoration, reduce costs to the State for 

flood management, and aid riparian reforestation and management projects. Lands can also be managed to 

improve water management, urban runoff control, water storage, conveyance and for groundwater 

recharge. These stewardship practices are attractive since they don’t rely on construction of major 

facilities. 

Agricultural land stewardship can be part of a regional strategy of urban growth management. 

Agricultural lands provide public benefits for floodplain management, scenic open space, wildlife habitat, 

and defined boundaries to urban growth. Stewardship provides the rural counterpart to urban efforts to 

encourage more water efficient development patterns. It also can minimize fragmentation of agricultural 

lands by development that can decrease productivity and harm the ecosystem. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

2-5 

Potential Costs 

Governmental and nongovernmental entities are seeking ways to secure funds for conservation practices 

that can be part of stewardship. In general, there is agreement by economists on three questions: 1) what 

are the direct costs for supporting stewardship programs? 2) What are the common ways to measure the 

costs for the wide range of environmental values? 3) What current level of investment is needed to 

sustain stewardship for the long term? 

Developing stewardship costs is similar to estimating costs of managing lands to avoid environmental 

impacts such as air and water pollution, or to provide wildlife habitat or secure food and fiber production. 

Stewardship is a way of doing business and it should be a part of an economic model that shows a return 

on investment by placing a value on healthy communities and their quality of life. In addition, agricultural 

lands stewardship helps avoid costs associated with urban land use. Not only are there cost savings by 

avoiding expansion of infrastructure, but there are avoided costs for flood damage reduction measures and 

urban runoff. These costs have not been quantified for broad reference and application. 

Some legislative proposals are seeking to provide annual payments for conservation benefits that may be 

part of private lands management programs. Experience and recent trends suggests that many California 

agricultural lands owners may participate in some agricultural lands stewardship programs if the annual 

rents they receive are about $100 to $200 per acre. Based on a DWR preliminary estimate, agricultural 

land use practices in California could cost about $5.3 billion by year 2030. 1 

Major Issues Facing Agricultural Lands Stewardship

There are major issues related to improving agricultural lands stewardship in California. There are issues 

about mixing economic endeavors with environmental goals and economic markets. Increased focus on 

this strategy is necessary to implement regional integrated resource planning and management, and 

demonstrate to the public measurable benefits of stewardship. 

Landowner Concerns 

Landowners are concerned that environmental programs that help growers improve habitat might attract 

more threatened and endangered species affecting landowenrs use of land. Thus some landowners are 

reluctant to be involved with government agencies, even though some of these agencies might help 

landowners to comply with real regulatory requirements. Federal Endangered Species Act assurances can 

only be granted by the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In order to 

determine what type of species must be covered and possible protective measures which may be required, 

surveys are necessary to determine what species are present. This only increases landowner concerns that 

they will be subject to increased restrictions if the presence of endangered species is verified on their 

property. 

 

1

 Cost estimate = $5.3 billion, determined as follows: Total cost is the sum of three components: (A) financial 

assistance, (B) technical assistance and (C) land acquisition where A = State of California estimate of unmet federal 

need for conservation cost-share programs = ($80 million/yr) X (25 yr until 2030) = $2 billion; B = State of 

California estimate of unmet need for field staff = (800 persons) X ($90,000/yr/person) X (25 yr until 2030) = $1.8 

billion; C = conservation easements on about 9% of 11.4 million total acres of farmland = (1 million acres) X 

$1500/acre = $1.5 billion; A + B + C = $2 billion + $1.8 billion + $1.5 billion = $5.3 billion. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

 2-6

Some landowners question how they can adequately maintain their privacy and, at the same time, satisfy 

the public need for information of farm activities supported by public resources. In addition, there is 

landowner confusion regarding what type of assurances can be provided. A perspective is that the 

economic return from certain land stewardship programs may often be less than the return from other 

options for land use, especially when urban development is an option. 

Lack of Information 

There is a lack of scientific, economic, social and environmental studies and monitoring of agricultural 

lands stewardship programs to evaluate their merits for ecosystem restoration, water quality, and 

agricultural economics for large and small agricultural operations. There are conflicting reports about the 

compatibility of certain agricultural lands stewardship and ecosystem restoration programs. In order to 

justify public investment in stewardship, there must be accountability in terms of monitoring. 

Complex Regulations and Programs 

Institutional regulations and programs are complex and sometimes conflict. Agricultural landowners may 

be discouraged when developing a stewardship program for multiple purposes such as water and soil 

conservation, ecosystems restoration, floodplain and wetlands management, water quality and land use 

planning. The regulations may seem intrusive to the private landowner but essential for those responsible 

for environmental protection and restoration programs. 

Funding 

California has traditionally received proportionally less funding for USDA Farm Bill’s conservation 

provisions relative to its agricultural standing, the value of the threatened resources and the population 

served. Although California farmers and ranchers provide more than 13 percent of the nation’s food and 

fiber, they historically receive less than 3 percent of federal farm conservation funding.2

 Commodity 

support programs influence stewardship management. California is dominated by specialty crops rather 

than traditional price-supported commodity programs. The funding inequities of the Farm Bill will 

become increasingly apparent in the future as production of California cotton, alfalfa, irrigated pasture, 

and possibly rice decreases and as specialty crops increase. 

Regional Cooperation 

Without regional cooperation, private landowners may be frustrated in reaching their management goals 

by adjacent operations or watershed activities that do not contribute to better management for 

environmental functions and values. These values include protecting and reestablishing riparian corridors 

or water quality within a watershed. 

State Policy Goals 

In general, land use is a local planning issue subject to local regulation. Statewide planning goals or 

restrictions may be seen as an intrusion on local governmental powers. Second, is the conflict between 

private property and public commitments. Many landowners prefer programs such as the Williamson Act 

because these are temporary land-use restrictions that landowners can ultimately “opt out’ of if they later 

decide to sell land to development and the asking price justifies the cancellation penalty. As a result, 

many landowners are wary that they may lose future economic opportunities by committing to permanent 

 

2

 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), 

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Conservation Security Program 

(CSP). 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

2-7 

restrictions. Likewise, the public may be unwilling to fund the necessary incentive (rental, technical 

assistance, etc.) programs essential to successful stewardship without a clear understanding of long-term 

benefits from such programs. 

Recommendations to Facilitate Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

The following recommendations can help facilitate an agricultural lands stewardship strategy: 

1. The State should collaborate with rural and agricultural organizations and coordinate with local RCDs 

to provide private landowners financial incentives and access to educational resources through public 

and nongovernmental programs that demonstrate the benefits of agricultural lands stewardship and 

ecosystem restoration. 

• Demonstrate that stewardship programs can help landowners be good stewards without 

compromising landowner rights. 

• The program should emphasize that it is voluntary, flexible, and incentive-based strategy. 

• Provide “success” stories to resource managers and environmental organizations to demonstrate 

that private stewardship can achieve desired environmental benefits. 

• Provide economic information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of land stewardship 

to compare with other investment choices. 

2. The State should create a directory that identifies the appropriate State agency for coordination 

between the State and federal agencies. Under the State agency coordination leadership, the pertinent 

agencies should provide staff support for landowners participating in multiple environmental goals 

and local conservation initiatives. The agencies include the California Department of Conservation’s 

Watershed Coordinator, California Department of Fish and Game, USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service programs, California Resource Conservation Districts cooperative program, and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies should identify opportunities to further institutional 

coordination, assist landowners in applying for grants funding, and help stakeholder planning and 

implementation. 

• Ensure consistent, dependable and adequate funding for stewardship assistance, especially the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the agency that has traditionally provided this 

kind of assistance. 

• Assist landowners with endangered species issues. 

• Document environmental results with accepted standards, criteria and protocol while respecting 

private land ownership. 

3. The State should help landowners implement agricultural lands stewardship plans. Greater State 

participation would help direct federal funds toward landowner participation and technical assistance. 

4. The State should evaluate the socioeconomics effect of agricultural lands stewardship, including a 

comprehensive assessment of: 

• Regional changes in agricultural production inputs and farm income (including income received 

from land and water payments) as the result of crop-idling. 

• “True cost accounting” of costs and benefits over long-term and including maintenance for 

stewardship management approaches. 

• Habitat restoration (including financial on-farm investments and increased recreational 

opportunities). 

• Annual maintenance expenditures 

5. The State should increase scientific studies to assess the environmental, ecosystem restoration and 

agricultural benefits of agricultural lands stewardship programs. The State should continue research 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 

 2-8

on sustainable agriculturally-based economies. The State should continue monitoring and assessing 

agronomic beneficial effects, including improved air and water quality, and habitat restoration and 

their associated costs. 

Information Sources 

• Private Lands, Public Benefits, Principles for Advancing Working Lands Conservation, National 

Governors Association/Center for Best Practices www.nga.org 

• Stewardship America www.privatelands.org 

• CA Department of Food and Agriculture www.cdfa.ca.gov 

• EPA National Agricultural Compliance Center www.epa.gov

• CA Department of Water Resources, California Floodplain Management Task Force, December 

2002 

• State of California, General Plan Guidelines, 2002 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

3-1 

Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

Agricultural water use efficiency efforts involve improvements in technologies and management of 

agricultural water that result in water supply, water quality, and environmental benefits. This narrative 

discusses some efficiency improvements, such as irrigation equipment, crop water management, farm 

water management, and district distribution systems. 

Current Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Efforts in California 

Agriculture is an important element of California’s economy, generating $27.6 billion in gross income in 

2001, according to the California Agricultural Statistics Service. In 2000, California irrigated an estimated 

9.6 million acres of cropland with about 33.7 million acre-feet of applied water. 

In California, growers and irrigation districts have implemented state-of-the-art design, delivery, and 

management practices to increase production efficiency and conserve water. As a result, they have made, 

and continue to make, great strides in increasing the economic value and efficiency of their water use. 

One indicator of agricultural water use efficiency improvement is that agricultural production per unit of 

applied water (tons/acre-foot) for 32 important California crops increased by 38 percent from 1980 to 

2000. Another indicator is that inflation-adjusted gross crop revenue per unit of applied water 

(dollars/acre-foot) increased by 11 percent between 1980 and 2000. 

The Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Water Management Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) and the 

Federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) established guidance for improving 

agricultural water use efficiency. Presently, the Agricultural Water Management Council unites, through a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 61 agricultural water suppliers and three environmental 

organizations in an effort to improve water use efficiency through implementation of efficient water 

management practices (EWMPs). The Council recognizes and tracks agency water management planning 

and implementation of cost effective EWMPs through a review and endorsement procedure. The 

agricultural water suppliers who are signatory to the MOU have voluntarily committed to implement 

locally cost effective EWMPs (see side bar). The agricultural water suppliers represent more than 3.8 

million acres of irrigated agricultural land (retail water suppliers) statewide (equivalent to 5.2 million 

acres of wholesale water agencies.) Some signatories to the MOU have submitted water management 

plans, most of which have been endorsed. Additionally, 24 signatories subject to federal CVPIA planning 

requirements have plans that have been endorsed by the Council. 

Growers invest in on-farm water management improvements to stay economically competitive. Likewise, 

local irrigation and water agencies invest in cost-effective, system-wide water management 

improvements. In addition to water savings, efficiency measures can provide water quality and flowtiming benefits. CALFED has a set of Quantifiable Objectives (QOs) – numeric targets of water savings 

that address CALFED objectives of water supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem improvements. 

Targeted Benefits (that identify by specific location where water use efficiency actions can potentially 

achieve in-stream flow, water quality, and water quantity benefits) and Quantifiable Objectives may be 

local, regional, or statewide. As such, State and federal programs can provide funding for EWMPs that 

are not locally cost effective, but address the stated objectives. 

Substantial financial support for research, development and the demonstration of efficient water 

management practices in agriculture has come, and continues to come, from the agricultural industry. 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies 

 Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

 3-2

Support also comes from the early adopters of new technology who often risk their crops, soils and 

money when cooperating to develop and demonstrate technology innovations. Further investments in 

research and demonstration are critical, especially in support of university-based research, field station 

studies, and cooperative extension demonstration projects. 

Improvements in the efficiency of agricultural water use result primarily from efforts in three areas: 

• Hardware – Improving on-farm irrigation systems and district water delivery systems 

• Water management – Improving management of on-farm irrigation systems and district water 

delivery systems 

• Crop water consumption – Reducing non-beneficial evapotranspiration 

Hardware Upgrades 

Due to system limitations, growers are often unable to apply the exact amount of irrigation water when 

the crop needs it. Water system improvements such as integrated supervisory control and data acquisition 

systems, canal automation, regulating reservoirs, and other hardware and operational upgrades, can 

provide flexibility to deliver the water when and where it is needed in the appropriate quantities. 

Most orchards and vineyards, as well as some annual fruits and vegetables, are irrigated using pressurized 

irrigation systems. Almost all trees and vines established since 1990 are irrigated using micro-irrigation. 

Agricultural Water Management Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs)

List A - The Agricultural Water Management Council has three classifications of EWMPs as follows: 

1. Prepare and adopt a water management plan 

2. Designate a water conservation coordinator 

3. Support the availability of water management services to water users 

4. Where appropriate, improve communication and cooperation among water suppliers, water users, 

and other agencies 

5. Evaluate the need, if any, for changes in policies of the institutions to which water supplier is 

subject 

List B - Conditionally Applicable Efficient Water Management Practices – Practices Subject to Net Benefit 

Analysis and Exemption from Analysis 

1. Facilitate alternative land use (drainage) 

2. Facilitate use of available recycled water that otherwise would not be used beneficially 

3. Facilitate the financing of capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems 

4. Facilitate voluntary water transfers that do not unreasonably affect the water user, water supplier, 

the environment, or third parties 

5. Construct improvements (lining and piping) to control seepage from ditches and canals 

6. Within operational limits, increase flexibility in water ordering by, and delivery to, the water users 

7. Construct and operate water suppliers' spill- and tail-water recovery systems 

8. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater (See conjunctive management and 

groundwater storage strategy in this volume.) 

9. Automate canal-control structures 

List C - Practices Subject to Detailed Net Benefit Analysis without Exemption 

1. Water measurement and water use report 

2. Pricing or other incentives 

For detailed information on the Agricultural Water Management Planning and Implementation 

process, implementation of EWMPs, Net Benefit Analysis and schedules, see the Memorandum of 

Understanding at AWMC Web site. www.agwatercouncil.org/aboutusmain.htm 

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A
California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft 

Chapter 3. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 

3-3 

Between 1990 and 2000, acreage with micro-irrigation in California grew from 0.8 to 1.9 million acres, a 

129 percent increase. 

Table 1. Trends in Irrigation Method Acreage (in million acres) 

Irrigation method Year 1990 Year 2000 Change from 

1990 to 2000 

Acreage % of Total Acreage % of Total Change in 

Percentage 

Gravity (furrow, flood) 6.5 67 4.9 51. - 16 

Sprinkler 2.3 24 2.8 29 5 

Drip/micro 0.8 9 1.9 20 11 

TOTAL 9.6 100 9.6 100 

Source: DWR 

Many growers use sophisticated automated 

irrigation systems for irrigation, fertilizer 

application, and pest management. Advanced 

technologies include Geographic Information 

System (GIS), Global Positioning System 

(GPS) and satellite crop and soil moisture 

sensing systems. These technologies allow 

growers to improve overall farm water 

management. 

The shift to pressurized irrigation systems, 

sprinkler, drip and micro-spray, often requires 

modernization of district water delivery 

systems to provide irrigation water ondemand. Increasingly, irrigation districts are 

upgrading and automating their systems to 

enable accurate, flexible, and reliable 

deliveries to their customers. Also, districts 

are lining canals, developing spill recovery 

and tail water return systems, employing flow regulatory reservoirs, improving the efficiency of pumps, 

and implementing conjunctive water use programs. With the advancement of both district and on-farm 

water management systems, there is a potential to improve irrigation efficiencies at both on-farm and 

district levels. 

Growers continue to make significant investments in on-farm irrigation system improvements, such as 

lining head ditches, using micro-irrigation systems. Many growers take advantage of mobile laboratory 

services to conduct in-field evaluation of irrigation systems. Once considered innovative technologies, 

these are now standard practices with growers. In terms of future improvements, the Cal Poly Irrigation 

Training and Research Center estimates that an additional 3.8 million acres could be converted to 

precision irrigation such as drip or micro-spray irrigation. While this may not reduce crop water demand, 

it could improve the uniform distribution of water, reduce evaporation, and thus allow the grower to apply 

less water to the field. Research on drip irrigation of alfalfa has shown water application reduction at two 

to three percent with yields increasing from 19 to 35 percent, an increase in productivity of 30 percent 

Example Irrigation Efficiency Improvement 

Kern County Water Agency reports significant 

improvements in irrigation efficiency. An analysis of 

data in 1986 compared to 1975 showed an 8 

percent improvement (from 67 percent in 1975 to 75 

percent in 1986). This improvement reduced the 

total applied water use in the San Joaquin Valley 

portion of Kern County by about 250,000 acre-feet, 

enough water to irrigate about 70,000 acres. Since 

1986 Kern County has added 61,500 acres of trees 

and vines. These now make up 37 percent of the 

total irrigated acreage. Nearly all of this new 

acreage has low volume drip irrigation systems 

installed. KCWA estimates the overall on-farm water 

use efficiency now is about 78 percent. It should be 

noted that the remaining 22 percent constitutes 

leaching requirement, irrigation system distribution 

non-uniformity, and cultural practices. These losses 

constitute recoverable and/or irrecoverable losses.

EE-RM-PET-100 C0MMENT 01A