California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future
Specify Objectives
What desirable performance characteris tics are required to solve the problem? Plans exist to solve problems. This is a crucial step in which stakehol ders identify what the objectives are for solving the identified problem. Specifying objectives allows alte rnative 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 th is, 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 basi s 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 plan s to work closely with the advisory committee and other interested experts as we document what ob servable 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

4-6Public 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 alterna tive responses, and compare performan ce. 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 thi ngs 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 sec tion “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 re cognize that uncertainty exists in all predictions, so we consider that uncertainty, along with other fact ors, 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 positiv e impact, we call this reward. In simple terms, all of our planning is about balanc ing 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 regular ly in our personal lives. (For example, Should we buy life insurance or disability insura nce? 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 pl anners have available to them when designing a response to the changes they are facing and may face in the future.

4-7California 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 pe rform 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 e xpected 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 deci sions 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 appr oach 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 manage ment 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 differe ntly. These scenarios are no t meant to forecast an actual outcome, but rather provide a number of plau sible yet different base conditions for comparing the performance of possible management responses. Ha ving multiple future scenarios can help identify management responses that perform well when comp ared across a wide array of base conditions that could occur in the future.

It is important to note that the scenarios presente d in Update 2005 are only part of the story of California’s water future. The scenarios represent different base c onditions 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.

4-8Public 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 futu re scenarios in the quantitative work for Update 2010 , it has not yet developed the analytic t ools to do so. To demonstrate how scenarios can be used to better understand the implications of futu re conditions on water management decisions, however, this section presents three “no action” scenarios. The narrative d escriptions of these scenarios were developed by water plan staff and the advisory committee. Numerical estimates of water demand 3 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 pl anning assumptions on a single future condition. The use of multiple future scenarios provides decision-ma kers, water managers, a nd 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 scenar ios are created by varying important assumptions about water and other resource conditio ns 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 vari ous 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 fu ture and developed three pr eliminary 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: populat ion 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 gr owth, higher agricultural and industrial production, more environmental wa ter dedication, and higher naturally occurring conservation than Current Trends (but less th an 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 in tended 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.”

4-9California 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 additiona l environmental water dedicati on (year 2000 level), and lower naturally occurring conservation than Current Trends.

Table 4-1 (Factors affecting regional and statewide wa ter demands and supplies) shows factors that may vary across scenarios. Each factor must be quantif ied. The availability and resolution of data varies widely. While key factors have been identified, mu ch work remains before reaching agreement on the relationships between the factors and the me thods 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 scenario s. 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 comm unity 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 ma de 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 occurri ng 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 con tinued 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 c ontinue 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 effi ciencies, businesses have been reducing water use over time, primarily by replacing old or broken-dow n equipment with high-efficiency machines.

• Agriculture: Farmers are increasingly using sprinklers and drip irrigation, moving away from flooding and furrows. Farmers produce more “crop pe r drop” through a variety of means, including changes in irrigation methods, although more improve ment is possible. Increased cost of land is shrinking agricultural land availability. Irrigated crop area (including multicropping) is slightly less than in 2000. Multicropping area incr eases significantly from the 2000 level.

• Environment: Environmental flows reach half way to the levels needed to meet the objectives of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restorati on 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 cite d in Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) sections 3405 and 3406(b). Urban development continues to encroach on functioning floodplains in some areas.

4-10Public 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 Ta ble 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 lit tle or no irrigation. An increase in population density means infill in existing urban areas and l ess 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 issu es. The cost of land is shrinking the availability of housing in Southern California.

• Commercial and Industrial: Due to market conditions, industr y has shifted from water-intensive processing to dry product assembly, reducing wate r use. Businesses have dramatically reduced water demand and have moved to machines with hi gh-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 produc ing 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 incr easing water efficiency. A healthy, efficient agricultural sector produces more per acre and d ecreases applied water per irrigated crop acre.

• Environment: Projects are designed to achieve multiple be nefits integrating ecosystem restoration with water supply reliability. Management actions are oriented toward the sustainability, restoration, and improvement of the natural infrastructure. Wa ter dedicated to instream use and aquatic life enhancement is yielding increased populations. Envi ronmental flows reach the levels needed to meet the objectives of CALFED’s Ecosystem Re storation Program and the objectives in the Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program. Wate r dedicated to wetlands reach the “Level 4” supplemental water supplies for National Wildlif e 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 r easons other than reducing water demand or waterrelated costs. Current plumbing codes and other ex isting 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 populatio n. 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.

4-11California 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 place s 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 wate r-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 produc tion. 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 re main at year 2000 levels, and the “Level 4” supplemental water supplies for National Wildlif e 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 wate r 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 commerc ial 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 re gions. A unique set of input values was assigned for each scenario to reflect the qualita tive narrative descriptions and scenario factors in Table 4-1 (Factors affecting regional and statewide wa ter demands and supplies). The demand estimator was run using visual programming software to assist collaboration betw een analysts, decision-makers, and stakeholders.

Future urban water demand was estimated individuall y for the residential, commercial, industrial, and public sectors. The demand for each urban sector was est imated 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 wa ter 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 we re combined with plausible values of per-acre crop water demand in 2030. Factors are included to descr ibe 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.

4-12Public 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 prel iminary assessment by Envi ronmental Defense (see Environmental Defense December 8, 2003, memo in Vo lume 4 Reference Guide) of unmet environmental flow objectives. These unmet objectives include the additi onal instream flows needed to meet the goals of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program in an aver age water year, the objectives in the Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Program, and the additional wate r needed to reach the “Level 4” supplemental water supplies for National Wildlife Refuges c ited 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 un its in More Resource Intensive (Scenario 3), as compared to Current Trends (Scenario 1). The num ber 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 Re source Intensive More Resource Intensive Population 34.1 48.1 48.1 52.3 Coastal & nort hern 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 ye ar 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 irriga ted 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 per cent from year 2000 to 2030 in the Less Resource Intensive scenario, and increases by about 5 percent in the More Resource Inte nsive scenario. Effective crop water use does not change in the Current Trends scenario as efficiency gains are offset by greater multicropping.

4-13California 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 ar ea 8.98 8.08 8.53 8.08 Multicropped ar ea 0.54 0.97 0.99 1.42 Effective crop water us e* 3.42 3.41 3.30 3.58 * Effective crop water use is the ratio of irrigation wate r 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 ad ded to year 2000 environm ental water use for 2030 environmental water demand; 100 percent of the flow s are added in the Less Resource Intensive scenario; and no additional flows are added to 2000 use in the Mo re Resource Intensive scenario. For this analysis, additional instream flows were assigne d to hydrologic regions by river reach, and "Level 4" refuge water was distributed evenly between the Sacr amento 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 Water a 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 dema nds for average water years is shown in Figure 4-2 (Net change in average-year wate r 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, stat ewide change in average-year water demand ranges between -0.35 million acre-feet/year and 4.0 million acr e 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

4-14Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

statewide changes in urban, agricultural, and envi ronmental 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 th at inappropriate use of statewide averages can ma sk significant issues.

While instructive, these prelimina ry estimates cannot be used as indi cators of potential future shortages because they describe what additional water demands California could face in 2030 without additional demand management beyond current po licies, and because they do not consider the future capability of the water management system to meet these de mands 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 w as 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 re gional 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, irri gated crop acreage was kept the same as year 2000, but agricultural water demand was lower than 2000 b ecause the effective crop water use was reduced by 9.3 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively.

The decrease in agricultural water demand was great er than the increase in urban and environmental water demand in the Current Trends and Less Res ource 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 ar ea as shown in Figure 4-4 (Net change in averageyear water demand for three scenarios by region, 200 0–2030). This chart shows that future changes in water demand will likely vary subs tantially 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 th e 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 th an in recent experience. Moreover, the challenges of flood management, protecting water qua lity, and managing water systems to help restore the environment

4-15California 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 f actors influencing water demand resemble the Current Trends scenario, we would need to offset an additi onal 3.6 million acre-feet of urban and environmental water demand per year with a combination of mana gement strategies to reduce demand, improve system efficiency, and redistribute and augment supplies 4 . 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 coul d 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 plan s supported by strong statewide water management systems.
If future factors influencing water demand resemb le the More Resource Intensive scenario, water management challenges would be even greater. Dema nd would increase in all areas of California; the demand to grow more crops for food and fiber woul d be greater than in the other two scenarios. Consequently, any reduction in agri cultural demand would offset only a portion of the increase in urban demand.

The demand changes predicted in the Less Resource In tensive 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 pr esent considerable challenges for California water management.
To help meet these challenges, DW R 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 demand s 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 scen ario) (derived from Groves, Matyac, and Hawkins (2005)) illustrate how water demands can change ove r the next 25 years based on different assumptions about key factors that influence water demand. Th ese 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 w ithout additional demand management beyond current policies. Further, they do not consider the future capability of the water management system to meet these demands under di fferent 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.

4-16Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

the response packages under each scenar io. More refined estimates of fu ture demand will be done as part of Update 2010 along with a comparison of performance be tween specific noteworth y 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 strate gies (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 ar eas of agreement and where short-term resource management strategies can work well regardless of th e 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 bette r 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 pur poses, 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 manage ment 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. Th is 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 develope d a list of qualitative evaluation criteria that represents the technical information required to compare response packag es (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 offe r a useful view of how significantly water demand can vary with even relatively conservative estimates of different ke y factors. This idea will be developed further and refined during the analyses for Update 2010 . The results from these prelim inary 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.

4-17California 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 highli ght 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 ch anges 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 thei r 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 si gnificantly, 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 he lp 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 leve l of intensity) relates directly to water use, water supply, and water quality. It is impossible to predic t precisely how land will be used in the future. By better understanding the uncertainties about how land u se will change in the future, we can plan to accommodate those changes more successfully.

Projecting current trends has been the traditional me thod for estimating future water demand. However, resource limitations and many economic , environmental, and social fact ors 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 acreag e over time. Advances in scientific understanding of the environment can influence methods for habitat rest oration 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 pr edict a large number of factors that can influence future urban, agricultural, and environmental land use pa tterns. Although it is difficult to quantify some of the specifics, water managers still can prepare for th ese future uncertainties by formulating a diversified portfolio of complementary resource management strategies.

4-18Public 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 u se changes will occur in a sp ecific 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 th e 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 w ill certainly be more or less than this estimate. More people leads to more urban development, wh ich often changes urban runoff characteristics and water quality. The Department of Parks and Recreati on expects that more people means more demand for water-based recreation, some of which affect lakes th at 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 fragmente d and segregated land uses, low-density residential and strip commercial development, and a lack of conn ectivity within and between neighborhoods that use large quantities of land per capita. This style of deve lopment has led to consum ption 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, alte r streamflow and waters hed 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 re liable water supply is a major challenge facing local agencies and governments, especially in light of ot her challenges like potential water quality degradation that tend to diminish water supply (see Volume 4 Reference Guide article “G eneral 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, historica lly 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, efficien t, 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

4-19California 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 agricultura l products sold, 8 of the nation’s top 10 producing counties are in California. The state grows more than ha lf 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 Califor nia has been gradually shifting to urban or other nonagricultural uses. From 1990 to 2000, about 500,0 00 acres were converted from agricultural to urban or nonagricultural uses. Population growth and n onagricultural 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 w ould 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 pr oduction over the next 30 years. Yield growth is expected to occur as a result of technological a dvances 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 ag ricultural 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 agricultura l 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 sustai nable 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 y ears of adequate water supply if surface water supplies are greatly curtailed during dry years and affo rdable groundwater is not available. Growers of permanent crops are particularly at risk. Even grow ers 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 wate r demand is significantly driven by the crop mix grown in the state. Agricultural operations are busin esses 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

4-20Public 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 ag ricultural 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 produc tion 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 unde r which agricultural production in California is sufficient to assure that the state is a net food export er 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 Issu es Center prepared “Future Food Production and Consumption in California under Alternative Scenar ios” (see Volume 4 Reference Guide). The report concluded that, based on economics, California agricu lture will continue to pr oduce substantial quantities of food crops. The value of California food producti on 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 ma nagement 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 qua lity 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 mo re reliable, better quality water supply.

The major issues facing ecosystems statewide are aqua tic 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 temper ature, 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 s upplies, and energy production).

In rural areas, the main pollution sources often co me directly from land use practices both present and past. As an example, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project notes the adverse impact that hydraulic

4-21California 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 s till having on numerous Ce ntral 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 waters heds 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 in terfere 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 chan ges 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 sy stems to dilute the desalination salt concentrates resulting prior to discharge to the ocean.

How these factors will continue to influence environm ental land use is unknown. A current challenge is to protect and improve the environment given the conti nued 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 planni ng 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 st rictest safety measures are in place. Sooner or later, all of these extreme even ts will strike somewhere in California. The major uncertainties are when and where they will strike a nd how severe they will be. Will a future drought be similar to a past drought or will it be longer and mo re severe? Will the next earthquake cause even greater damage? Will the next levee failure in the Sacr amento-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 ass essments 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 Inte grity Program was established to help protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from flooding a nd the Delta’s ecosystem and water supply functions

4-22Public 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 ma intenance 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 envi ronmental impacts; and the devel opment 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 Sacram ento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs

The following sources of sudden change should be co nsidered 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 hydr ologic record of the past century may not be a reasonable measure of future climate conditions. The state's available hydr ologic 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 waters heds 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 mountai n areas are generally intense thunderstorms.

A major portion of California’s water supply is vu lnerable to levee failure and flooding in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Delta compri ses 70 islands and tracts, most of which have land surfaces at or below mean sea level. Subsidence is oc curring on most of the islands which serves to lower their land surface with time and thereby increases th e 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 th reat 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 o ccurred due to a problem with piping or with the levee’s foundation, although the ex act 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 sa line ocean water to be drawn into the Delta when an island floods. Water supply pump ing operations in the Delta for the State Water Project (SWP),

4-23California 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 th e 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. Si nce 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 apprai sed 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 vulnera ble 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. Figur e 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 r unoff 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

4-24Public 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 drin king 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 Cent ral Valley Project is more than 50 years old, and some local facilities are more than a century old. Some of their fac ilities 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 c oordinated operations for op timal, 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 failu re 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 wate r supply operations. DWR and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) took the following actions immedi ately 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, rec onstructed and repaired damaged levees, and removed flood water from the tract.
Chemical Spills Truck and railroad tanker accident s and other unintentional spills can release toxic chemicals into California’s rivers and other conveyance facilities. Fo r 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 lo cation could shut down a community’s drinking water supply for an extended period of time.
Intentional Disruption Vandalism is defined as malicious destruction of prop erty. Vandalism to water infrastructure could be acts like defacing concrete structures and important no tice boards, stealing copper fittings and aluminum handrails, shooting at a turnout structure gate, dum ping pesticides or other chemicals into California waterways, or dumping heavy material into the aquedu ct. 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 Ca nal in the early 1990s revealed more than 80 abandoned vehicles.

4-25California 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 lo ss 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 sy stems are SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) controlled through the Internet. The operational costs of these modern systems are low because of remote access capabilit y 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, h as 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 ch anges could have major implica tions for water supply, flood management, and ecosystem health. The prospect of significant climate change warrants examination of how California’s water infrastructure and natural sy stems 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, an d extremes that are different from what current water systems were designed to manage,

• may occur too rapidly to allow sufficient time and information to perm it 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 polic y. 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).

4-26Public 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 climat e 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 chang es 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 pr edicted by global climate models for this century.

Figure 4-7 Model simulation of potential changes in snowpack during 21 st 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 a dditional flood control space in reservoirs.
Hydrologic Pattern Historical records reveal long-term changes in the patt ern of April–July runoff; an example is plotted here for the Sacramento River (Figure 4-8 Sacramento Ri ver April-July Runoff in Percent of Water Year Runoff). From the 1950s to the present, the percen tage 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 ri ver 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

4-27California 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 leve l 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 20 th 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 21 st century due to climate change (IPCC 2001). Sea le vel 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 tida l 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 s ea 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 salin ity 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 ri se 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 ev ents, it could affect current reser voir flood control operations and other flood management activities and infrastructur e. 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 temperat ures, 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 wi ll 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 initiati ves on how State government is to address climate change. At present, the extent of climate change im pacts is uncertain. As more sophisticated tools are developed and more studies are completed, better quantification may be possible.

4-28Public 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 incl ude elements of both gr adual and sudden change. Evolving policies, regulations, laws and social a ttitudes have dramatically altered California’s water management over the past few decades. Some exam ples include the CVPIA and State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1641, which require more wate r 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 chang es in policies, regulations, laws, and social attitudes will affect future water management. However, ther e 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 wher e, when, and what might happen emphasize the value of enhancing regional self-sufficiency and strengtheni ng 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 characteristi cs 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 compa tibility of the projects. (See Volume 2 Chapter 19 System Reoperation and Chapte r 25 Watershed Management.)
Changing Plumbing Codes Future changes in plumbing codes, like the one for in stalling ultralow flush toilets, could allow use of innovative water fixtures to conserve water. Code ch anges 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 impa ir 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 ve ry young, who are more vulnerable to drinking water contaminants. Information on pollutant sources and thei r 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 grow ing demand from consumers, expressed in opinion surveys as well as in the marketpl ace, for higher quality water.

4-29California 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 wa ter 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 a ll 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 fact ors. This idea will be deve loped 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 significan tly throughout the state by 2030. These kinds of changes are best managed using in tegrated regional water management supported by strong statewide water management systems.

4-30Public 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 th e 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 h ealth goals when faced with different circumstances?

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

• How do different approaches to prepare for the fu ture compare to one another in light of our objectives and available resources? What are the expected tradeoffs?

4-31California 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 unders tanding, 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 influe nced 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 chan ge with regards to temperature during the growing season for rice?) Our entire understanding of how the water management system functions can be described using obser vable 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)

4-32Public 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 Resource s (DWR) published the California Water Plan in 1957, analyses for subsequent water plan updates have c ontinued to evolve to meet changing needs for information. Early in the series of updates, the repor ts included water budgets (water uses, supplies, and shortages) for a typical (trend-based) average wa ter 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 comprehensiv e analysis that includes economics, water quality, and environmental and social consid erations rather than using water budgets to show a gap between future uses and supplies. Considering the large amou nt of work required to include these changes, the analytical work could not be completed for th is water plan update. Without this analysis, Update 2005 lacks the information to make the types of region-sp ecific 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 drou ght 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 wate r demands and supplies for each response package by including economics, water quality, an d environmental and social considerations.

4-33California 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 comparis on 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 anal ytical tools. Data and modeling results will be presented in the water portfolio format (see Volume 3).

4-34Public 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 s hould identify the technical objectives, roles, and responsibilities of major data collection efforts and analytical tools. 3. Strategic documents should un dergo 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 shoul d be documented. 7. Model applications should include explanat ory and self-critical discussions of results. 8. All data, models, and major re ports 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 mode ls 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 framewo rk, including protocols for data documentation and updating, and documen tation of limitations.

Coverage 12. The spatial coverage of the basic data a nd analytical framework should be statewide and encompass a wide variety of water management options and processes. 13. Local and regional water management and r esources should be explicitly represented to allow consistency among local, regional, and statewide studies.

4-35California 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 u se should be developed and adhered to. 16. Major analytical products should undergo revi ew 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.

4-36Public 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 ex ample, population, popula tion 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 sy stem. 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 va rious constraints, competing demands, and resource strategies. For example, desired water quality and de sired 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, ec onomy, changes in water use efficiency, population growth, and other factors. Consum ptive demands include activities that deplete water from the water management system by evaporation, evapotranspira tion, 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 includ es 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

4-37California 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, enviro nmental benefits, water re liability, 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, floodplai ns, lakes, rivers, and groundwater basins.

4-38Public 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 indep endently 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 Current Level Environmental Water-Land Based

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

4-39California 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 Intensivethousand 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.

4-40Public 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 Intensivethousand 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.

4-41California 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

4-42Public 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, packag ed 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 objec tives. The future demands and objectives will be determined for each of th e 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 strategi es at implementation levels broadly supported by stakeholders. It consists of ma nagement 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 in clude 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.

4-43California 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/compi lation 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 Fisherie s (populations and habitat) Native habitat/vegetation Wildlife (populations and habitat) Data monitoring/compilation, biological opinion, and system analysis

Energy benefits Energy availability Data monitoring/compi lation and system analysis Recreational opportunities Quantity, quality and variety of waterbased recreation Data monitoring/compi lation and system analysis

Reduce groundwater overdraft Salinity intrusion Subsidence Groundwater levels (long term) Data monitoring/compi lation 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

4-44Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Box 4-7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Sacram ento-San Joaquin River Delta Levee Programs The Department of Water Resources’ Delta Su isun Marsh Office is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of its Delta levee rehabilitation and main tenance 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 failu re, such as water supply disruption, ecosystem damage, land use loss, economic losses, etc.;

• Identify and prioritize long- and short-term acti ons that can be taken to reduce the risk and consequences of levee failure.

Additional information about the comprehensive ev aluation can be obtained from DWR’s Delta Suisun Marsh Office.

4-45California 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 dur ing dry periods and associated degradation of export water quality. A Delta levee failure durin g 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.

4-46Public 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

4-47California 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)

4-48Public 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 h as developed and is implementing a climate change research plan for California. The PIER Program est ablished 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 mitig ation strategies for California.

In support of future updates of the California Water Pl an, 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 projecti ons for the state using regional climate models at levels of resolution appropriate for water resources im pact 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.

4-49California 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 prelim inary 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 dema nd data in an integrated economic-engineering framework for California’s inter-tied water system (c overing 92 percent of California’s population and 88 percent of its irrigated area). In developing the co mputer model, significant weaknesses and gaps in water data were identified and documente d. 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 adva nced data management, documentation, and analysis that may be useful for future statewide and regi onal 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).

4-50Public 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)

4-51California 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

4-52Public 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 YearGolden Gate Gage 9414290 (Feet)

-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20NGVD 1929 Datum (Feet) Annual Average Tide

19-Year Mean Tide

4-53California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 4 Preparing for an Uncertain Future

4-54Public 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 Ag ing Statewide Water Infrastructure .........................5-11 Recommendation 5 – Implement the CALFED Program....................................................................5-13 Recommendation 6 – Provide Effective State G overnment 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 Mana gement 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 achie vement of water management objectives .....................5-3

iCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

5-iiPublic 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 follow ed 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 recommenda tions 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 re quires a tracking system that will show whether and how well statewide and regional wate r management objectives are met. Table 5-2 (Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives) lists criteri a 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.

5-1California 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 fact ors that may restrict, limit, or regulate the action plan such as scope, funding, skill levels, policy, technology, dependency.

Performance measure Method to ensure accountab ility 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 (Eva luation criteria for achieving water management objectives) includes parameters like the cost of implementing different resource strategies, environment al benefits, water reliability, and water quality improvements (see Ch apter 3 for details).

5-2Public 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/compi lation 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 Fisherie s (populations and habitat) Native habitat/vegetation Wildlife (populations and habitat) Data monitoring/compilation, biological opinion, and system analysis

Energy benefits Energy availability Data monitoring/compi lation and system analysis Recreational opportunities Quantity, quality and variety of waterbased recreation Data monitoring/compi lation and system analysis

Reduce groundwater overdraft Salinity intrusion Subsidence Groundwater levels (long term) Data monitoring/compi lation 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

5-3California 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 implemen tation of the 25 resource management strategies (see Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies) and pe rforming the essential support activities (in Chapter 2 A Framework for Action), which include CALFED Bay- Delta Program actions, w ill 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 to ols improvements, research and development, and science programs. Many of the management strategies would be applied incremen tally and adaptively to meet changing regional conditions and goals. However, other strate gies and all of the essential support activities need significant upfront and ongoing funding.

Since 1995 voters have demonstrated their suppor t 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 c onservation, 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 vita l for improving water management in California.

Strategies, options, and guidelines fo r 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.”

5-4Public 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, ef

fi cient water management, and development of wa ter 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 effi ciently; (2) implement new technologies to further water conservation and recycling, augment supp lies, and improve water quality; (3) increase water storage and improve conveyance to gain flexibilit y 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 supp lies. The State should provide public funding for implementing local strategies that have broad public benefits.

• Local and regional planners diversify and incr ease the resource management strategies in their integrated regional water management plans.

• DWR will use its technical and financial assistan ce 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 Ca lifornia’s economy, environment and standard of living.

• Disbursement of Proposition 50 funding for impl ementation 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.

5-5California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Resource Assumptions

• Many tasks in this recommendation can be acco mplished with existing resources over time and through implementation of Propos ition 50. Additional and ongoing funding and local assistance are required for implementing integrated regional wa ter 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 r esources or significant redirection of existing

resources. Implementation Challenges

• Developing institutional relationshi ps with other agencies necessar y 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 Pr ogram, local technical and financial assistance, data and analytical tools development, feasib ility and implementation of resource management strategies, groundwater management plans, urba n 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.

5-6Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan



## Recommendation 2 – Promo te and Implement Integrated Regional Water Management

State government must provide incentives and a ssist 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 pl anning across jurisdictional boundaries as regionallybased efforts, and the need for more closely coordina ted water planning with land use planning and urban development. State government should assist cities, c ounties, local water agencies and private utilities to prepare urban and agricultural water management plan s, 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 gr oundwater and surface water storage varies from region to region; therefore, DWR will work with re gional 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 c oordination 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 8 1 grants who have plans that apply DWR and State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) grant program guidelines 2

. 

###  DWR will adapt its existing programs and develo p new ones to give incentives and technical assistance to regional and local agencies and gove rnments to prepare comprehensive, integrated water management plans that include actions to pr otect public trust resources and promote efficient, beneficial water use. 

###  DWR will develop guidelines for technical and fina ncial assistance and templates for integrated regional water management plans, urban and agri cultural 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 Gran t 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

5-7California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

• DWR will continue to provide technical, administ rative, and financial assistance to implement actions under the California Urban Water Conser vation Council, “Memora ndum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in Califor nia” and the Agricultural Water Management Council, “Memorandum of Unders tanding” to improve water use efficiency in California.

• DWR will develop the necessary tools to assist lo cal and regional agencies be successful with the integrated regional water management and planning.

Intended Outcomes

• Disbursement of Proposition 50 funding for development of regi onal 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 agricultu ral 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 collecti on and analysis by 2005. Resource Assumptions

• DWR will implement the recommendation to the exte nt 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 positi ons 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 identifyi ng roles needed to initiate and develop integrated re gional 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.

5-8Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Performance Measures

• Annual funding dedicated for CALFED Bay-Delta Pr ogram, local technical and financial assistance, data and analytical tools development, feasib ility and implementation of resource management strategies, groundwater management plans, urba n water management plans, and regional water plans.

• Number, distribution, and quality of groundwater management plans, urban water management plans, drought contingency plans, and inte grated 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, “Memoran dum 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).

5-9California 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 loca l agencies and governments to inventory, evaluate, and propose management strategies to remediate th e causes and effects of contaminants on surface and groundwater quality. The evaluation should examine the effect of contaminants on public health, lo ng-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, St ate government should also adopt preventive programs that integrate source water protection, pollution pr evention, 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 St ate, federal, and local agencies to inventory, evaluate, and deal with the effects of contam inants on surface water and groundwater quality. DWR could participate by sharing da ta and conducting analysis of surface water and groundwater flow and transport of contaminants.

• SWP will complete feasibility studies and recommend ations 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 c ould require significant resources depending on DWR’s role. Implementation Challenges

• Difficulty in defining the scope of work and work ing 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.

5-10Public 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, operate d by State, federal, and local entities. State government should lead an effort, with input fro m public and private owners of water infrastructure, to identify and prioritize water infrastructure mainte nance 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 comprehensiv e 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 fede ral, 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 financ ial 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.

5-11California 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 in ventory of the current unmet infrastructure and maintenance work, potential costs, and strategy fo r 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).

5-12Public 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 grea ter water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program needs greater fede ral commitment, agency involvement, spending authorization, and funding to ensure continued a nd balanced implementation. State government should cooperate with the federal governme nt to review and revise the implementation plan for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to reflect the current fiscal clim ate, 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 vi able 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, th e Governor, and the Legislature to develop acceptable mechanisms for funding the work.

• DWR promotes communication, cooperation, and co llaboration 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.

5-13California 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 existi ng 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 f unding 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).

5-14Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan



## Recommendation 6 – Provid e Effective State Government Leadership, Assistance, and Oversight

State government needs to take the lead in wat er planning and management activities that: (a) regions cannot accomplish on their own, (b) the State can do more ef fi ciently, (c) involve interregional, interstate, or international issues, or (d) have broad public bene fi ts. 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 ma intaining 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 da m safety; (4) participating in major regional initiatives, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a nd (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 leader ship role in the protection of public health and safety, especially with regard to drinking wa ter quality, dam safety, and flood management. 

###  State government should provide technical assistance for efforts involving interregional, inter-state, and international issues or for effo rts 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 protec ting 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 Ve rnalis, 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 regi onal plans, and integrate the water plan into a future State strategic planning process.

• DWR will use a collaborative process to work with lo cal, regional, State, and federal agencies and stakeholders to conduct regular updates of key re ports 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.

5-15California 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 need ed 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 Wa ter Resources (Bulletin No. 1) cannot be accomplished with existing resources unless resources are redirected from other programs. Implementation Challenges

• Developing the institutional relationships with ot her 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, in ter-state, and international water agreements

5-16Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan


## Recommendation 7 – Clarify S tate, Federal, and Local Roles and Responsibilities

California needs to de fi ne 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 agenci es and governments in regional water planning and management, State government shoul d 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 agen cies more efficient, effective, and responsive to Californians. Establishing an interagency wate r forum would strengthen coordination among State agencies responsible for water and would ensure th at 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 examin e 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 govern ing California water management.

• DWR will work with the Governor and Legislat ure 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 existi ng resources will be required to conduct a thorough review of DWR’s mission and organi zation and to participate in a la rger review of all State water management agencies Implementation Challenges

• Getting the needed direction and resources from th e Governor and Legislature to undertake a comprehensive review of existing programs and evaluate alternatives.

• Difficulty in maintaining staff morale during any significant reorganization.

5-17California 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 resp ond to today’s water problems.

• Level of consistency among the strategic and capita l improvement plans of State water agencies.

• Level of participation of local, State, and federa l 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.

5-18Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan



## Recommendation 8 – Develop Fundi ng Strategies and Clarify Role
of Public Investments

California needs to develop broad an d realistic funding strategies that de fi ne 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 identif y 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 investme nts 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 a pproach 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 Le gislature to develop policy and a work plan for implementing the finance plan of the CBDA, reco mmendations 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 coordina tion 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 in frastructure and projects with the mandated capital budget planning process to ensure greater consiste ncy 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 21 st 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 a dditional resources or the redirection of existing

resources.

5-19California 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 21 st Century.

• Level and continuity of funding and variety of local, State, and federal funding sources for water management activities.

5-20Public 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 resear ch 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 prio ritize applied research projects leading to the commercialization of new water te chnologies 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 developmen t studies on promising water technologies.

• Enhanced Science Program modele d 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 goa ls for science funding, investments in water science should be established within a range of 3 pe rcent to 5 percent of total public funds (cost share) expended to help implement local a nd 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 developmen t studies in integrated regional water management plans.

5-21California 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 fo r 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 Stat e, federal, and regional planners test the potential effects of global climate change on different resource management stra tegies; 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 c limate 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 c limate change research. Alternatively, existing resources may be redirected from other programs to establish the position.
Intended Outcomes

• Establishing a position to coordinate DWR’s par ticipation 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 characterizi ng potential climate change impacts. Resource Assumptions

• Establishing a position to coordinate DWR’s partic ipation in Global Climate Change studies would require additional resources or redirection of exis ting staff and annual fundi ng 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.

5-22Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Performance Measures

• Funding provided to California’s universities a nd 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 poten tial impacts of climate change on the alternative management strategies and infrastructure they consider and select.

5-23California 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, tr ibal, 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 entitie s, 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 ma ke 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 manage ment system to assist regional and local agencies and governments, which would include information fr om locally-developed urban and agricultural water management plans and local general plans.

Action Plan


###  DWR with regional input will develop a general chec klist 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 tool s and data in support of California Water Plan Update 2010. 

###  DWR will develop the Water Plan Information Exch ange (Water PIE) for collecting and sharing data, and networking existing data bases and websites, using GIS so ftware to improve analytical capabilities and developing timely surveys of statewid e land use, water use, and estimates of future implementation of resource management strategies. 

###  DWR will participate in efforts by the Califor nia 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 an alytical 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.

5-24Public 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 w ith existing resources, but full implementation would require additional resources or redirection of existing staff.

Implementation Challenges

• Developing the institutional relationships with othe r local, State, and federa l 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 criteri a in Table 5-2 (Evaluation criteria for achieving water management objectives).

5-25California 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 reso urces 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 re leases in compliance with Fish and Game Code section 5937.

• DWR will take the public trust into account when ac ting 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 righ ts, DWR will consider all available information and protect public trust uses whenever feasible and reasonable.

• DWR will develop consistent, department-wide gui delines and methodology fo r 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 Contro l 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 res ources and/or redirection of existing resources.

5-26Public 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 w ith 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 a nd values in DWR and other State environmental review documents and reports.

5-27California 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, regio nal, and local water pl anning 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 a nd 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 inte rest identified through tribal outreach conducted in 2003 follow.

• Tribal, State, and federal governments work coope ratively to ensure safe and piped potable water for all Californians, including its tribes.

• Tribal, State, and federal governments jointl y assess surface water and groundwater quantity and quality needed to support tribal fi shing 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 "Sew age 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 agen cies 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 "Sew age Disposal" in the U.S. Census questionnaire. Resource Assumptions

• Limited outreach could be accomplished with exis ting resources. Greatly expanded outreach would require additional resources or re direction of existing resources.

5-28Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

Implementation Challenges

• Developing the institutional relationships with Calif ornia tribes and appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and programs necessary for integra ting information into the California Water Plan Update.
Performance Measures

• Number and geographic representation of California tr ibes 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.

5-29California 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 envi ronmental 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 adve rse health and environmental impacts.
Action Plan

• DWR will incorporate environmental justice issues of precautionary applications, cumulative health impact reductions, public partic ipation, 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 co mmunities and vulnerable populations and their advocates seeking their participation in the Californi a Water Plan Update, particularly for evaluating how they might be affected by diffe rent 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 th e 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 exis ting resources. Greatly expanded outreach would require additional resources or re direction of existing resources. Implementation Challenges

• Developing the institutional relationships with lo cal, State, and federal agencies serving, and advocates for disadvantaged communities and vulne rable populations to conduct outreach and integrate information into the California Water Plan update.

5-30Public 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.

5-31California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft Chapter 5 Implementation Plan

5-32California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft References

1-1 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing 

# California Water Plan Update 2005 References

-----General plans. Vari ous 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 Regist ry. 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. S acramento: 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 Civ il Engineers. 2003. Progress Report for America's Infrastructure. http://www.asce.org/re portcard/index.cfm

. [ASCE] American Society of Ci vil Engineers. 2003. Atmospheric Water Resources Management. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/ne ws/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 el ements of Colorado River water deal. Association of Groundwater Agen cies. 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California. Awwa Research Foundation. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water (Project #241A). Beach D. 2002. Coastal Spra wl: 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 Ju rgens, Tyler Johnson. 2003. Framework for a GroundWater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program fo r 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, Califor nia, 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 Assessmen t. 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e time of writing 1-2 Bryant D. 2002. Salinas Valley Survey Sets Nitrat e 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 Stat e 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 Programma tic 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 : fi nal programmatic EIS/EIR te chnical 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/AboutCal fed/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. Se awater 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. Pu blic 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 St ate Park System Plan 2002: Initiatives for Action. 56 p. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Pu blic 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.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 th e 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, Ca lifornia 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 Dresse r & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resource Planning Associates. California Stormwater Quality Task Force. 1993. Califor nia 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 For ce. 2003. Water Recycling 2030: Reco mmendations of California's Recycled Water Task Force. Sacramento: Califor nia Department of Water Resources. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/docs/TaskForceReport.htm

. Camp Dresser & McKee. 1999. Description of Existing I nvestigations 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. Californi a 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/A nnualReport2003/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 Hea lth Services. California's Drinking Wa ter Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm

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

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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 Do minant Contaminants. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemi cals/monitoring/results94-02.htm

. [CDHS] California Department of Health Services. Specific Contaminants of Cu rrent 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/c hemicals/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. Ch romium-6 in Drinking Water: Background Information. [CDHS] California Department of Health Services. 200 3. 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. Fu ture 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.repor t.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.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 th e 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. Californi a's Annual Population Growth Exceeds Half a Million For Fifth Year. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HT ML/DEMOGRAP/e-1press.doc . May 6. [DOF] California Department of Finance. 2005. Californi a Population Tops 36.5 Million in 2004, Adds Nearly 600,000 According to New State De mographic 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 Me tropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1998. Salinity Management Study. Dowall David E, Jan Whittington. 2003. Making Room for the Future: Rebuild ing 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 Enviro nmental Planning. San Fran cisco: 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. Ca laveras 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 Wa ter 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. Wa ter for California: The California Water Plan Outlook in 1970. Bulletin 160-70. 170 p. Dec. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1974. Th e 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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 th rough 2002. Public Water Systems Statistics Survey Forms. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California Water Plan: Pr ojected 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, No rthern 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 Re sources. 1993. Water Recycling Survey. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources. 1994. Ca lifornia Water Plan Update 1993. Bulletin 160-93. Oct. [DWR] California Department of Water Resources, Cent ral District. 1995. Ameri can 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.w ater.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. Ca lifornia's Groundwater Update 2003. Bulletin 118. Oct. Availability: http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/

.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 th e 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 an d 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/de sal/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, Offi ce 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/newsre leases/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 Investiga tions 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 Econom ic 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e time of writing 1-8 [EID] El Dorado Irrigation Di strict. 2003. The Waterfront. Environmental Science Associates. 2003. Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant 2020 Facilities Plan EIR, District 14, Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. Whittier, CA: Pr epared for County Sanitation District 14 of Los Angeles County. Environmental Water Caucus. 1998. Blueprint for an Environmentally and Economically Sound CALFED Water Supply Reliability Program. [EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. www.epa.gov/OGWDW/needs.html

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

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

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

1-9 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing Governor's Advisory Drought Planning Panel. 2000. Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Dec 29. Availability: http://watsup2.water.ca.gov/contingency_plan.cfm

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

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

. Laird [The Honorable] J (Assembly Me mber D-Santa Cruz 27th District). 2003 Jun 22. Commentary: SB 149 will not solve the Peninsula's water problems. Monterey County Herald.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

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

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

. [MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2004. Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature: Snapshots of the Past...Portrait of a New Reality. National Governors Association, Center for Best Practi ces. Private Lands, Public Benefits: A Policy Summit on Working Lands Conservation; 2001 Mar 16; Washington D.C.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. 2001. Private Land s, Public Benefits: Principles for Advancing Working Lands Conservation.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft References

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

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

. [OPR and DWR] California Governor's Office of Planning and Research and California Department of Water Resources. 1979. The California Water Atlas. Sacramen to: Distributed by William Kaufmann of Los Altos, Calif. Parsons J. 1987. A Geographer Looks at the San Joaquin Valley. UC Berkeley. Parsons L. 2003 Jan 15. Water project vote set. Salinas Californian. Parsons L. 2003 Feb 13. Cal-Am OKs Moss Landing desal plant. Salinas Californian. Parsons L. 2003 Apr 9. 85 Percent of Ballots Approve It. Salinas Californian. Pitt R., S. Clark, K. Parmer. 1994. Potential Groundwa ter Contamination from Intentional and Non-intentional Stormwater Infiltration. Upland, Penn.: Diane Press. 120 p.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e time of writing 1-12 Pollock D. 2003 Mar 9. Uprooted Vines, Overturned Lives. [PPIC] Public Policy Institute of Calif ornia. 2003. What Should the State Do About California's Infrastructure. San Francisco. 2 p. [PPIC] Public Policy Institute of Calif ornia. 2004. PPIC Statewide Survey: Sp ecial Survey of the Central Valley. Public Research Institute. 1998. The Boating Clean and Green Survey, California Coastal Commission. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 20 02. Revised Basin Management Plan. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Study of Applied Water by Selected Crops. Watsonville. [PVWMA] Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. 2002. Total Water Use Study 1998-2001 (preliminary data). Watsonville. Ramanathan V, PJ Crutzen, JT Kiehl, D Rosenfeld. 2001 . Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrologic Cycle. Science. Reason Foundation. 1993. Water-Utility Regulation: Rates and Cost Recovery. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley. Basin Plans. www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents

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

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

. Shaffer B and others. 2000. Central Valley Wetlands Wate r Supply Investigations, CVPIA 3406 (d)(6)(A,B), A Report to Congress. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Bureau of Reclamation. Shapiro Neal (City of Santa Monica). 2003. Personal communication Sherman Leroy K, George W. Musgrave . 1942. Infiltration. In: Meinzer OE, editor. Hydrology. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Smith F. 1980. A short review of the status of riparian fore sts in California. In: Sands A, editor. Riparian Forests in California. Berkeley, CA: Univ ersity of California Press. Smith R. 1994. Sinking and Swimming in Water Policy. Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government 17(3).California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft References

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

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

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

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e time of writing 1-14 [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Californi a Coastal Commission. 2000. Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 (PROSIP). [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2000. California State Water Resources Control Board Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling. 2002. Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 2001. Strategic Plan. California Environmental Protection Agency. 28 p. Taugher M. 2004 Jan 31. Los Vaqueros expansion debate hits boiling point. Contra Costa Times. Thompson Willard (Pacific Coast Producer s). 2001. California's Water Woes. http://www.pcoastp.com/news/ne wslst_detail.asp?news_id=36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-15 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing [USBR] US Bureau of Reclamation. Central Valley Operations Water Deliverie s from the CVP [online]. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/deliv.html

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

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

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

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

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

. Visalia Times-Delta Editorial Staff. 2003 Apr 30. Living with Cows and Living with People. Visalia Times-Delta.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan References

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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 La rgest Reservoir: Desalinatio n. Western Water Jan/Feb. Water Resources Center (University of California). Biennial Groundwater Conference and Annual Meeting of the Groundwater Resources Association of California Abstracts; 2001. Weather Modification Association. 2004. Response to "Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research," report of a review panel. Journal of Weather Modification 36:53-82. Westlands Water District. Annual Reports. http://www.westlandswater.org/wwd/default2.asp?cwide=1024

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

. Yap F. 2003 Jun 26. Atascadero Development Must Include Cheaper Housing. San Luis Obispo Tribune.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 1 – Strategic Plan Public Review Draft References

1-17 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) we re accurate at th e 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.groundwat er.water.ca.gov/water_laws/index.cfm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-19 Citations to the World Wide Web (URL) were accurate at th e time of writing [USDA] US Department of Agriculture. Ag ricultural Research Se rvice [Web site]. http://pwa.ars.usda.gov/locations.shtml

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

### A Framework for ActionIf you need this publication in alternate form, contact the Public Affairs Office at 1-800-272-8869.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: ReferencesCalifornia 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 s upply, reliability and qualit y 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 achie ve multiple resource benefits.



## Planning a Diversified Portfolio As California changes, local agencies and government s continue to use different methods of managing water. Growing population, cha nging regulations, and evolving pub lic attitudes and values are a few conditions that have influenced recent decisions about water.

Strategies are the tools that local agencies and gove rnments 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, dewvapor ation, fog collection, irrigated land retirement, rainfed agricul ture and transoceanic water bags)Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Introduction

1-2 assets, and are affordable. Recommendations for planni ng and implementation can be found in Chapter 5 of Volume 1.

While the strategies are based on th e 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 Vo lume 1) will provide policy makers and resource managers more quantitative informa tion on the performance of various st rategies, interactions between strategies, tradeoffs, and potential groupings of stra tegies. 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 Ma nagement 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 c ould be achieved statewide by 2030. Since the application of these strategies can vary widely among regions, the st rategy 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 associ ated with implementing each strategy. Each strategy narrative includes a summary of major issu es facing the strategy. For instance, with ocean water desalination there are issues with water intakes and brine disposal.

• Contains recommendations on how the strategy coul d be implemented over the next 25-30 years to minimize its impacts, as well as how to prom ote additional implementation. Many of the recommendations are for the State to enact techni cal support to help regional groups make better decisions in the use of the strategies. The na rratives do not include specific recommendations for funding of individual strategies since local and re gional 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 jus tice, and environmental impacts.

While the resource management strategies are presente d 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.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Introduction

1-3 could contribute to ecosystem restoration and groundw ater recharge, while upstream water use efficiency might reduce the opportunity for downstream recycling and reuse.

In addition, the strategy narratives recognize the re lationship of water and ot her resources. However, DWR does not have authority over some of these res ources. 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 stake holders. 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 devel opment. The table presents the resource management strategies in subgroups, which include demand reduc tion, 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 re gions 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 impl ementation 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.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Introduction

1-4 Table 1-1 - Strategy Summary Table 1 Water Management Objectives

Resource Management StrategiesProvide Water SupplyBenefitImprove DroughtPreparednessImproveWater QualityOperationalFlex & EfficientReduce Flood ImpactsEnvironmentalBenefitsEnergy BenefitsRecreationalOpportunitiesReduce 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 in tegrating packages of these resource management strategies. C ompared with the costs of implementing the resource management strategies, the costs are relatively small for the essential support activities shown belo w (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 compet e for limited system capacity, funding, water supplies or other component necessary for implementation.California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Introduction

1-5 While most of the resource management strategies ha ve 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 wa ter 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 stra tegies included in the figur e. In some cases, the values represent a local or regional benefit and ma y 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 sub sequent 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

U

r b

a n W U

E

C

onj

u nctive M gm

t &

GW Stor a ge

R

e c y c le

d Municipa l W

a t e r

Surf a c e Storage - C

A

LF

E D Agricultural WUE

D esa

li

na

t ion Conv e y a nce

P

r eci

pita

ti

on

E

nh

a nc

e m

e ntAdditional Water Supply(MAF per year) Low Estimate High EstimatePublic 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 poten tial benefits and associated costs. In most cases, assumptions and methodologies are unique to given strate gies 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 signif icantly 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 locati on of new strategies, operations, mitigation, system integration, presence of cultural or environmenta l resources. Therefore, local and regional water management efforts should develop their own estimat es of costs, potential benefits, as well as other tradeoffs associated with application of any particular strategy.

The table can help guide selective r eading of the following 25 articles.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 natura l resources and protecting the environment by land managers whose stewardship prac tices conserve and improve land for food, fiber, watershed functions, soil, air, energy, plant and an imal 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 u sed to encourage implementation of stewardship practices.

This strategy is focused on agricultural land (croppe d 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 late r in this volume. Agricultural land stewardship can take place on a particular parcel of land, on multip le 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 econom ic return, while managing these productive lands for multiple benefits, including water management im provements. 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 agricu ltural 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 mainta in cool stream water temperature for fish. Other fish friendly techniques, such as the use of logs and ov erhangs are also incorporated into stream bank rock to provide shade for fish. Some portions of the pr operty may be left untouched to allow for natural flooding. Removing non-native plants, such as mugwort, vi nca 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.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 slow ing 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 fertilit y 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, provi de livestock shelter and wildlife habitat, reduce drainage water, and increase carbon sequestra tion (removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere).

• Irrigation Tailwater Reco very – Collection, stora ge and transportation fac ilities 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 runo ff, sequesters carbon, and improves soil ecosystem and habitat quality.

• Noxious Weed Control – This practice establ ishes 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 gras ses 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 designe d to operate without creating obstacles to migrating fish.

Crop idling is an agronomic practice to benefit th e soil or for other management purposes. Crop idling may be used in conjunction with drought manageme nt programs. Drought payments to farmers could be used on farm-related investments, purchases and debt re payment, or may be spent or invested outside the community. Crop idling that is strictly for the purpo se of water transfers is addressed in a separate strategy under the Other Resource Manageme nt 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 waterway s or evaporation ponds. The IFDM system manages irrigation water on salt-sensitive high-value crops and reuses subsurface drainage and tailwater onCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Agricultural Lands Stewardship

2-3 Initiatives that Exemplify Agricult ural Lands Stewardship Strategy

• Proposition 50 Ecosystem Restoration Prog ram’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 Technica l Assistance Program provides technical assistance to design and implement stewards hip 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 secu re 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 Protecti on Corridor Program. Grants for nonstructural flood management that enhance wildlife habitat or protect agricultural uses on private lands.

• Department of Fish and Game Private Land s 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, dr ainage and tail water syst ems, 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 salin e water and perched water tables has primarily been used on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. It offe rs 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 Agricultu re (USDA) through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and various non governmental entities for ma ny years. The California Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs), and other entities, specialize in working with private landowners in watershed management and coordination stra tegies. 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 progr ams only can affect a small portion of agricultural lands, stewardship is increasingly considered by go vernmental and nongovernmental organizations for protecting natural resources while keeping the lands in productive private ownership.

A range of private and public progr ams and initiatives already exist that fit the stewardship model (see box). Many public programs provide technical assist ance on what crops to plant, and how to plant,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 area s, 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 establis hed 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 provi de the committee with creative and practical strategies that: (1) enhance the sustainability of California agricultu re; and (2) provide for participation of local communities, landowners and managers; while (3) sign ificantly fulfills the CALFED Record of Decision to restore ecological health and improve water manage ment 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 sev eral new and traditional agricultural conservation programs that exemplify an agricultural lands stew ardship 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 in tegral component of regional integrated resource planning, including watershed pl anning and implementation. Agricu ltural lands stewardship can use stewardship practices to protect the health of e nvironmentally sensitive lands, recharge groundwater, improve water quality, provide water for wetland protec tion and restoration, reduce costs to the State for flood management, and aid riparian reforestation and ma nagement 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 re gional strategy of urban growth management. Agricultural lands provide public benefits for floodpl ain management, scenic open space, wildlife habitat, and defined boundaries to urban grow th. 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.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 seek ing 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 estimati ng 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 ar e avoided costs for flood damage reduction measures and urban runoff. These costs have not been quan tified for broad reference and application.

Some legislative proposals are seeking to provide annu al payments for conservation benefits that may be part of private lands management programs. Experi ence 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 agricultura l lands stewardship in California. There are issues about mixing economic endeavors with environmental goals and econom ic markets. Increased focus on this strategy is necessary to implement regional integrated resource planni ng and management, and demonstrate to the public measur able 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 agenci es, even though some of these agencies might help landowners to comply with real regulatory require ments. 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 th e presence of endangered species is verified on their property.

1 Cost estimate = $5.3 billion, determin ed 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 pe rsons) 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.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 s upported by public resources. In addition, there is landowner confusion regarding what type of assuranc es can be provided. A perspective is that the economic return from certain land stewardship program s 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 stewardshi p and ecosystem restoration programs. In order to justify public investment in stewardship, ther e must be accountability in terms of monitoring. Complex Regulations and Programs Institutional regulations and programs are complex a nd sometimes conflict. Agricultural landowners may be discouraged when developing a stewardship program for multip le 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 va lue of the threatened resources and the population served. Although California farmers an d 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 stewardshi p 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 th at do not contribute to better management for environmental functions and values. These values incl ude 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 land owners prefer programs such as the Williamson Act because these are temporary land-use restrictions that la ndowners can ultimately “opt out’ of if they later decide to sell land to development and the asking pr ice justifies the cancellation penalty. As a result, many landowners are wary that they may lose fu ture economic opportunities by committing to permanent

2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), Wetlands Rese rve Program (WRP) and Cons ervation Security Program (CSP).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 stewar dship without a clear understanding of long-term benefits from such programs. 

## Recommendations to Facilitate Agri cultural Lands Stewardship
The following recommendations can help facilitate an agricultural lands stewardship strategy: 1. The State should collaborate with rural and agricultu ral organizations and coordinate with local RCDs to provide private landowners financial incentiv es 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 a dvantages 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 St ate agency coordination l eadership, the pertinent agencies should provide staff support for landowners participating in multiple environmental goals and local conservation initiatives. The agencies incl ude the California Department of Conservation’s Watershed Coordinator, Califor nia Department of Fish and Game, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service programs, California Resour ce 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 gran ts funding, and help stakeholder planning and implementation.

• Ensure consistent, dependable and adequate f unding for stewardship assistance, especially the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, th e 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 agri cultural lands stewardship plans. Greater State participation would help direct fe deral funds toward landowner particip ation and technical assistance. 4. The State should evaluate the soci oeconomics effect of agricultura l 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 stewar dship programs. The State should continue researchPublic 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, 2002California 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 i rrigation equipment, crop water management, farm water management, and district distribution systems. 

## Current Agricultural Water Use E fficiency 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 im provement 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-adjust ed 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 Ma nagement Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) and the Federal Central Valley Project Im provement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) established guidance for improving agricultural water use efficiency. Presently, the Agricultural Water Ma nagement Council unites, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 61 agricultur al 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 th rough 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 ag ricultural water suppliers represent more than 3.8 million acres of irrigated agricultural land (retail wate r 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 improve ments to stay economically competitive. Likewise, local irrigation and water agencies invest in cost-effective, system-wide water management improvements. In addition to water savings, effici ency 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 qualit y, and water quantity benefits) a nd 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 fo r research, development and the demonstration of efficient water management practices in agriculture has come, and continues to come, from the agricultural industry.Public Review Draft California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 2 – Resource Management Strategies Chapter 3. Agricultur al 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 demonstrat e technology innovations. Further investments in

research and demonstration are critical, especially in support of university-based research, field station studies, and cooperative extensi on demonstration projects.

Improvements in the efficiency of agricultural wate r 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 i rrigation 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 co ntrol and data acquisition systems, canal automation, regulating reservoirs, and other hardware and operational upgrades, can provide flexibility to deliver the water when and wh ere 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 establis hed since 1990 are irrigated using micro-irrigation. Agricultural Water Management Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs) List A - The Agricultural Water Management Counc il 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 c ooperation 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 Man agement Practices – Practices Subject to Net Benefit Analysis and Exemption from Analysis 1. Facilitate alternative land use (drainage) 2. Facilitate use of available recycled water t hat otherwise would not be used beneficially 3. Facilitate the financing of capital im provements for on-far m 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. ww w.agwatercouncil.org/aboutusmain.htmCalifornia 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 Irrigati on 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 deliverysystems 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 sy stems. Once considered innovative technologies, these are now standard practices with growers. In te rms 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 irri gation. While this may not reduce crop water demand, it could improve the uniform distribution of water, redu ce evaporation, and thus allow the grower to apply less water to the field. Research on drip irrigation of alfalfa has shown water ap plication reduction at two to three percent with yields increasing from 19 to 35 percent, an increase in productivity of 30 percent Example Irrigation Effi ciency 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, irriga tion system distribution non-uniformity, and cultural practices. These losses constitute recoverable and/or irrecoverable losses.