California; 2009 Briefing on California Water Issues - Water Education Foundation

8/3/2019 California; 2009 Briefing on California Water Issues - Water Education Foundation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/california-2009-briefing-on-california-water-issues-water-education-foundation 1/33

1

A Briefing on California Water Issues

Updated February 2009

Susan Lauer

Editor’s Note: California and water. The two always have been and always will be inextricably

linked. No resource is more vital to the state’s prosperity or steeped in more controversy.

This briefing issue is produced by the Water Education Foundation to provide the public

with a short overview of the current key issues in California water. There is a need for a fair and

balanced portrait of these critical topics because decisions on these controversial issues affect

everyone in the state.

It is important for Californians to know the views of the three main interest groups –

agricultural, urban and environmental – who have a stake in management of our water

resources. It also is necessary to learn about the issues facing governmental officials who

oversee water management. The mission of the Foundation is to provide impartial coverage of

water issues to lead to a broader understanding and resolution of water problems. California

water issues can appear overwhelmingly complex and controversial. Through the Foundation,

we try to open the door to understanding these issues so that Californians will be able to best

manage and protect this precious resource.

We believe that learning about water will help you determine what decisions should be

made regarding these important issues.

People interested in more in-depth information on these current water issues and other

topics are encouraged to subscribe to Western Water magazine, published bi-monthly by the

Foundation, or refer to the Foundation’s Layperson’s Guide series. The publications can be

ordered through our online store.

– Rita Schmidt Sudman, executive director, Water Education Foundation

mailto:[email protected]





2

INTRODUCTION

Since the days of Mark Twain – who is said to have coined the phrase “Whiskey’s for drinking;

water’s for fighting over” – cities, farmers and environmentalists have battled over who will

control California’s water. The three powerful political factions have effectively turned the water

issue into a stalemate by blocking one another’s agenda.

Water fuels the economy. And proper management of the quality and quantity of the

state’s “liquid gold” is critical to California’s well-being. Yet the critical question of how – or if –

the state’s limited water supply can be stretched to meet future needs remains. The decades-

long conflicts between competing interests over the use of available supplies have been

exacerbated by the state’s swelling population, periods of drought and, most recently, dire

effects of climate change.

Nearly 75 percent of the available water originates in the northern third of the state

(north of Sacramento), while 80 percent of the demand occurs in the southern two-thirds of the

state and the coastal areas. The demand for water is highest during the dry summer months

when there is little natural precipitation or snowmelt. California’s capricious climate also leads to

extended periods of drought and major floods.

These basic problems have been remedied, in large part, by building one of the most

complex and sophisticated flood control, water storage and transport systems in the world. An

integrated system of federal, state and locally owned dams, reservoirs, pumping plants and

aqueducts transports large portions of the state’s surface water hundreds of miles to the Central

Valley, Bay Area and Southern California. California’s rise to pre-eminence as the nation’s most

populous state and the world’s eighth largest economy has depended in part on its ability to

deliver water supplies where they are most needed by people. According to the state

Department of Finance, California’s population hit 38 million in January 2008, and is projected to

hit 59.5 million by 2050. As California braces for a growing population, water supply and quality,

and distribution throughout the state must also identify existing water-related needs and



3

potential solutions for disadvantaged and disproportionately impacted communities, according

to the draft 2009 California Water Plan Update. The draft plan, due to be completed later in

2009, presents basic data and information on California’s water resources including water

supply evaluations and assessments of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses.

The plan will include improved data and analytical tools, incorporating climate change

adaptation and mitigation strategies.

In its 2005 update to the Water Plan, the California Department of Water Resources

(DWR) estimated that an additional 1 million to 2 million acre-feet of water per year (An acre-

foot of water is about 326,000 gallons – enough to cover an acre of land, about the size of a

football field, 1 foot deep and meet the average needs of between one and two residential

households.) will be need by 2030 to prevent groundwater overdraft, a condition in which the

amount of water withdrawn by pumping over the long term exceeds the amount of water that

recharges the basin.

Climate change reports tout uncertainty and dire consequences for the future, yet in

California, its impacts are already being felt on water resources – the availability, quality, flood

management, ecosystem functions and distribution throughout the state.

Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, meaning diminished snowpack in the

Sierra Nevada Mountains, and fluctuating and decreased flows in rivers throughout the state.

Sea level rise along the coast and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is already measurable.

The changed future in terms of increasingly variable water supplies compels leaders to

re-think how water agencies move forward and how water resources are used and managed.

Extreme climatic events – from drought to floods – are expected to become more frequent,

necessitating improvements in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency

response. The bottom line is adaptation needs to happen now in order to avert problems in the

future, scientists and water experts agree.



4

Projected warmer water temperatures may make it more difficult to ensure the survival of

California’s native salmon and trout, which depend on cold water to spawn.

In addition to satisfying the basic needs of residential customers, demands for more

reliable and higher quality water supplies continue to come from the state’s agricultural industry,

businesses, manufacturers and developers. At the same time, protecting water quality, which

may impact water allocation, is of fundamental importance to people, the environment, fisheries

and wildlife and recreational interests.

Within California, there are two major arteries serving as the sources of surface water for

urban and agricultural areas: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) and the Colorado

River.

The Delta, located just south of Sacramento, serves as a major water source for

approximately two-thirds of the state. The region is fed by two major rivers: the Sacramento

from the north and the San Joaquin from the south. The mixture of fresh water from these two

waterways and numerous tributaries combine with salty ocean water from San Francisco Bay to

create the largest estuary on the West Coast of North America. Some 25 percent of all warm

water and anadromous sport fish and 80 percent of the state’s commercial fishery live or

migrate through the Delta. Massive pumps at the southern end of this marsh pull millions of

acre-feet annually of fresh water from the entanglement of waterways and sloughs southward to

Central Valley farmland via the Central Valley Project and ultimately, to the Southern California

region via the State Water Project.

The massive Colorado River winds its way through the southwestern United States

before terminating in the Gulf of California in Mexico. Along the way, the river provides water to

seven states including California, with each state’s water use determined by the Colorado River

Compact of 1922. According to the compact, California is permitted to use 4.4 million acre-feet

of the Colorado annually. The Colorado River supplies water to farms and cities south of the

Tehachapi Mountains. In recent years, the seven states have worked against a backdrop of



5

severe drought to draft new rules to coordinate reservoir operations and increase water

supplies.

Adding to the increased emphasis on water conservation, water management in the

northern part of the state has, for the past several years, been driven by the struggle to balance

water needs and environmental protection in the Bay-Delta.

The Sacramento River endangered winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon travel

down river, through the Delta to the Pacific Ocean and back to complete their life cycle. The

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires modification of water project operations and

restriction of water exports to protect the salmon. Further pumping constraints were imposed to

protect the tiny Delta smelt, a threatened fish found only in the Delta, thus adding more fuel to

the water distribution controversy among farmers, environmentalists and cities.

California’s capricious climate fluctuates between flood and drought, which significantly

impacts supplies. Of the 10 water years between 1997 and 2007, four years were above

average and six were below average. In 2006, precipitation was 135.57 percent above normal

while in 2007 the state received only 63.29 percent of average rainfall. Meanwhile, 2008 saw

drought conditions take hold and so far 2009 is predicted to be drier than average.

Drought can wreak havoc on the state and has served as a wake-up call to many. It

highlights the fact that if available supplies are not used more efficiently and/or expanded,

overdrafted groundwater basins, water rationing for urban users, fallowed farmland and lost jobs

loom on the horizon. Several western states, including many in the Colorado River Basin, are

experiencing serious drought. Reservoirs along the Colorado River are at all-time lows. The dry

conditions have already restricted the availability of surplus flows from the Colorado River to

California and the seven Colorado-basin states are addressing the dire situation with an eye to

the dire future situation.

In 2008, Gov. Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order to address drought conditions

and water resources. Among many other things, this order directed state agencies to develop a



6

plan to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use statewide by 2020. With current

urban use at 8.7 million acre-feet per year, a 20 percent reduction equals the savings of 1.74

million acre feet per year.

Conservation is one of the key ways to provide water for Californians and protect and

improve the Delta ecosystem. The “20% by 2020” approach is a seven-part plan that includes

aggressive new goals for water conservation.

In addition to the hydrologic drought, some water interests complain about the imposition

of a “regulatory” drought – based mainly on Delta pumping restrictions. A number of contractors’

water deliveries have been cut back during average rainfall years to meet the requirements of

federal laws that aim to preserve the state’s dwindling native freshwater fisheries and riparian-

dependent species.

In order to resolve the stalemate over the limited water supply and ever-increasing

demand, state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the

Bay-Delta – have worked since the mid-1990s to find a solution. Despite some improvements to

the system, the Delta remains highly contentious. To resolve some of these issues, California

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger launched the “Delta Vision” process is 2006. A task force

examined issues related to the Delta’s future for the next 100 years. An implementation plan

was sent to the Governor by the end of 2008 and debate continues over its recommendations to

build a new peripheral canal.

A figurative cloud hanging over California is the prospect of global climate change and

what it might portend for the state’s water future. Several scenarios predict temperature rises of

between 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2090, which could change precipitation patterns in the

state and the timing of runoff. Temperature increases and rising sea levels also could raise

salinity in the Bay-Delta, potentially affecting many species that have adapted to its unique

habitat.



7

Various public interest and environmental groups, urban water agencies and irrigation

districts are working to find solutions to California’s water problems. Innovation is a key

component in this solution, and practices such as water recycling, desalination and water

marketing are becoming the water jargon of the future. But as with every proposal, there are

glitches. A stumbling block for water recycling thus far has been the lack of public trust over

science’s ability to clean wastewater to the point of potability. Likewise, water marketing has met

with obstacles due to lack of a defined market. Desalination faces cost and environmental

hurdles. Discussions will undoubtedly continue in the areas of growth, expanding urban

supplies, water conservation, the Bay-Delta, water marketing, agricultural drainage and water

needs for fish and wildlife.

ALLOCATING MORE WATER FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE

A critical challenge for the water world has been to provide more water to protect and restore

fish and wildlife. Societal values have evolved over the last century from an ethic of conquering

nature to one of coexisting with it. This fundamental change in values, combined with the

passage of strict state and federal laws protecting endangered species and their habitat and

lawsuits by environmental groups to enforce these laws, has impeded most conventional water

development for the last two decades.

Since the Gold Rush, California and the American West have been transformed from

vast, sparsely populated open spaces into one of the world’s leading regions for food production

and manufacturing. Much of that development was made possible by tapping the region’s

abundant natural resources, especially water, and putting them in the service of human needs.

That rapid and intensive development has made significant changes in the natural

environment. Fish populations have been depleted, wetlands drained and rivers forced into

artificial channels. Dams and levees have altered natural water flow patterns. Native species of



8

many plants and animals have declined, and in some cases become extinct. Water quality has

been impaired by pollutants from mining, urban sources and agricultural activities.

In the 1960s and 1970s society began placing more value on the environment with

enactment of federal legislation such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 and the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. Together with companion laws enacted in California,

these measures helped create the legal apparatus for protecting endangered native populations

of wildlife, fish and plants that has since expanded to encompass broader restoration objectives.

The ESA prohibits actions that harm listed species or disrupt their normal pattern of behavior.

Many threatened and endangered species live in riparian areas, and the ESA mandates have

led to the alteration of dam operations, water diversions and pumping facilities.

For many, the goal has become creating co-equal goals for the Delta. The “Delta Vision”

plan recommendations note a revitalized Delta ecosystem will require reduced diversions and

also changes in patterns and timing of those diversions, upstream, as well as within the Delta

and exported from the Delta at critical times. New facilities for conveyance and storage, and

better linkage between the two, are needed to better manage California’s water resources the

estuary and exports.

Measures to protect the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the threatened 3-

inch Delta smelt, which lives only in the Delta, have affected water exports both the volume and

timing of diversions. A century of adverse impacts caused by development and a changing

climate, the number of fish has dwindled to a fraction of their historic numbers. Delta smelt

numbers rebounded enough in the late 1990s that two Central Valley water agencies sought

review of the smelt’s 1993 listing as a federal threatened species. But, a state survey released

in early 2009 indicated that Delta fish continue to hover at the brink of extinction, and conditions

could worsen for the estuary and the economy unless drought conditions ease. Delta smelt was

at its lowest point in 42 years of record-keeping, while two non-native fish, the American shad

and threadfin shad, also set record lows, according to the state Department of Fish and Game’s



9

fall population survey of Delta fish species, which concluded in December 2008.

Three other species showed slight gains over 2007, but remain well below historical

averages: the native longfin smelt and Sacramento splittail, and the non-native striped bass.

Even though the survey found no splittails last fall, and just one in 2007, officials say the fish

isn’t often found in the areas netted and that some previous counts likewise have not detected

them. The Delta is the state’s most important fishery habitat; 25 percent of all warm water and

anadromous sport fish and 80 percent of the state’s commercial fishery live or migrate through

the Delta. Of California’s 22 anadromous fish species, 59 percent are in danger of extinction,

with pink and chum salmon, southern steelhead and coho salmon facing the greatest immediate

threat.

The Trinity River, a tributary of the Klamath River, became a flashpoint in Fall 2002 in

the fish vs. farmers dispute over water in the Klamath Basin that straddles the California-Oregon

border. An estimated 33,000 adult Chinook salmon died on the Lower Klamath in September

2002, some say because of upstream water diversions for irrigation. A January 2003 report by

the California Department of Fish and Game concluded that reduced releases of stored water to

the Trinity and Klamath rivers in 2002, combined with high densities of adult fish returning to

spawn, likely caused the fish deaths. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has

created a voluntary water bank in the Klamath Basin to collect water from land fallowing,

groundwater substitution and other methods to be used to meet needs of endangered fish.

Another growing threat to wildlife is invasive species, non-native fish and animals that

have been introduced – most commonly through commercial shipping - and can wreak havoc as

they spread quickly and compete with native species for resources, prey on and interbreed with

native populations, transmit diseases or cause physical or chemical changes to the invaded

habitat.

There also are direct impacts to human activities, including the clogging of navigable

waterways and water delivery systems, weakening flood control structures, damaging crops,



10

introducing diseases to animals that are raised or harvested commercially and diminishing sport

fish populations.

In 2007, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) appropriated $5.9

million to contain the spread of quagga mussels in key sections of Southern California’s regional

imported water system. New chlorination facilities at crucial district reservoirs, isolation barriers

along the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct and intensified boat inspections at lakes were

included in the ramped-up efforts to contain the spread of the invasive mollusk.

GROWTH

California’s population reached 38 million in January 2008 and is projected to hit 59.5 million by

2050. Water demand in urban areas is expected to increase in average water years from its

current 8.8 million acre-feet annually to 11.4 million acre-feet by 2020, according to DWR

projections.

A buzzword emanating from state and federal levels is so-called “smart growth” or, the

idea of allowing growth while protecting and ensuring resources. Areas such as the Central

Valley have experienced population booms over the past two decades, leading communities

and governments to try to protect against the possibility of over-population, including impacts to

the state’s finite water supply. Although the state’s growth has been closely tied to water

development, it was not until recently that local land use agencies and water districts were

required to communicate about the impacts of proposed development projects on water supply.

Some people contend that, in addition to more efficient water use, the state’s economic

future depends on constructing new water storage and transfer facilities and adding to the State

Water Project (SWP). The SWP is one of two major state water delivery systems and has not

been completed as planned. The cost and regulatory process involved in new projects,

however, are formidable. Water shortage is just one of many problems stemming from rapid



11

population growth. Urban sprawl – including into vulnerable floodplains – also brings traffic

congestion, air pollution, environmental degradation and declining services.

Continuing to develop in the state’s floodplains is a significant concern because of risks

to lives and property. Many of the alluvial valley areas of California are extensively developed,

and flooding in these areas has caused billions of dollars in damage. Building in these high-risk

areas continues because development pressures supersede flood safety concerns.

California is the most urbanized state in the nation, and most of the projected growth will

occur in the Central Valley. The 18-county Central Valley population is projected to increase

from 5.7 million in 2000 to 11.5 million by 2040. That’s an average of 20-25 percent higher than

on coastal areas. Recent population growth has cost the Central Valley 500,000 acres of

farmland between 1988 and 1998, and by 2040 880,000 acres could be lost, according to the

American Farmland Trust. Some consider the conversion of land to urban development a threat

to agricultural production and the region’s air quality.

FLOOD MANAGEMENT

Historic floodplains in the West have been heavily developed for agricultural, commercial

and residential use. In California’s Central Valley, a growing population has pushed subdivisions

into floodplains previously leveed off for agricultural use, often without recognizing the

inadequate level of protection provided by the existing flood management infrastructure. The

relative risk of flooding is a remote concern for many people living in floodplains, though their

houses are more likely to incur damage from a flood than a fire.

Because of the costs paid for by the public, floods affect every Californian. The state

fluctuates between having too much or not enough water, so a delicate balance between flood

control and water supply operations must be struck. In addition, riparian habitat and fish and

wildlife impacts must be factored into the flood management equation. Adding to the complexity

is the range of federal, state and local entities involved in flood management.



12

Climate change further complicates flood control in California. A 2006 report by DWR

cited several studies and said their consensus is that climate change will impact the timing and

magnitude of runoff and flooding patterns in California. Expected impacts include more

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, the report stated. An earlier melt to the winter

snowpack is also expected, increasing river flows during wet months and possibly triggering

floods. The California Climate Change Center also noted more coastal floods are expected.

Increasingly severe winter storms, rising mean sea levels and high tides are expected to cause

more frequent and more severe flooding, erosion and damage to structures along the coast.

Even without considering climate change-related issues, California’s flood control

system has been described as “broken,” with increasing floodplain development, rising flood

peaks, costs that delay fixing problem levee sites, the need for environmental protection and

greater state liability for levee breaches portending an ominous future. In a 2005 white paper,

Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s Flood Crisis, DWR warned that the Central Valley’s

flood control system is “deteriorating and, in some places, literally washing away.”

The state has recognized and is working to address flood management challenges. The

FloodSAFE Program is a statewide initiative to address the needs for increased flood protection

and public safety. It builds upon the state's ongoing flood management work, especially

focusing on improving flood management systems, maintenance, system rehabilitation, effective

emergency response and sustainable funding.

The program is high priority and with the voter approval of Proposition 84 and 1E bond

funds, this program will proceed in two parts: near term actions to repair urgent flood

infrastructure problems and planning to develop long-term solutions.

At the state and local levels, legislation signed in 2007 will promote better planning to

avoid catastrophic flooding. The most extensive provisions apply to cities and counties in the

Central Valley, including general plan revisions, zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions,

new findings for permit approvals and setting the standard for 200-year urban protection.



13

ENHANCING AND PROTECTING URBAN SUPPLIES

Many urban water managers worry about California’s water supply reliability during an extended

drought. For this arid region of the United States, it is not a matter of if a drought will occur, but

when. Keeping water in the state’s elaborate network of canals, reservoirs and aquifers is of the

highest importance for a state so dependent on water for its economic stability.

Fears remain over the devastating impacts a prolonged shortage of water could have on

the state. Drought-proofing the state has become a serious priority at every level of the water

hierarchy. In early 2009, facing the third year of drought, state officials indicated there would be

an initial water delivery allocation of only 15 percent from the State Water Project (SWP) and in

February 2009 there was no official announcement for allocations from the federal Central

Valley Project (CVP), although the indication was 2009 could mean the lowest water delivery

ever. Facing unprecedented cutbacks, MWD, a consortium of 26 cities and water districts that

provides drinking water to nearly 17 million people in parts of Southern California, announced a

50 percent chance of cutting deliveries to its member agencies in mid-2009.

About 23 million Californians get some portion of their water from the SWP – the state’s

major distribution system for urban water supplies. The 29 water agencies that buy SWP water

have contracted for long-term deliveries. The existing facilities, however, allow the SWP to

deliver between 2.5 million and 3.5 million acre-feet in a normal water year and 1.1 million acre-

feet in dry years. Faced with delivery uncertainties, some water districts have taken out

insurance in the form of off-stream storage facilities.

MWD built a new off-stream reservoir in Riverside County to nearly double its surface

water storage capacity. Completed in 2000, the $2 billion Diamond Valley Lake stores 800,000

acre-feet of water. Diamond Valley Lake – filled in 2002 with 800,000 acre-feet of water - serves

as a lifeline for Southern California in times of drought.



14

In 1997, Contra Costa Water District completed construction of an off-stream reservoir at

a cost of $450 million. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir holds 100,000 acre-feet of water. Most of

the water is for emergency supplies and to improve the quality of Delta water exported to Contra

Costa County that can become salty during summer months and droughts. In March 2004, local

voters approved a measure that will allow the district, in conjunction with state and federal

agencies, to continue studying the feasibility of expanding the reservoir to 500,000 acre-feet.

In 2008, work began on the East Branch Phase II extension of the California Aqueduct

which continued the state’s efforts to make the aqueduct system more efficient by raising the

lining of the canal, building six miles of new large-diameter pipeline, new and improved pump

stations. That project also intends to enlarge Crafton Hills Reservoir, near Yucaipa, and build a

new dam to the south.

New reservoirs are expected to be used in conjunction with alternative sources, such as

wastewater recycling, water conservation, water transfers, groundwater banking and, for some

coastal communities, seawater desalination. California has some 200 water reclamation

facilities that recycle about 450,000 acre-feet a year. The treated wastewater is used in a variety

of ways, ranging from irrigation to groundwater recharge. It is anticipated that another 162

recycling plants will come on line this decade. These projects, which are mostly in southern

California, are expected to produce up to 1 million acre-feet of recycled water annually by 2020.

The California Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) promotes the use of treated

municipal wastewater (water recycling) in order to augment fresh water supplies and educate

the public to the benefits of recycled water. Since the late 1970s the WRFP has provided grants

and loans to build water recycling facilities. Recycled water is expected to play an increasingly

important role in California with the potential to recycle up to 1.7 million acre-feet of water per

year by the year 2030.

As recycled water projects continue, the most common uses are for agricultural

irrigation, landscape irrigation and groundwater recharging, in that order.



15

There have been some problems associated with gaining public acceptance of water

recycling projects. The so-called “yuck factor” has, in several instances, killed entire water

recycling projects. Yet as technology improved, water quality tests have continued to be positive

and the public has become more educated about water issues, water recycling programs are

being seen more favorably.

The Orange County Water District has expanded its water recycling program with help

from a $30 million Proposition 13 grant. The district’s Groundwater Replenishment System is

injecting about 75,000 acre-feet annually of highly-treated wastewater into the local groundwater

aquifer. The replenishment system will produce about 72,000 acre-feet of water per year to help

offset water imports from Northern California.

In January of 2009, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, reintroduced a water re-use,

recycling and reclamation grant program legislation that was first proposed in 2007. The Healthy

Communities Water Supply Act of 2009 proposed to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act to authorize alternative water source projects and fund projects like membrane filtering

technologies that have the potential to considerably increase our ability to use water more

efficiently.

Previously, State Revolving Loan Funds and Clean Water Act construction grants were

available for identifying new water sources. However, communities increasingly depend on

these funds to provide for the maintenance and upkeep of existing water infrastructure, and not

for discovering new, and potentially less expensive, water supplies.

WATER QUALITY

In addition to rising water demand, urban water agencies face water quality issues. Surface

water and groundwater supplies have been contaminated by both manmade and natural

substances. The most significant threat to water quality is nonpoint source pollution, which

includes runoff from city streets, construction sites and agricultural fields, leaking underground



16

storage tanks, accidental spills and abandoned mines. Controlling nonpoint pollution is very

difficult because it does not come from a single source.

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates both surface water and groundwater

quality and is enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA was

amended in 1987 to include a requirement that states develop nonpoint source pollution

assessment and management programs.

A key part of the effort to combat nonpoint source pollution is total maximum daily load

(TMDL) regulations. According to the EPA, TMDLs are “a calculation of the maximum amount of

a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.” Some multiple

pollutants can be addressed in a single TMDL or multiple water bodies in a watershed may be

addressed in a single TMDL project.

Currently there are more than 1,883 water body/pollutant combinations with either single

or multiple pollutants in water bodies. That means more than 400 projects are needed,

according to the California State Water Resources Council; its nine Regional Boards are

currently developing more than 120 TMDLs, many addressing multiple pollutants.

Federal and state laws regulate drinking water in the United States, which is generally

the best in the world. EPA oversees drinking water quality for the nation, while in California, the

Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management in the Department of Health

Services (DHS) oversees state drinking water laws. After spending two decades focused on the

long-term health effects of chemical contaminants and removal of such pollutants, public water

officials increasingly have turned their attention to microbial concerns such as cryptosporidium

and giardia. Officials with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are

conducting studies to determine the percentage of gastrointestinal illness cases that are due to

drinking water consumption.



17

Arsenic has generated interest and concern from the water community. Also a naturally

occurring element, industry, mining and agriculture all have contributed arsenic to California’s

water supply.

Chemical contaminants remain a concern, with new ones such as perchlorate seeming

to emerge every few years. Perchlorate, which is used in rocket propellants, road flares and

fireworks and in auto air bag inflation systems, is very mobile once it gets into water, and it has

been turning up in an increasing number of California groundwater sources, mainly in Los

Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. OEHHA issued a draft document for scientific

review in December 2002 that proposed a drinking water public health goal of between 2 ppb

and 6 ppb for perchlorate. DHS has issued an advisory action level of 4 ppb until a drinking

water standard is established. At the 11th hour of the Bush presidency, his administration said it

was not necessary to regulate.

Another emerging contaminant concern is N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), or, first

observed in a northern California drinking water well in 1998 and since found elsewhere. Like

perchlorate, NDMA is used in rocket fuel production, but also has a variety of industrial uses

and can be a byproduct of a drinking water disinfectant, monochloramine. NDMA is a known

animal carcinogen and a suspected human carcinogen. DHS has set an action level of 10 parts

per trillion for NDMA, but no MCL has been established yet.

A 2008 Associated Press investigation detailed how trace amounts (parts per billion or

trillion) of pharmaceuticals were found in drinking water of 41 million Americans throughout the

country. The contaminants included antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex

hormones.

Despite the fact that the amounts were so small and deemed by most as not a risk,

public outcry was immediate. Water providers reassured customers their water was clean, while

acknowledging the cost of removing all traces of pharmaceuticals through reverse osmosis was

cost prohibitive.



18

Also in 2008, attention turned to airborne pollutants causing degradation of water quality.

Pollutants include naturally occurring nitrogen, sulfur, mercury and pesticides as well as human-

created fossil fuel combustion, chemicals from industrial and ag and waste incineration. The

pollutants fall into water bodies with rain, in dust, gravity and runoff with health and

environmental impacts in the form of contaminated fish, harmful algal blooms and unsafe

drinking water.

DROUGHT AND WATER CONSERVATION

Following drought conditions in 2007 and 2008, 2009 had an inauspicious beginning. Water

supplies in many reservoirs and groundwater basins have been depleted. As of February 2009,

the water content of statewide snowpack stood at 57 percent of normal, and Oroville Reservoir,

the main supply for the State Water Project, had nearly reached a record low level. The report

suggested California's water supply is on a path to match the two worst droughts in state

history: 1923-24 and 1976-77.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s executive order in 2008 to address the statewide drought and

declared a drought emergency for much of the Central Valley. His conservation plan calls for a

reduction of per capita water consumption by 20 percent by the year 2020.

DWR followed up with a number of actions now in preparation for a potentially dry 2009

and beyond. Among those were water conservation programs. With many communities in the

state reaching the limits of their supply, residents are being called upon to reduce water

consumption to stretch supplies to meet demands.

In addition, DWR is helping with financial assistance for drought programs and education

and outreach to inform the public about drought conditions and the role they play.

Declining water supplies for 2009 has caused many urban providers to call for voluntary

– and in some cases mandatory – conservation measures. Farmers, meanwhile, are letting

some fields go fallow.



19

With assistance from other state and federal agencies including Reclamation, DWR is

implementing a Drought Water Bank for 2009. DWR has initiated dry year water purchasing

programs in the past, including drought water banks during the early 1990s, and dry year water

purchase programs in 2001-2004. DWR expects that some California water suppliers will need

to supplement local and imported supplies with water transfers from willing seller.

Beyond drought, agricultural and urban agencies have been working for a decade to

reduce water use as one way to stretch supplies.

In the past, the traditional way of closing the gap between supply and demand has been

to increase supplies – either by building new facilities such as dams or by tapping underground

aquifers. But building new facilities is costly, and such projects face strict environmental review

before they can be approved. Groundwater resources, although abundant in many areas of

California, are overdrafted in some places and take time to replenish. And over pumping

groundwater can lead to subsidence, an often irreversible collapse of the earth’s surface

overlying an aquifer, or saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers. Conservation is an option that

can cost-effectively stretch uses of available water and help preserve groundwater resources.

State officials estimate that a combination of urban and agricultural demand-management

programs, land fallowing, water banking and voluntary rationing during droughts, and permanent

land retirement in areas with poor drainage could reduce net water demand by a total of 3

million acre-feet by 2020.

On the urban side, a 2003 report by the Pacific Institute said California could postpone

development of major new water sources by cutting its urban water use by one-third through a

combination of efficient technology, policy changes and improved public education. Most of the

projected water savings could come from wider use of existing technologies such as low-flush

toilets, more efficient outdoor irrigation and water-saving clothes washers.

Agriculture uses about 75 percent of the state’s developed water, water stored behind

dams, etc. Since the 1980s, state agricultural water consumption has remained relatively stable



20

at around 9 million irrigated acres. At the same time, improved farming techniques have led to

an increase in per-acre production.

The Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices Act resulted in the development

of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) by which signatory irrigation districts and water

agencies committed to adopt a number of mandatory and conditional efficient water

management practices (EWMPs). The MOU, which to date has been signed by 50 agricultural

water suppliers, representing 4.7 million acres, requires signatory water suppliers to submit

water management plans to the Agricultural Water Management Council comprised of one

member from each signatory agency. In addition to the six “universally applicable” EWMPs,

there are a dozen “conditionally applicable” EWMPs that may be adopted by signatory agencies

on an as-needed basis, subject to cost/benefit analysis. These measures include construction

and operation of tail water reuse systems, automation of canal structures, and installation of

water meters to measure the volume of water delivered to individual water users. Accurate

water use data are considered critical to the design and operation of effective water

management plans.

Conservation of farm irrigation water is a key part of a water transfer between the

Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) that is

included in the QSA. A portion of the money paid by SDCWA for IID water will go to help

Imperial Valley farmers improve irrigation efficiency on their crops. Some of the water conserved

by increased efficiency or land fallowing will be transferred to urban users in San Diego.

DWR concluded that by 2020, irrigation efficiencies and increased conservation could

reduce net demand by about 900,000 acre-feet.

THE BAY-DELTA

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a 1,153-square-mile region located where the

Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers converge and flow into San Francisco Bay. The Delta’s



21

maze of islands, marshes and sloughs is a vital link for the state’s water supply. State and

federal water facilities located in the south Delta pump water to supply farms and cities in

central and southern California, providing water to about two-thirds of the state’s population.

These projects and local facilities also provide about 60 percent of the water used in the San

Francisco Bay Area.

The Delta is a highly productive agricultural region because of its flat topography, mild

climate and abundant water. Its waters support 28 native and 28 non-native fish populations, in

addition to the salmon and steelhead populations that migrate through the estuary.

Farm interests, cities and environmental groups have battled for decades over the

Delta’s water and the health of its ecosystem. In the mid-1990s it appeared an effort known as

CALFED brought together a unique collaboration among 25 state and federal agencies with a

common mission: to improve California’s water supply and the ecological health of the Delta. It

was seen as an alternative to the costly and time-consuming legal wrangling amongst Delta

interests and a way to solve conflicts in the Delta to benefit the system. The CALFED Record of

Decision detailed hundreds of actions to improve the quantity and quality of the Delta’s water,

including a set of interim water quality standards that require water exports to be reduced by

about 400,000 acre-feet in average rainfall years and up to 1.1 million acre-feet in drought

years. The accord provided cities and farmers with more water supply certainty because it

assumes the outflow will adequately protect ESA-listed and other declining Delta fish species. If

additional water is needed to protect ailing species, the federal government will provide any

water presumably purchased from willing sellers above and beyond the amount set forth in the

plan.

Despite some improvements to the system, issues related to the Delta water quality,

ecosystem protection and water exports remain highly contentious.



22

The first phase of CALFED is finished, and although it is still a part of the state’s Water Plan,

emerging focus has been placed on the “Delta Vision” task force efforts and its emphasis to

provide water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration.

In 2006 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger launched the Delta Vision process to examine

issues related to the Delta’s future for the next 100 years. Recommendations built on the

premise that the ecosystem and a reliable water supply are co-equals, and that conflicts should

be resolved by applying the state constitutional principles of public trust. Recommendations

included a significant increase in conservation and water system efficiency, building facilities to

improve the existing water conveyance and expand statewide storage.

The governor formed a cabinet to review Delta Vision recommendations, and in January

2009, it mostly offered its endorsement – advising to discuss governance in 2009 while planning

to start peripheral canal construction in 2011 to divert the Sacramento River around the Delta.

The question of governance was a contentious point. Who would be the steward for the

Delta? Critics say that issue needs to be resolved before any canal plan proceeds, and the

governance role should include a strong preservation component and not just the job of the

moving water.

A major Delta issue is drinking water quality. About 22 million Californians receive at

least a portion of their drinking water supplies from the Delta. Because the region was once a

swamp, it has rich, organic soils containing compounds that are the building blocks for

suspected human carcinogens called trihalomethanes, or THMs. THMs are disinfectant

byproducts formed when chlorine is used to treat drinking water. Water utilities have spent large

amounts of money to find ways to reduce THMs without increasing the risk of microbial agents

in drinking water.

Water agency representatives point out that the limitations of the water quality database

in the study mean that its conclusions are subject to a large degree of uncertainty. Federal rules

limit THMs in drinking water to 100 ppb.



23

Environmental groups say the byproducts are more of a threat than what is suggested

by existing studies, pointing to their analysis of water quality and health data that reveals a link

between high rates of birth defects and miscarriages and regions with high amounts of

chlorination byproducts. Such high chlorination would not be necessary if drinking water

sources were cleaner, the groups say.

Environmental health experts believe the link between the byproducts and the possible

harm to unborn children is suggestive, not conclusive. High levels of byproducts are

nonetheless of concern, according to researchers. EPA in 2002 instituted stricter standards for

seven byproducts: five haloacetic acids, bromate and chlorite. Also required is a one-fifth

reduction in allowable THM levels.

In addition to these complex water quality issues, the 1,100 miles of levees that protect

Delta islands and channel water through the maze of Delta sloughs are unstable. Levees are

highly erodible and susceptible to failure by erosion, seepage, earthquakes and land

subsidence. If massive failure occurred, salt water would flood many Delta islands, forcing Delta

water users throughout the state to rely on stored supplies. Water deliveries to southern and

central California would be seriously disrupted.

The 2000 CALFED Record of Decision spearheaded the Delta Risk Management

Strategy (DRMS) which has evaluated current and future risks and estimated up to 260 flood-

related island failures could be expected in the next 100 years, 12-15 simultaneous island

failures in a major flood event and a 28 percent chance of 30 or more islands failing

simultaneously in a major earthquake in the next 25 years. The probability of flood-related levee

failure increases by 10 percent in 2050 and by 24 percent in 2100.

To mitigate these risks, the DRMS recommended to develop “building blocks,” including

improved levee maintenance, upgraded Delta Levees enhanced emergency preparedness and

response, pre-flooding of selected western islands, land use changes to reduce subsidence,

armored through Delta “pathway” conveyance, isolated conveyance, elevation of state highways



24

on piers, armored infrastructure corridor, restoration of marshes, fish screens and reduced

water exports.

The Bay Delta Conservation Planning (BDCP) process is in accordance to the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act

(NCCPA). The BDCP set biological goals and objectives to guide initial plan development;

developed the in-Delta and Suisun Marsh habitat restoration program, and other conservation

program elements to address other stressors in the Delta (e.g., toxics, non-native introductions,

harvest), and analyzed potential designs for the long-term conveyance system, including a new

diversion in the north Delta and the improvement to through-Delta conveyance.

Over the years, numerous plans have been advanced to protect the Delta from salt

water intrusion, periodic flooding, decreased stream runoff, and to preserve the region for

fisheries, wildlife and recreation use. Several times over the past 35 years (the first in 1964),

proposals have been made to build a so-called peripheral canal to move water around the

Delta. In concept, doing so would improve water quality for Southern California by eliminating

the problem of salt intrusion from the Delta. However, concerns over increased water exports to

Central and Southern California, along with concerns over the high price tag have kept the

proposal from becoming reality.

COLORADO RIVER

The Colorado River is a major source of water supply for Southern California. Allocation of the

Colorado has been fought over for decades and involved interstate compacts, a U.S. Supreme

Court decision, a treaty with Mexico and federal and state legislation. The lower Colorado’s flow

is divided between Arizona, California, Nevada, several American Indian tribes and Mexico. As

other states in the Colorado Basin have increased their use of the river’s water, and drought has

gripped the region, pressure has mounted to find ways to more efficiently use the river’s water.



25

For decades, the six California water agencies that receive Colorado River water

continually used about 800,000 acre-feet more than their combined annual 4.4 million acre-feet

share of Colorado River water. The water districts are Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Palo

Verde Irrigation District, MWD, which built the 242-mile long Colorado River Aqueduct that

transports up to 1.2 million acre-feet of flow to its users, Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power, San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and Coachella Valley Water District

(CVWD).

In 2003, California agencies signed a Water Use Plan for the Colorado River (known

colloquially as the “4.4 Plan”) to reduce its consumption of the Colorado River back to its 4.4

million acre-feet apportionment. The plan included a settlement regarding desalination of

drainage water, an American Indian water rights dispute (16,000 acre-feet to the San Luis Rey

Indian tribe located near San Diego). A major part of the 4.4 Plan was a long-term water transfer

of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year – the largest in California history – between IID and the

SDCWA. A related component was a recovery plan for the Salton Sea. The linchpin of the deal

was the Quantification Settlement Agreement, or QSA, which quantified the water rights of

Southern California’s big agricultural entities.

The plan was to ease into effect, yet because of drought conditions in the region,

California had to immediately reduce its use of surplus water and receive only 4.4 million acre-

feet a year. Facing year after year of drought, the seven states of the Colorado River Basin

continued to grapple with how to share the Colorado River supply. In late 2007, they agreed to

new rules to share and conserve scarce water. Known as the Seven States’ Agreement, the

pact included guidelines for which of the states will take water reductions and for how long in the

event of a shortage.

The agreement runs through 2026 and enacts rules to improve efficiency by allowing the

river's two huge reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, to rise and fall in tandem. The drought

has shrunk both bodies to less than half of capacity. If Lake Mead's level slips 36 feet below and



26

Lake Powell's level 22 feet below today's watermarks, rationing and other measures would kick

in.

WATER MARKETING

Water marketing – the sale, exchange or lease of water from one user to another – has the

potential to become a key tool for meeting rising water demand. Water transfers, however, can

raise a host of issues because of the unique nature of water, the interdependence of many

users and the traditional use of the resource.

The 1987-1993 drought brought water transfers to the forefront. Out of necessity, water

agencies in 1991 arranged many short-term transfers – exchanges for one year or less. In 1991,

California became a water broker with the creation of the state Drought Water Bank. Through

the bank, the state bought mostly surplus surface water from agricultural users who fallowed

fields or used groundwater, and sold it to critically water-short urban, agricultural and

environmental users. The drought bank was re-established on a more limited scale in 1992 and

1994 and dry year water purchase programs in 2001-2004.

In late 2008, facing a severe drought conditions and extremely low reservoir storage

levels, DWR implemented a Drought Water Bank for 2009.

The passage of the CVPIA also promoted water transfers by allowing CVP water

designated for agricultural purposes to be voluntarily transferred to urban uses. Yet, transferring

water – in particular from farms to cities – is an emotionally charged issue because whoever

controls a region’s water controls its destiny, as shown by the transfer of water out of Owens

Valley to Los Angeles in the early 1990s. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

purchased thousands of acres in Inyo County in the eastern Sierra Nevada solely for the

purpose of exporting water. It built two aqueducts – one in 1913 and the other in 1970 – to

transport the valley water to the city of Los Angeles. The second aqueduct exported surface and



27

groundwater and included diversions from streams feeding into Mono Lake, a basin north of

Owens Valley.

One of the major concerns over water marketing is the potential for farmers to sell their

surface water and pump groundwater in its place, depleting the underground resource. There

also are risks of third-party impacts to rural communities and agriculture-related industries if

farmers sell their water and quit farming. Agricultural suppliers, farm workers and other related

businesses can lose income, which can rock the rural community. Environmentalists are divided

on the issue of water marketing. Some say that trades alleviate the need for new water projects

and storage facilities and are part of the solution to meeting rising urban demands. However,

there are concerns that transfers that alter water releases, may cause temperature and flow

fluctuations that can harm fish, particularly salmon eggs and young fry.

Because most of California’s precipitation falls in the northern part of the state and the

greatest water demand is in central and Southern California, many transfers have to be routed

through the Delta. Given the estuary’s complex environmental and water quality problems, the

State Board requires that all through-Delta transfers undergo an environmental assessment

prior to approval.

Another issue is whether the source of water proposed for transfer actually augments

supply. Transfers from conserved or recycled water, for example, can increase supply. Other

types of transfers can reallocate or in fact decrease supply, such as where water that has been

contracted for but never allocated – known as “paper water” – is traded.

GROUNDWATER

For more than a century, groundwater has supplied a major part of California’s water needs --

about one-third of the water supply in normal years and up to 40 percent during drought years.

More than 9 million Californians – nearly one in three – rely solely on groundwater to

meet their needs, including the major cities of Fresno and Bakersfield. Along California’s central



28

coast, 90 percent of the drinking water comes from groundwater. Although groundwater and

surface water are treated as separate resources, they are intimately connected. The use,

transfer or contamination of one can directly affect the other.

In average rainfall years, Californians use more groundwater than is replaced by

precipitation, stream seepage or artificial recharge programs. Annual statewide overdraft –

taking out more than is replenished – is estimated by DWR to be approximately 1.4 million acre-

feet in a normal year. The long-term decline in groundwater storage can result in lowered water

tables and increased energy costs for pumping. In some basins, overdraft leads to land

subsidence and can cause sea water and other contaminants to invade the aquifer.

One method of increasing water supply reliability is the joint or “conjunctive” use of

surface water and groundwater supplies. More than 65 water agencies in the state operate

groundwater recharge programs. The success of many of these programs, however, depends

on purchasing available surface water from other users.

At the core of any conjunctive use project is a concept that many in California have

resisted – groundwater management. For a conjunctive use program to succeed, water must be

measured and managed as it is extracted from and/or recharged into a groundwater aquifer. Yet

managing a groundwater basin, to some, equals a state-dictated system for a resource that has,

historically, been considered a property right of overlying landowners. And while the state’s

surface water system is designed to move water from areas of plenty to areas of need

proposals to transfer groundwater from one area of the state to another invite suspicion.

Each conjunctive use project, however, is different, with its own set of legal, political and

technical challenges, and some question how much “new” water projects will ultimately yield.

Where do you get the surface water to store in a groundwater aquifer? How do you determine a

groundwater basin’s safe yield? How long will it take to extract the groundwater? What about

overlying landowners’ rights to the native groundwater? How do you protect the quality of that

native underground supply?



29

One significant groundwater recharge program is the Kern Water Bank in Kern County,

which was transferred from DWR to the local water agencies in 1996. Under the program,

available surface water from the SWP, CVP or Kern River is purchased by the six participating

water agencies to recharge depleted aquifers and shallow ponds. The Kern Water Bank can

store 1 million acre-feet of water using 12 square miles of recharge ponds. Much like a

traditional savings account, water deposited into the bank can be withdrawn as needed.

While California uses more groundwater than any other state, it lacks a comprehensive

statewide groundwater management system. Regulation exists in some local districts or in

basins that have been adjudicated by the courts, but generally there are no controls in California

over extraction.

In 2003, DWR’s updated principal groundwater publication, Bulletin 118, devoted

considerable attention to groundwater management for the first time.

However, attempts over the years to adopt statewide groundwater regulations have

been vigorously opposed by overlying land owners, particularly agricultural interests and local

water districts, fear it would curtail pumping in drought years...

The quality of groundwater is another concern. All of the state’s groundwater basins are

contaminated to some degree. Contamination usually concentrates in small sections of the

basin. Serious threats to potable water supplies are contamination from landfills, leaked toxins,

solvents, microbial agents, acid mine drainage and agricultural chemicals. The huge cost,

complexity and time required to clean up contaminated basins has forced some communities to

abandon their wells and rely on imported surface water supplies.

Some of the most widely publicized groundwater problems in California involve

contamination from manmade chemical compounds. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from

industrial sources, which are known or suspected carcinogens, seriously polluted wells in the

San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County. In the Central Valley, irrigation runoff containing

fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides has significantly polluted some areas.



30

In some overdrafted coastal aquifers, seawater has intruded and impaired groundwater

quality. The Orange County Water District is injecting treated wastewater to block seawater

intrusion into its coastal aquifers.

Concerns over groundwater quality led to enactment in 2001 of AB 599, a law that

requires comprehensive monitoring and assessment of groundwater basins throughout

California. The State Board issued a report in 2003 outlining its plan for establishing such a

program, which includes making monitoring and assessment information available to the public.

In 2006, California voters approved water bond Proposition 84, which dedicated substantial

funding for Integrated Regional Water Management Plans that include measure such as

groundwater recharge and management and contamination response and prevention.

SALINITY ISSUES

The San Joaquin Valley forms the southern half of California’s Central Valley. The northern

portion of the San Joaquin Valley is drained by the San Joaquin River. The southern portion,

essentially a closed basin, is only drained by the San Joaquin River, during rare high flood

events.

Commonly referred to as the “fruit basket of the world,” the San Joaquin Valley is one of

the most vital and productive farming areas in the world, a $32 billion agricultural industry that

produces half the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables.

Plus, the valley is the fastest growing residential area in the state. But continued salt

buildup in valley water and soils has reduced agricultural productivity and threatens water

resources that the local population depends on.

On any given day, water imported from the Delta brings 250 tons of salt a day into the

Central Valley via the state and federal water canals. That’s equivalent to 11 semi-trucks per

hour coming into the valley and dumping salt on the ground.



31

Parts of the Central Valley feature poorly drained and naturally saline soils. When these

soils are irrigated, salts accumulate in the shallow groundwater and rise into the root zone.

Without adequate drainage, fields become waterlogged.

Compounding the problem is the salinity in water supplies used to irrigate fields. Some

water evaporates from the surface of the field, leaving salts behind. The rest of the water

penetrates the soil where much of it is taken up by crop roots and is transpired through the plant

leaves, again leaving salts behind.

Farmers are taking the initiative and pursuing treatment filtering techniques and studying

salt-tolerant crops. And cities are educating residents about their role in the problem and what

can be done to reduce the amount of salt they contribute into water.

Even normal use of water by residents contributes to the problem. And as the population

increases in the Central Valley, one area of concern is how the additional residents will

exacerbate the problem with further demands on water supply and for clean drinking water.

Estimates are cities in the San Joaquin Valley alone will need to bring in an extra

800,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year to meet the demands of the growing population.

Finding a viable solution to the salt problem has been pursued since the 1930s, when a

plan was developed to build a gigantic pipeline to send the saltwater out to the ocean. Then, the

U.S. Department of Interior teamed with the state of California, and construction began on the

“San Luis Drain” to send untreated farm water straight to the Delta and out to the ocean. Crews

got as far as 85 miles – to the edge of the San Joaquin River – when disagreements over

funding and environmental opposition brought construction to a halt.

In 1975 what was supposed to be the valley master drain was terminated in Merced

County at a reservoir known as Kesterson. The reservoir was not designed to be a terminus

reservoir but to be a regulation reservoir to time the flows of drainage into the Delta to coincide

with the ocean tides for disposal.



32

When the untreated agricultural drainage was funneled in to the Kesterson Reservoir, it

brought selenium, which drained from coastal mountains and joined the salty agricultural water,

and an environmental disaster. To migrating waterfowl, the mineral was deadly to thousands of

birds. The reservoir was eventually filled in with dirt.

Most recently, the state has formed the Salinity Policy Group to bring together leaders

from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and area stakeholders in an

attempt to find best methods to address the problem.

The current debate is whether to pursue so-called “in-valley” or “out-of-valley” solutions.

An “out-of-valley” solution would be something like a brine line – another attempt at a master

valley drain – using modern technology to treat the water before it reaches the ocean, which is

the practice for Southern California’s Santa Ana region.

As “in-valley” solutions, some of the most advanced salt management techniques are

being explored to manage salt in the Tulare Lake Basin and other areas in the San Joaquin

Valley. These include on-farm water reuse and salt precipitation, reverse osmosis concentration

and truck disposal to existing ocean outfalls, brine reinjection into oil extraction areas, water

management and source water replacement, source control for salts going into the domestic

sewers and evaporation ponds.

Reverse osmosis is hailed as one of the most effective solutions. Some desalination

plants are being built in coastal California to make ocean water drinkable. The downside is the

technology is costly and requires an extraordinary amount of energy to function.

Focusing on urban water usage, enforcement efforts are being stepped up on

wastewater discharge standards. As a result, cities throughout the valley are looking more

closely at their selection of a quality source for their water and also what consumers do to add

salt to their waste-streams. Educational outreach is taking the message to the people in hopes

that residents will learn how to reduce their impact on the salinity problem.



Another issue is agricultural drainage. The leaching of applied chemicals and naturally

occurring trace elements from agricultural soils poses problems throughout the West, but it is

especially acute in California. Drainage water can be tainted not only with salts but also high

concentrations of, selenium, pesticides, arsenic, boron and other trace elements.

Another form of agricultural discharge, surface runoff, has emerged as a major concern

for both farmers and water quality regulators. The biggest such regulator, the Central Valley

Regional Water Quality Control Board, historically had exempted farms from reporting runoff

discharges, but in 2003 it adopted a conditional waiver that is expected to increase controls on

farm runoff to nearby water bodies. The conditional waiver requires farmers to conduct

monitoring individually or form watershed-based coalitions to monitor farm runoff for numerous

pollutants, including pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, pathogens and heavy metals.

The Department of Water Resources teams up with other State and federal agencies,

local water and irrigation districts, resource conservation districts, educational and research

institutions and growers to find cost-effective ways to manage irrigation drainage water without

harming agricultural production. On-farm demonstration and study projects implement state-of-

the-art irrigation and drainage management practices and are getting results.

SUMMARY

With climate change already changing conditions throughout the state, and as difficult as it is for

California’s diverse water interests to agree on anything, most appear to realize that California

will resolve its water problems only through compromise and innovative thinking. Increasingly,

alternative methods of enhancing water supply will replace or augment environmentally

sensitive water development projects. And conservation will have an emerging, important role.

The state recognizes that a change future means rethinking how water resources are used and

managed. Adaptation and implementing new strategies to satisfy the state’s many competing

demands is the challenge that the public and water managers will face in coming years

Documents

California; 2009 Briefing on California Water Issues - Water Education Foundation