DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix D-Modeling Technical Memorandum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

APPENDIX D PROPOSED LOWER YUBA RIVER ACCORD MODELING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord June 2007 Draft EIR/EIS Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Modeling Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................D-1 2.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK..................................................................................D-1 2.1 Impact Analysis Approach.........................................................................................D-2 2.2 Project Study Area .......................................................................................................D-3 2.2.1 Characterization of Trinity River and Clear Creek Operations ...............D-3 2.2.2 Characterization of Folsom Reservoir and Lower American River Operations........................................................................................................D-4 2.2.3 Characterization of Shasta Reservoir and the Sacramento River Upstream of the Feather River Confluence.................................................D-4 3.0 MODELS USED FOR THE IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................D-5 3.1 CALSIM II Model.........................................................................................................D-6 3.2 Yuba Project Model......................................................................................................D-9 3.3 Lower Yuba River Water Temperature Model........................................................D-9 3.4 Lower Yuba River Outflow Routing Tool ..............................................................D-10 3.5 Bureau of Reclamation Water Temperature Models ............................................D-11 3.5.1 Bureau of Reclamation’s Reservoir Water Temperature Models...........D-11 3.5.2 Bureau of Reclamation’s River Water Temperature Models..................D-12 3.6 Bureau of Reclamation’s Early Life Stage Chinook Salmon Mortality Models ............................................................................................................D-12 3.6.1 Lower Feather River Early Life Stage Chinook Salmon Mortality Model Revisions............................................................................................D-13 3.6.2 Other Salmon Mortality Model Considerations.......................................D-14 3.7 Graphic and Tabular Analysis of Environmental Resources Tool......................D-14 3.8 Delta Simulation Model 2 .........................................................................................D-15 3.9 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Fish Salvage Evaluation......................................D-15 3.9.1 Salvage............................................................................................................D-15 3.9.2 Modeling ........................................................................................................D-16 3.10 Project Hydropower Production and Delta Export Pumping Power Demand Evaluation......................................................................................D-17 3.11 Model Limitations......................................................................................................D-18 4.0 CEQA/NEPA MODEL SCENARIOS .................................................................................D-19 4.1 Foundation Studies....................................................................................................D-22 4.1.1 OCAP Study 3 ...............................................................................................D-22 4.1.2 Foundation Study OCAP Study 5 ..............................................................D-23 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord June 2007 Draft EIR/EIS Page D-i Appendix D Modeling Technical Memorandum Table of Contents (Continued) Section Page 4.2 CEQA Scenarios .........................................................................................................D-23 4.2.1 CEQA Existing Condition (Scenario 1)......................................................D-23 4.2.2 CEQA No Project Alternative (Scenario 2)................................................D-24 4.2.3 CEQA Yuba Accord Alternative ( Scenario 3) ..........................................D-25 4.2.4 CEQA Modified Flow Alternative (Scenario 4)........................................D-26 4.3 NEPA Scenarios .........................................................................................................D-26 4.3.1 NEPA No Action Alternative (Scenario 5) ................................................D-26 4.3.2 NEPA Yuba Accord Alternative ( Scenario 6) ..........................................D-27 4.3.3 NEPA Modified Flow Alternative (Scenario 7) ........................................D-28 5.0 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CVP/SWP OPERATIONS..........................................D-28 5.1 Water Transfers ..........................................................................................................D-28 5.2 No Transfer Period ....................................................................................................D-28 5.3 Proposed Yuba Accord Water for the Central Valley Project..............................D-29 5.4 Proposed Yuba Accord Water for the State Water Project...................................D-29 5.5 Characterization of CVP/SWP Response to Decreases in Lower Yuba River Outflow................................................................................................D-29 5.6 Pumping Priorities: Banks Pumping Plant vs. Jones Pumping Plant.................D-30 5.7 Reregulation of Yuba River Water in Oroville reservoir......................................D-31 6.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................D-31 List of Attachments Attachment A Yuba Project Model Attachment B Lower Yuba River Water Temperature Evaluation Attachment C Carry-over Storage for Water Transfers List of Figures Figure 3-1. Modeling and Post-Processing Procedures......................................................D-7 Figure 3-2. Lower Yuba River Model Network Schematic and Output...........................D-9 List of Tables Table 2-1. Summary of Required CEQA and NEPA Comparative Scenarios to be Evaluated .........................................................................................................D-3 Table 4-1. Yuba Accord CEQA AND NEPA Modeling Scenario Assumptions Matrix ..................................................................................................................D-20 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord June 2007 Draft EIR/EIS Page D-ii Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Modeling Technical Memorandum 1.0 INTRODUCTION This memorandum provides detailed information regarding the modeling tools, primary modeling assumptions, model inputs, and methodologies that are used to evaluate potential effects on reservoir operations, stream flow, water quality, water temperature, and salmon mortality under the various scenarios that are analyzed in the Proposed Yuba Accord EIR/EIS. Implementation of one of these scenarios would result in changes in operations of: (1) YCWA’s Yuba Project; (2) YCWA Member Units’ groundwater pumping within the Yuba Groundwater Basin; (3) the DWR Oroville-Thermalito complex of the SWP; (4) CVP/SWP Delta facilities; and (5) CVP/SWP San Luis Reservoir. This memorandum is included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR/EIS. 2.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK This section describes the impact analysis framework to evaluate potential flow and water temperature related changes on surface water supplies, surface water quality, hydropower, and aquatic and riparian habitat utilized by listed species that would be expected to occur with implementation of the various alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Modeling scenarios were developed to represent existing and future hydrologic conditions with and without implementation of the alternatives considered for the Proposed Yuba Accord (i.e., Yuba Accord Alternative and Modified Flow Alternative) to enable an evaluation of potential environmental impacts for CEQA, NEPA and water rights purposes. These scenarios include: (1) CEQA Existing Condition; (2) CEQA No Project Alternative; (3) CEQA Yuba Accord Alternative; (4) CEQA Modified Flow Alternative; (5) NEPA No Action Alternative; (6) NEPA Yuba Accord Alternative; and (7) NEPA Modified Flow Alternative. In addition to these scenarios, baseline conditions for the accounting of Released Transfer Water for the two characterizations (CEQA and NEPA) of the Yuba Accord Alternative are determined, but not directly used in any of the impact analyses. The hydrologic modeling and related post-processing of outputs is used to simulate the YCWA, Reclamation, and DWR water project operations associated with implementation of the alternatives. Comparison of model results for the different scenarios is used in the discussions of environmental effects in the following resource chapters of the Draft EIR/EIS: Chapter 5 - Surface Water Supply and Management Chapter 6 - Groundwater Resources Chapter 7 – Power Production and Energy Consumption Chapter 8 - Flood Control Chapter 9 - Surface Water Quality Chapter 10 - Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Chapter 11 - Terrestrial Resources Chapter 12 – Recreation Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord June 2007 Draft EIR/EIS Page D-1 Appendix D Modeling Technical Memorandum Chapter
Recommended publications
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System

    Sacramento River Flood Control System

    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
  • Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

    Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

    TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN GRINNELL, P.E., YUNG-HSIN SUN, Ph.D., AND STUART ROBERTSON, P.E. YUBA RIVER INDEX: WATER YEAR CLASSIFICATIONS FOR YUBA RIVER PREPARED FOR YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY PREPARED BY BOOKMAN-EDMONSTON ENGINEERING, INC. Unpublished Work © November 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 SACRAMENTO VALLEY INDEX AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER INDEX .................................................1 NEED FOR YUBA RIVER INDEX ..................................................................................................................2 DISTRIBUTION OF YUBA RIVER ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED FLOWS...........................................................................3 FUNCTIONS AND PURPOSES OF EXISTING FACILITIES..........................................................................................4 YUBA RIVER INDEX........................................................................................................................................6 INDEX DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................................6 INDEX DEFINITION .............................................................................................................................................7 WATER YEAR CLASSIFICATIONS OF YUBA RIVER ..............................................................................................8
  • Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2

    Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2

    Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2 Siqing Liu, Bob Suits DWR, Bay Delta Office, Modeling Support Branch 2011 CWEMF Annual Meeting, February 28 –March 2 1 Topics • Project objectives • Aqueduct System modeled • Assumptions / issues with modeling • Model results –Flows / Storage, EC, Bromide 2 Objectives Simulate Aqueduct hydraulics and water quality • 1990 – 2010 period • DSM2 Aqueduct version calibrated by CH2Mhill Achieve 1st step in enabling forecasting Physical System Canals simulated • South Bay Aqueduct (42 miles) • California Aqueduct (444 miles) • East Branch to Silverwood Lake • West Branch to Pyramid Lake (40 miles) • Delta‐Mendota Canal (117 miles) 4 Physical System, cont Pumping Plants Banks Pumping Plant Buena Vista (Check 30) Jones Pumping Plant Teerink (Check 35) South Bay Chrisman (Check 36) O’Neill Pumping-Generating Edmonston (Check 40) Gianelli Pumping-Generating Alamo (Check 42) Dos Amigos (Check 13) Oso (West Branch) Las Perillas (Costal branch) Pearblossom (Check 58) 5 Physical System, cont Check structures and gates • Pools separated by check structures throughout the aqueduct system (SWP: 66, DMC: 21 ) • Gates at check structures regulate flow rates and water surface elevation 6 Physical System, cont Turnout and diversion structures • Water delivered to agricultural and municipal contractors through diversion structures • Over 270 diversion structures on SWP • Over 200 turnouts on DMC 7 Physical System, cont Reservoirs / Lakes Represented as complete mixing of water body •
  • Power and Energy Technical Report, DEIS

    Power and Energy Technical Report, DEIS

    Draft Power and Energy Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, California Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 1-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Shasta Lake and Vicinity ................................................................................................. 1-7 Upper Sacramento River (Shasta Dam to Red Bluff) ...................................................... 1-9 Lower Sacramento River and Delta ............................................................................... 1-10 CVP/SWP Service Areas ............................................................................................... 1-12 Chapter 2 Modeling Results ................................................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 3-1 Tables Table 1-1. Central Valley Project Power Plants, Capacities, and Historical Annual Generation ................................................................................................................. 1-5 Table 1-2. Major State Water Project Facilities, Capacities, and Historical Power Generation
  • Cottage Creek Dam Modification Project

    Cottage Creek Dam Modification Project

    INITIAL STUDY FOR THE COTTAGE CREEK DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT Prepared for: Yuba Water Agency 1220 F Street Marysville, CA 95901 Prepared by: 9888 Kent Street Elk Grove, CA 95624 (916) 714-1801 August 2020 INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Regulatory Guidance .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Public Review ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Document Organization .......................................................................................................................... 3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project History and Background ............................................................................................................
  • Exhibit a Project Description

    Exhibit a Project Description

    Application for New License Major Project – Existing Dam Exhibit A Project Description Security Level: Public Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 Prepared by: Yuba County Water Agency 1220 F Street Marysville, CA 95901 www.ycwa.com April 2014 ©2014, Yuba County Water Agency. All Rights Reserved Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246 Table of Contents Section No. Description Page No. 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... A-1 2.0 Project Location .............................................................................................................. A-2 3.0 Project Facilities and Features ........................................................................................ A-7 3.1 New Colgate Development ................................................................................. A-8 3.1.1 Developmental Facilities ........................................................................ A-8 3.1.2 New Colgate Development Recreation Facilities ................................. A-15 3.1.2.1 New Bullards Bar Reservoir .................................................. A-18 3.1.2.2 Project Diversion Dam Impoundments .................................. A-38 3.1.3 Streamflow Gages ................................................................................. A-39 3.1.4 Roads..................................................................................................... A-40
  • Bowman South Dam Seismic Stability Analyses

    Bowman South Dam Seismic Stability Analyses

    Nevada Irrigation District Staff Report for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, August 14, 2019 TO: Honorable Board of Directors FROM: Keane Sommers, P.E., Hydroelectric Manager Dar Chen, P.E., G.E., Senior Engineer - Dam Safety DATE: August 7, 2019 SUBJECT: Bowman South Dam Seismic Stability Analyses HYDROELECTRIC RECOMMENDATION: Award a sole source contract in the amount of $225,581.30 to Quest Structures for the Bowman South Dam Seismic Stability Analyses, and authorize the General Manager to execute the necessary documents. BACKGROUND: Bowman South Dam is a 105-foot-high and 567-foot-long concrete arch dam built in 1927 in a small canyon south of Bowman North Rockfill Dam. Both of the dams form Bowman Lake, which stores and transmits water from 6 other reservoirs on Canyon Creek and the Middle Yuba River upstream to Canyon Creek and the Bowman- Spaulding Canal downstream. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Division of Safety of Dams of California (DSOD), Bowman South is classified as an extremely-high-hazard dam due to the potential impacts on the downstream lives and properties in the case of its failure. It is approximately 15 miles west of the Mohawk Valley fault, which can generate up to a magnitude 7.3 earthquake. The last seismic stability analysis for the dam was performed in the mid-1990s. The study identified potential instabilities at the left abutment thrust block. Since then, the seismic criteria and the method of stability analyses have greatly evolved. Based on their dam safety inspections in 2012 and 2016, the FERC required Independent Consultants recommended that the District complete seismic stability analysis updates of the dam based on the latest seismic ground motions and methods of analysis, which include 3-D non-linear, dynamic, finite-element modeling of the dam.
  • Some Dam – Hydro Newstm

    Some Dam – Hydro Newstm

    10/2/2015 Some Dam – Hydro News TM And Other Stuff i Quote of Note: “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” – -RALPH WALDO EMERSON Some Dam - Hydro News Newsletter Archive for Back Issues and Search http://npdp.stanford.edu/ Click on Link (Some Dam - Hydro News) Bottom Right - Under Perspectives “Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2012 Kaiken Malbec "Ultra" “ No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap. ” - - Thomas Jefferson Dams: (It only takes money – got any?) Time running out on water pact By LACEY JARRELL H&N Staff Reporter, Sep 20, 2015, heraldandnews.com A coalition of water stakeholders visited Washington, D.C., earlier this month to bolster support for long-term water security and fishery restoration in the Klamath Basin. On Wednesday and Thursday, Sept. 9 and 10, more than one dozen stakeholders met with several Oregon and California delegates in Washington, D.C., to reinforce the importance, and the urgency, of passing water legislation this year. The team — representatives from agricultural, tribal and environmental interests — traveled 2,400 miles to the East Coast to discuss the massive hit the Basin’s $600 million-per-year 1 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu ag industry and endangered fish esteemed by tribes will take if Senate Bill 133 — the Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act — fails to pass Congress in 2015. “It was a coordinated effort on all fronts,” said Brad Kirby, assistant manager of Tulelake Irrigation District.
  • Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS

    Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS

    6. Surface Water Resources 6.1 Introduction This chapter describes Existing Conditions (the environmental setting) and Sites Reservoir Project (Project)-related changes to surface water resources in the Extended, Secondary, and Primary study areas. Detailed descriptions and maps of these three study areas are provided in Chapter 1 Introduction, and summarized descriptions are included in this chapter. Surface water resources generally include reservoirs, rivers, and diversions. Permits and authorizations for surface water resources are presented in Chapter 4 Environmental Compliance and Permit Summary. The regulatory setting for surface water resources is presented in Appendix 4A Environmental Compliance. This chapter also includes a description of the surface water supply facilities operations and resulting surface water resources characteristics of California’s major water systems that are relevant to the Project: the Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal project that is operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP), operated and maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and associated tributary rivers and streams. A schematic showing the layout of these two water systems, with the relative location of the Project, is shown in Figures 6-1A, 6-1B, and 6-1C. A comparison of these characteristics has been made between the Existing Conditions/No Project/No Action Condition, and the four action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D). Unless noted, all numbers shown related to storages, flows, exports, and deliveries in this chapter are generated from the CALSIM II computer simulation model. Appendix 6A Modeling of Alternatives, Appendix 6B Water Resources System Modeling, and Appendix 6C Upper Sacramento River Daily River Flow and Operations Modeling describe the assumptions and the analytical framework used in the surface water modeling analyses.
  • Yuba County Water Agency's Yuba River Development Project

    Yuba County Water Agency's Yuba River Development Project

    Yuba County Water Agency’s Yuba River Development Project Relicensing YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), located in Marysville, California, is a public agency formed in 1959 pursuant to California State law (Water Code § 20500 et with a capacity of 150 kilowatts at a flow of 5 cfs; (3) New Bullards Bar Minimum seq.). The provisions of the California Water Code, under which YCWA was Flow Transformer, located adjacent to the New Bullards Bar Minimum Flow formed (WC§§ 20500–29978; 22115), permit YCWA to generate, distribute and sell Powerhouse; and (4) appurtenant facilities and features including access roads electricity. within the FERC Project Boundary. YUBA RIVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NARROWS 2 DEVELOPMENT consists of: (1) Narrows 2 Powerhouse Penstock is a single rock tunnel, concrete lined (20 ft diameter) at the upper 376 feet YCWA owns and operates the Yuba River Development Project, which is located in and steel lined (14 ft diameter) for the final 371.5 feet. The penstock has a Yuba County, California, on the Yuba River and its tributaries including the North maximum flow capacity of 3,400 cfs; (2) Narrows 2 Powerhouse, an indoor and Middle Yuba River and Oregon Creek. A portion of the area within the FERC powerhouse located at the base of the United States Army Corps of Engineer’s Project Boundary is located on federally-owned land managed by the United States (USACE) Englebright Dam. The powerhouse consists of one vertical axis Francis Department of Agriculture Forest Service as part of Plumas and Tahoe national turbine with a capacity of 55 MW at a head of 236 feet and flow of 3,400 cfs; (3) forests.
  • Climate Change and Flood Operations in the Sacramento Basin, California Ann D

    Climate Change and Flood Operations in the Sacramento Basin, California Ann D

    JULY 2011 Climate Change and Flood Operations in the Sacramento Basin, California Ann D. Willis1, Jay R. Lund2, Edwin S. Townsley3, and Beth A. Faber4 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Climate warming is likely to challenge many cur- It is often desirable to change regulatory policies with rent conceptions and regulatory policies, particularly changing conditions. A changing climate, along with for water management. A warmer climate is likely to other changes in floodplain land use and flood warn- hinder flood operations in California’s Sacramento ing and forecasting, will pose problems and oppor- Valley by decreasing snowpack storage and increas- tunities for existing flood management (IPCC 2007). ing the rain fraction of major storms. This work This paper focuses on the implications of not adapt- examines how a warmer climate would change flood ing reservoir operating policies for flood management peaks and volumes for nine major historical floods in California’s Sacramento Valley for various forms entering Shasta, Oroville, and New Bullards Bar res- of climate warming. This complements the existing ervoirs, using current flood flow forecast models and literature on adapting water management to changes current flood operating rules. Shasta and Oroville in climate in California (Carpenter and others 2001, have dynamic flood operation curves that accommo- 2003; Tanaka and others 2006; Zhu and others 2007; date many climate-warming scenarios. New Bullards Anderson and others 2008; Hanak and Lund 2008; Bar’s more static operating rule performs poorly for Medellin–Azuara and others 2008). these conditions. Revisiting flood operating rules is When dams are built for flood management, a flood an important adaptation for climate warming.
  • California Water Supply Infrastructure

    California Water Supply Infrastructure

    California Water Supply Infrastructure Natural: rivers, snowpack, aquifers Aqueducts, canals, pipelines, pumping plants Surface storage (dams, reservoirs) Groundwater extraction and recharge Urban: treatment, storm water capture, desalination California Aqueduct (DWR) Geographical Features Coastal Range Sacramento River Valley Delta San Joaquin River Valley San Francisco Tulare Basin area Kern County Colorado Los Angeles area River . http://www.california-map.org Imperial County 2 Water Accounting in California Average Usage Agriculture: 33 MAF Urban: 9 MAF Some sources of supply State Water Project: 3 MAF Federal Water Project: 8 MAF Colorado River: 5 MAF Ground water: 15 MAF Other from local projects and reuse 3 Water Supply Example: Irvine Ranch Water District 380,000 residents Water Sources for IRWD Local streams Recycling (non-potable) Imported by MWD Local groundwater pumping (OCWD) Remote groundwater banking Desalination (future) Role of Infrastructure in Water Transfers river or aqueduct Major California Water Projects Federal, State and local (California Water Plan: Update 2013) Shasta Dam and lake (Anthony Dunn) Red Bluff Diversion Dam (Red Bluff Daily News) Oroville Dam and lake (California DWR) Sacramento River (placesonline.com) Delta scene (DWR) Left: Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta (Wikipedia) Lower left: Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant (baydeltalive.com) Lower right: Federal and State Aqueducts (Wikipedia) Friant Dam and Millerton lake (USBR) San Luis Reservoir (California DWR) San Joaquin River (www.alamy.com) Edmonston Pumping