2007 Water Conservation Plan

Home , Alamo Canal, Alamo River, Coachella Canal

Imperial Irrigation District

Imperial Irrigation District Resources Planning & Management Section

October 2008

IID 2007 Water Conservation Plan

CONTENTS

District Description 1 Physical Setting and Crops 1 History 1 Water Entitlement 1 Cultural Resources 3 Climate 3 Location 3 Natural Environment 3 Agricultural Areas 4 Creosote Desert Scrub 4 Riparian/Marsh Areas 4 Salton Sea 4 Sand Dunes 5 Size 5 Topography 6 Soils 6 Crop Census Data 7

District Operations and Operating Policies 8 Operations and Maintenance of the System 8 Water Department Organization 8 Water Administration 8 Water Operations 8 Dispatch Unit 9 Operations Unit 9 SCADA Unit 9 Construction & Maintenance 10 Management Administration, Construction, & Heavy Equipment Units 10 Engineering 10 Design and Drafting Unit 10 Field Engineering Unit 11 Resources Planning & Management 11 Irrigation Management and Monitoring Unit 12 Operation of the Delivery System 13 System Operation 13 Water Pricing and Billing Practices 15 Water Shortage (Supply/Demand Imbalance) Allocation Policies 16

Water Inventory Resources 19 Water Supplies and Contracts 19 Water Supply 19 Water Contracts 20

Storage and Distribution Facilities 22 Water Storage 22 Water Delivery 22 Water Drainage 24 Tailwater/Spill Recovery Systems 24

Water Measurement and Accounting Procedures 25 IID Measurements 25

Water Use and Budget 27 Water Use Accounting 27 Water Budget 28 Methods & Assumptions 28 Quality of Water Sources 32 Imperial Valley Groundwater Basin 33

Water Conservation Measures and Results 37 Existing Water Conservation Measures 37 Measured Water Conservation 43 IID System Conservation 43 IID/MWD Program Conservation 43 QSA - IID Fallowing Program Conservation 43 Fundamental Water Conservation Measures 44 A. Water measurement and accounting system 44 B. Water pricing structure 44 C. An information and education program 44 Tailwater Education Program 44 Equipment and Logistics 45 Summary of Estimated Program Costs 45 Salty Dawg (Salinity Assessment Vehicle) 45 Water Flow Measurement Classes 46 Key Customer Coordinator 46 News from the Ditchbank 46 D. A water conservation coordinator 46 Additional Agricultural Water Conservation Measures 47 A. On-farm program incentives 47 IID FALLOWING PROGRAM 47 DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES 48 B. Drought/water shortage contingency plan 48 IID Initiative 48 C. Water transfers 48 IID/MWD TRANSFER 48 QSA TRANSFERS 48 D. Conjunctive use: DEMONSTRABLY INAPPROPRIATE 49 E. Land management: DEMONSTRABLY INAPPROPRIATE 49

iii

F. Operational practices and procedures 49 IID Initiative 49 IID/MWD Program 49 Definite Plan Initiative 49 G. Distribution system scheduling 50 IID Initiatives 50 Definite Plan Initiatives 50 H. On-farm irrigation scheduling 50 IID Initiatives 50 I. Pump efficiency evaluations 50 IID Pumps 50 IID/MWD Pumps 50 J. Distribution control 51 IID Initiatives 51 IID/MWD Programs 51 Definite Plan Initiatives 51 K. Reuse systems 51 IID & Grower Initiatives 51 IID/MWD Program 52 Definite Plan Initiative 52 L. Reduction of conveyance seepage 52 IID & Grower Initiatives 52 IID/MWD Program 52 Definite Plan Initiatives 52 M. Construction, lining or covering of regulatory reservoirs 52 IID Initiatives 52 IID/MWD Program 52 Definite Plan Initiatives 53 Summary of Definite Plan Costs thru 2007 53

Selected Measures and Projected Results 54 QSA Water Transfer Programs 54 QSA Program Overview 54 QSA Program Planning 54 System Improvement Study 55 Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan (Definite Plan) 55 Equitable Distribution of Water Study 56 Fallowing Program 56 Fallowing Program Details 57 Fallowing for Salton Sea Mitigation 57 Efficiency Conservation Plan (ECP) 58 Main Canal Seepage Recovery 58 Project Elements 58 Project Schedule and Water Conservation 59 Project Cost 59

Near-Term Actions: On-Farm, System, and Measurement 59 On-Farm Program: TASKS 1 - 5 60 Identification and Testing of System Improvements: TASKS 1 - 7 62 Improved Delivery Measurement: TASKS 1 – 7 64 Cost Estimate, Schedule and Staffing 65 Other Projects 66 AAC Lining Project 66 Vail Canal System Automation Project 67 Project Funding 67 Project Description 67 Project Benefits 68 AAC Drop 2 Reservoir 68

Environmental Review 70 QSA Environmental Compliance 70 QSA Environmental Assessments & Permits 70 CEQA Compliance for the IID Transfer Project 70  Draft EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project and Draft HCP 70  Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project and Draft HCP 70  Addendum to Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project 70  Supplement to Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project 70  Approval Documents for IID Transfer Project 72 CEQA Compliance for the QSA 72  Final QSA PEIR for Implementation 72  Approval Documents for QSA 73 NEPA Compliance for the CRDWA/Federal QSA 73  Final EIR/EIS – IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project 73  Final Implementation Agreement (IA) EIS 74  Approval Document for IID Transfer Project & CRWDA IA, IPO & Related Actions 74 ESA/CESA Compliance Process for the IID Transfer Project and QSA 74  ESA Compliance 74  CESA Compliance 74  HCP/NCCP Process 75 Mitigation Implementation 76 IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program 76 Managed Marsh 76

Implementation Schedule and Budget 78 ECP Implementation: Recommendations 1 - 6 78 Main Canal Seepage Recovery 79 IID Efficiency Conservation Program, Near-Term Actions 79 IID Transfer Project Staffing and Budget Projections (2008- 2012) 79

Public Involvement and Support 84 Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan 84 Public Involvement Overview 84 Efficiency Conservation Workshops: February 28, March 16, and April 2, 2007 84

Acronyms 85

References 89

Web Links 90 A Soils Map 90 B Historical Crop Patterns: Annual Inventory of Areas Receiving Water & Crop Report 90 C Water Service 90 D Water Rates and Assessments 90 E Water Shortage Allocation Policy 90 F IID Water Balance Summary 90 G Imperial County Groundwater Management Ordinance 90

Attachments A IID Board Minutes, Dec 18, 2007 – No. 9 Equitable distribution program B IID Hydrography Unit Current Metering Reading Overview C Water Quality Monitoring Sample Data  Imperial Dam EC (Salinity) - USBR (Nov 2006 - Dec 2006)  AAC Drop 1 – IID (July 25, 2006)  Salton Sea (5 sites) – IID Provisional Data (1995 - 2007)  Bacteriological Analysis: AAC, EHL, CM, WSM (10 sites) – IID (2006)  Silt Load Analysis: AAC (12 sites) – IID (July 5, 2006)  Title 22 Compliance: AAC, EHL, CM, WSM – Clinical Lab (Oct 27, 2006)  Drain Water – Alamo River & New River – IID (June 21, 2007)  TMDL Drain Water (7 main & 18 minor sites) – IID (Jan 2006 - Dec 2006) D IID/MWD Water Conservation Program Savings (1990 – 2006) E Project Status Report: Design and Construction of Main Canal Seepage Interception System, Jan 8, 2008 F Draft Work Plan: IID Efficiency Conservation Program Near Term Actions, Nov 20, 2007

IID 2007 Water Conservation Plan

TABLES 1. District History and Size 1 2. Water Rights 2 3. Climate Characteristics – Imperial, CA 3 4. Monthly Climate Summary – 30-Year Average (1977 – 2006) 3 5. District Size 5 6. Topography Impacts 6 7. Soil Characteristic Impacts 6 8. Delivery System 14 9. IID System Operation Web Links 14 10. IID Water Rate Schedules – 2006 15 11. IID Water Services Web Links 16 12. IID Equitable Distribution Web Links 18 13. Surface Water Supply (KAF) 19 14. IID Quantification and Transfers (KAFY) 20 15. IID Payback of Overruns for Calendar Years 2001 and 2002 (AF) 21 16. Compromise IID QSA Delivery Schedule (KAF) 22 17. District Reservoirs 22 18. Conveyance and Delivery System (2005 miles) 24 19. Tailwater/Spill Recovery System 24 20. Customer Measurements 25 21. IID System Measurement Sites 25 22. IID System Measurement (USGS) 26 23. Current Metering Equipment 26 24. Weather Data (CIMIS Sites) 26 25. Imperial Irrigation District Supply and Use USBR Accounting (AF) 27 26. Imperial Irrigation District Supply and Use IID QSA Accounting (AF) 27 27. Provisional IID Calendar Year Water Balance (KAF) 30 28. Water Quality Monitoring 32 29. District Groundwater Basin 33 30. IID Water Conservation Programs and Projects 38 31. IID/MWD Water Conservation Program and Projects 40 32. IID QSA Programs and Projects 42 33. IID System Water Conservation (AF/yr) 43 34. IID/MWD Water Conservation (AF) 43 35. IID Fallowing Program 43 36. Definite Plan Contents & Web Links 55 37. Main Canal Seepage Recovery Project Phases (26 proposed sites) 59 38. IID ECP Programs and Projects 66 39. IID ECP Staffing 80 40. IID ECP Projected Budgets 80 41. IID ECP Water Transfer Project summary Mitigation Budget Projection May 2006 82

vii

IID 2007 Agricultural Plan

FIGURES

1. IID Top Twelve Crops by Acres – 2006 7 2. QSA Water Transfer Schedule (Fallowing, System & On-Farm Efficiency) 21 3. IID Water Balance Components and Flow Paths 29 4. Salton Sea Watershed 36 5. AAC Lining Project Map 66 ES-1. Comparison of Integrated Alternatives (Davids Engineering, et al., May 2007) 79

viii Imperial Irrigation District 2007 Water Conservation Plan

District Description

Physical Setting, Lands and Crops

History California Development Company (CDC) first delivered Colorado River water on May 14, 1901. The first delivery of water to the United States occurred in June 1901, a year prior to the approval of the Reclamation Act in June 1902, to Calexico through the Boundary Canal. Some 1500 acres (AC) were put under crops in the fall of that year (Dowd, p 17-18).

By a decisive favorable vote at an election held on July 14, 1911, the people of the Valley organized the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The vote was made effective by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Imperial County on July 24, 1911. The District, which was organized under the California Irrigation District Act for the purpose of acquiring the rights and properties of the CDC and its two Mexican companies, included 513,368 acres within its boundaries (Dowd, 1956, p 49).

By 1922, IID acquired 13 mutual water companies that developed and operated the distribution canals. In 1928, the Boulder Canyon Project Act authorized construction of Imperial Dam and the All American Canal (AAC) and in 1942 the AAC became what is the only water source for Imperial Valley. The canal is approximately 80 miles long and delivers water from Imperial Dam on the Colorado River west to the agricultural fields and cities of Imperial Valley. For an IID Water Timeline, visit http://www.iid.com/Water_Index.php?pid=52

Table 1. District History and Size Date of Formation California Development Co. (CDC) 1st delivery – June 1901 Imperial Irrigation District (IID) July 24, 1911

Source of Water Colorado River Acreage at Formation 513,368 AC (IID)

Source: Dowd, 1956, p 49

IID is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. While elected by vote of all qualified voters, each member represents a separate geographical division of the District. Directors serve a four-year term. Critical functions of the IID are 1) diversion and delivery of Colorado River water, 2) operation and maintenance of the drainage canals and facilities; and 3) generation and distribution of electricity.

Water Entitlement IID's extensive rights to the use of Colorado River water are based on historic state law appropriations. In 1932 IID entered into a contract with the Secretary of the Interior to receive

entitlement to 3.85 million acre-feet (MAF) of water minus priorities one (Palo Verde Irrigation District, PVID) and two (Yuma Project) – as in the 1931 California Seven-Party Agreement.

Determinations related to IID’s Present Perfected Right (PPR) to the use of Colorado River water include Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928), Article VI of the 1964 Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California and the 1979 supplemental decree; and IID’s PPR, which consists of 2.6 MAF of diversions from the mainstream of the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use (CU) required for irrigation of 424,145 acres and the satisfaction of related uses, whichever is less, with a priority date of 1901.

In summary, IID’s federal entitlement has two components: 1) the PPR, and 2) the remaining contract portion, between the PPR and the maximum amount under the 1932 Contract and the Seven Party Agreement – both grounded in state law prior appropriations (Swan, 2007), as limited by the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and Related Agreements.  FOR OVERVIEW OF OCTOBER 10, 2003, QSA AND OF RELATED DOCUMENTS, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=122 AND/OR http://www.usbr.gov/lc/reportsarchive.html

Table 2. Water Rights Instrument & Date Extent of Right Present Perfected Right (PPR) 2.6 MAF of diversions from mainstream of the 1901 Colorado River or quantity of main-stream water necessary to supply consumptive use required for irrigation of 424,145 AC and satisfaction of related uses, whichever is less. Contract with Interior Secretary 3.85 MAF of water minus priorities one (PVID) 1932 and two (Yuma Project) California Seven-Party Agreement Same as Contract with Interior Secretary 1931 Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Except as otherwise determined under the 2003 Federal Quantification Settlement Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy Agreement for purposes of Section 5(B) of identified in Section 9 of this Agreement, the Interim Surplus Guidelines Secretary shall deliver Priority 3(a) Colorado 1 River water to IID in an amount up to but not (CRWDA/ FEDERAL QSA) more than a consumptive use amount of 3.1 MAF less the amount of water equal to that to be delivered by the Secretary for the benefit of CVWD, MWD, SDCWA, SLR, and Indian and miscellaneous PPRs as set forth in Exhibits A and B herein. Colorado River water acquired by IID after the date of this Agreement, and where necessary approved by the Secretary shall not count against this cap. Source: Swan, 2007; and CRWD/Federal QSA, 2003, p 3 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825

1 IID WEBSITE TITLE: Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement (CRWDA) among the United States, IID, CVWD, MWD, and SDCWA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=208

Cultural Resources No significant historic cultural resources are located within the IID water service area.

Climate IID is located in the Northern Sonoran Desert, which has a subtropical desert climate with hot summers and mostly mild winters. Average rainfall is less than 3 inches per year, most of which occurs in the winter. However, summer storms can be significant in some years. Clear and sunny conditions typically prevail. The region receives 85 to 90 percent of possible sunshine each year, the highest value in the United States. Winter temperatures are mild, but summer temperatures are very hot, with more than 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (deg. F, oF) each year in the Imperial Valley (CDWR, 2005, Volume 3, Ch 11, p 11-1).

IID’s service area is characterized by hot, dry summers. The average annual air temperature is 72 degrees Fahrenheit, and frost is rare. Rainfall averages less than three (3) inches/year, with most rainfall occurring in brief but intense events. The majority of rainfall occurs from November through March. Summer thunderstorms occur periodically; but, cloud cover is rare.

Table 3. Climate Characteristics – Imperial, CA Climate Characteristic Annual Value Average Precipitation (93-year record) 2.86 inches (In) Minimum Temperature, Jan 1937 16.0 deg. F Average Min Temp, 1914 –2006 29.0 deg. F Maximum Temperature, July 1995 121.0 deg. F Average Max Temp, 1914 –2006 115.2 deg. F

Table 4. Monthly Climate Summary – 30-Year Average (1977 – 2006) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Max Temp (oF) 80 84 91 99 105 112 114 113 110 101 89 78 98.0 o Min Temp ( F) 5 37 42 47 54 60 68 699 62 51 39 33 99.8 o Avg Temp ( F) 57 60 65 72 78 86 92 92 87 76 64 56 73.8 Avg Rainfall (In) .51 .49 .40 .06 .04 .00 .11 .37 .26 .29 .19 .43 3.15

Source: IID Imperial Station Record

Location IID is located in Imperial County in the most southeast corner of California. The district is bounded to the South by Mexico. The East Highline and Westside Main canals are situated on each side of the district; while to the north is the Salton Sea, into which drainage from the IID service area flows. Some area outside of the East Highline and Westside Main canals is irrigated by grower-operated pumps.  FOR LOCATION AND OTHER MAPS, SEE Appendices C & E Figures AT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=132

Natural Environment The IID service area is located in the Sonoran Desert of southeastern California. Several vegetative/habitat types occur within and adjacent to the IID service area.

Agricultural Areas The IID service area is an important food producing area and a valuable wildlife habitat. During the winter migration, a significant portion of the entire population of the rare mountain plover relies on heavily grazed pasture or recently burned Bermuda grass in the IID service area. It is believed that 70 percent of the burrowing owl population in California resides in the Imperial Valley. These owls live in burrows in the ground, usually along drain or irrigation ditches.

Mourning and white-winged dove, pheasant, ducks and geese all use agricultural fields and provide opportunities for sportsmen. White faced ibises, snowy and cattle egrets, stilts, sandhill cranes, meadowlarks, roadrunners, and many other birds are easily seen in agricultural fields. A number of terrestrial wildlife species also occupy the agricultural areas. Raccoons, skunks, snakes, coyotes and foxes are all common occupants of agricultural areas and the associated irrigation infrastructure.

Creosote Desert Scrub This is the dominant natural vegetative/habitat type found in the IID service area. This type is characterized by creosote bush, brittle brush, ocotillo and burrobrush interspersed with periodically flowing desert washes or arroyos. Inside these microphyll wooodland washes, mesquite, smoke tree, ironwood, palo verde and cat claw acacia are common plant species.

Riparian/Marsh Areas The IID service area is dissected by the New and Alamo Rivers, which function largely as agricultural drains. Common plant species in this vegetative community include arrow-weed, mesquite, cottonwood, salt-cedar, cat-tails, bulrush and phragmites. Some animals found in riparian areas include beaver, muskrat, and a wide variety of marsh birds and other waterfowl.

Salton Sea The present day Salton Sea was formed in 1905, when Colorado River water flowed through a break in an irrigation diversion structure that had been constructed along the US/Mexican border to divert the river’s flow to agricultural lands in the Imperial Valley. Until that break was repaired in 1907, the uncontrolled diversions of river water drained into the Salton Sink, a closed interior basin whose lowers point is about 278 feet below mean sea level.

Historically, the Colorado River’s course has changed several times. At times, the river discharged to the Gulf of California as it does today. At other times it flowed into the Salton Sink. Lake Cahuilla, the name used for any of the several prehistoric lakes to have occupied the Salton Sink, dried up some 300 years ago. In the past 2000 years, archaeological records indicate that the Colorado River headed northwest into the Salton Sink or Trough more often than it headed south into the Gulf of California.

The Salton Sea is a critical component of the Pacific Flyway migratory corridor as it is an essential over-wintering site for thousands of migratory waterfowl. Its marsh areas provide significant habitat for the endangered yuma clapper rail.

Sand Dunes The Imperial/Algodones Sand Dunes, a unique feature covering an area more than 40 by five miles, is the largest mass of sand dunes in California and the most popular recreational off road destination in the US. Plant species found in the dunes include wiggin’s croton, algodones dunes sunflower, giant spanish needle and pierson’s milk-vetch. Common animals found in the desert include desert mule deer, desert and peninsular bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, bobcat, mountain lion and many kinds of birds and reptiles

Size Providing water to nine cities and nearly one-half million irrigated acres within its service area, IID is the largest irrigation district in the nation. IID, which is the only source of water in the Imperial Valley Unit, delivers only raw surface water. Approximately 97 percent of the delivered water is used for agricultural purposes, making possible Imperial County’s ranking as one of the top ten agricultural regions nationwide. The remaining three percent supplies seven municipalities, one private water company and two community water systems as well as a variety of industrial uses and rural homes or businesses.

Water to be delivered by IID under the Quantification Settlement Agreement of 2008 for all uses is accounted for by the US Secretary of the Interior in Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for the purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. FOR DETAILS, SEE Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825 Table 5. District Size (AC) – 2006 Field Crops 371,734 Garden Crops 101,096 Permanent Crops 19,100 TOTAL ACRES OF CROPS 491,930 Total Multiple Cropped Area 65,762 TOTAL NET ACRES IN CROPS 426,168 Area Being Reclaimed: Leached 76 NET AREA IRRIGATED 426,244 IID Fallowing Program, average of two mid-year programs 14,830 Area Farmable but Not Farmed During Year 32,608 TOTAL AREA FARMABLE 473,682 Area of Farms in Homes, Feed Lots, Corrals, Cotton Gins, Experimental Farms & Industrial Areas 17,824 Area in Cities, Towns, Airports, Cemeteries, Fairgrounds, Golf Courses, Recreational, Parks, Lakes & Rural Schools 29,162 TOTAL AREA RECEIVING WATER 520,668 Area in Drains, Canals, Reservoirs, Rivers, Railroads & Roads 74,341 Area below -230 Salton Sea Reserve Boundary & Area Covered by Salton Sea, Less Area Receiving Water 40,150 Area in Imperial Unit Not Entitled To Water 63,933 Undeveloped Area - Imperial, W Mesa, E Mesa & Pilot Knob Units 277,629 TOTAL ACREAGE INCLUDED - ALL UNITS 976,721 1 Acreage Not Included - All Units 84,916 TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 1,061,637 1 Acreage within district boundaries that is not included in District

No change to the size of the District’s service area is anticipated. Farm operations remain viable and commercial and industrial activity is increasing, so no decrease is expected. An increase would require additional water resources at a time when California’s use of Colorado River water has been limited to its legal entitlement.

Topography The elevation at the Mexican border, which forms the southern edge of IID’s service area, is sea level. The northern edge of IID’s service area abuts the south rim of the Salton Sea, with an elevation of around 228 feet below mean sea level. The relatively flat topography of the IID service area and surrounding areas, in conjunction with strong night and day temperature differentials, particularly in the summer, produce moderate (10 mph) to strong (above 35 mph) winds and deep thermal circulation systems, which facilitate general dispersion of air and impact water use. The flat topography also makes drainage difficult in some areas.

Table 6. Topography Impacts Topography Characteristic Impact on Water Operations Nearly level, 0% to 2% gradient Difficult to drain

Soils Soils in the Imperial Valley consist of layers deposited over centuries by the Colorado River. The soils are formed in two principle landscapes. One is the lower Colorado River flood plain and the dry lake basin of old Lake Cahuilla. The other is the nearly level to gently sloping plain of the Imperial East and West mesas, which lie above the shoreline of the old lake.

The valley is a large bowl filled with a conglomerate of elements transported by Colorado River flood waters, with soils up to a full mile or more deep. Imperial Valley soil is naturally salty. As river floods left alluvial soils, they also left salt. Saline soils are often recognized by a white crust on the surface.

Beneath the surface is a maze of passages of aquifers and aquicludes of clay barriers and sand lenses. In general, there is no gravel and sand water-bearing stratum. Stratum of any one type of soil does not extend over a large area, but occurs more as a lens or pocket.

Table 7. Soil Characteristic Impacts Soil Characteristics Impact on Water Operations Soil Name % of IID Heavy Soils Heavy Soils Imperial Silty Clay 44 Limit need for & economic feasibility of canal Glenbar Clay Loam 15 lining; canals silt up; fields require extensive Holtville Silty Clay 15 surface and subsurface drainage Percent Heavy Soils 74 Lighter Soils Lighter Soils Indio Loam 6 Lining and/or seepage recovery (pumping) are Meloland Fine Sand 8 economically feasible; higher seepage Niland & Rositas Sand 4 Antho Loamy Fine Sand 8 Percent Lighter Soils 26  FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND SOILS MAP, VISIT http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

Crop Census Data Availability of Colorado River water and its desert climate make the Imperial Valley one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. In 2006, 371,734 acres were planted in field crops, 101,096 acres in vegetable crops and 19,100 acres in permanent crops – for a total of 491,930 acres. A graphic representation of the top ten crops is provided.

Alfalfa (All) Bermudagrass (All) Sudangrass (All) Lettuce (All) Wheat Sugarbeets Carrots Kliengrass Onions

9,918 9,351 Broccoli 11,305 Duck Ponds (Feed) 11,475 Melons, Spring (All) 13,571

14,940

158,909 23,404

24,383

29,498

64,296

70,420

Figure 1. IID Top Twelve Crops by Acres – 2006 Source: IID Crop Survey 2006 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=495  FOR ADDITIONAL YEARS (2002-2006), SEE Annual Inventory of Areas Receiving Water & Crop Report AT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=119

District Operations and Operating Policies

Operations and Maintenance of the System With more than 1,668 miles of main canals and laterals, the IID Water Department is continually conducting maintenance, both preventative and reactive, of its waterways. With procedures like: disking, chaining, cleaning, concrete lining repair, vegetation management, and bank, gate, pipe, and road maintenance, the Maintenance Unit keeps the Colorado River water flowing. While some procedures can be done while a canal or drain has water in it, much of the work must be completed during a cutout period.

As the Imperial Valley continues to grow, many changes must be made to IID’s canal and drainage systems. The Construction Management Unit team is responsible for canal lining, adding pipelines, and all other major repair and additions to our systems. Most of this work is planned far in advance according to our yearly cutout schedule. To obtain monthly maintenance, construction, cutout, and vegetation management schedules, including the Habitat Spray Program and Drain Cleaning Schedule, IID’s water users can visit IID’s website at http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=116 or call the Division office serving their area.

Water Department Organization IID’s Water Department is headed by the Water Manager and the Water Administration Section. Under the Water Manager are four more sections – Operations, Construction and Maintenance, Engineering Services, and Resources Planning and Management. The structure, staffing and function of these sections are described below.

Water Administration Water Administration duties are conducted by the Water Manager, Executive Program Managers for Water Transfer and for All American Canal (AAC) Lining, Key Customer Coordinator, Budget Coordinator, and Administrative Services staff. The Water Manager is responsible for administration, maintenance, and operation oversight for the entire department. The Executive Program Managers oversee activities associated with the Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority (IID/SDCWA) Water Transfer and the AAC Lining project. The Key Customer Coordinator works with developers; while the Budget Coordinator compiles, presents and maintains the department’s annual budget and budget variance reports, and provides reporting to departmental personnel involved in budget development and monitoring of budget variances. Extensive administrative services are also provided and carried out by this unit.

Water Operations Water Operations is responsible for delivery of Colorado River water to users in Imperial Valley. Colorado River diversion structures and main canals, through which water transmission and distribution are managed, are operated by a combination of field personnel performing manual operations and dispatch staff using IID’s computerized control system. System monitoring and recording of water-related resources are performed by this section.

Within Water Operations, the Dispatch and Operations units share responsibility for controlling IID’s main canal system, while the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Unit is responsible for the computerized water control system. Consisting of Dispatch, Operations and

SCADA units, and the AAC River, Northend and Southend divisions, this section operates IID’s water transmission and distribution system.

Dispatch Unit: Dispatching staff is responsible for estimating the water demand of IID customers for irrigation, municipal, environmental and other uses in the Imperial Valley. Dispatchers relay IID and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) water requests to AAC River Division at Imperial Dam, which forwards the requests to the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) office in Boulder City, Nevada. The USBR subsequently releases water to meet these requests.

Each day, Northend and Southend divisions of the Operations Unit inform the Dispatch Unit of the actual order at the head of each lateral canal. Water Dispatchers, using IID’s SCADA system to monitor and regulate flow in the AAC and main canals, coordinate with Operations Unit hydrographers to deliver these water orders.

Operations Unit: The Operations Unit consists of AAC River Division, Northend Division and Southend Division. AAC River Division is responsible for operation of Imperial Dam, Senator Wash, Laguna Dam and all related river facilities in the Imperial Dam area. AAC River Division operates the AAC from Imperial Dam to Pilot Knob (PK) Check. This unit provides water for delivery to all the Colorado River water users below Imperial Dam, and coordinates with the USBR to schedule river flow releases.

Field personnel, called hydrographers, are responsible for delivering water from IID’s main canals into the district’s laterals and for making direct deliveries into farm gates located on the main canals, including the AAC downstream of AAC Drop 1. Hydrographers document the amount of water ordered and delivered to the lateral headings and to direct deliveries. Operations Unit personnel conduct current metering to ensure the accuracy of flow at critical points in the IID system.

Within the IID service area, the Operations Unit is organized into Northend and Southend divisions. The divisions, which function as water ordering and delivery areas, are further separated into more manageable units. Southend Division handles water orders for Holtville and Southwest water order areas. Northend Division manages orders for Brawley, Calipatria and Westmorland water order areas. Division Coordinators are responsible for collecting and scheduling water orders in their geographic jurisdictions. Zanjeros are responsible for making deliveries from IID’s laterals to farm head ditches and for documenting the amount of water that is charged and delivered to each customer.

SCADA Unit: SCADA personnel are responsible for the installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of IID Water Department canal automation and monitoring equipment. This includes equipment and software installed under the 1988 IID/Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (IID/MWD) Water Conservation Program and as IID-funded system improvements. SCADA equipment is installed throughout the IID water delivery system from Imperial Dam, along the AAC, at each main canal heading and system reservoir, within each interceptor project, at the inflow and outflow of the New and Alamo rivers to and from the IID service area, and at Fig Tree John in the Salton Sea. Data from many of these sites are stored in IID’s Water Information System (WIS) in both raw and quality controlled format.

Construction & Maintenance Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Section staff's main responsibility is to efficiently and economically provide conveyance to meet the irrigation and drainage needs of the Water Department customers. The section is responsible and accountable for maintenance and construction of all Water Department conveyance facilities. This responsibility consists of oversight and management of the IID’s irrigation and drainage facilities including installation and maintenance of pipelines, siphons that cross county and private roads, open channel canals, lateral canals, water delivery structures, open channel main drains, division drains, and the Salton Sea. Section responsibilities also include maintenance of Imperial Dam, Laguna Dam, All American Turnout, and Desilting Facilities at Imperial Dam. The section is also responsible for maintenance of all control structures in the AAC, including the structural integrity of power generating facilities. The section consists of three units and a number of divisions.

C&M Management Administration, Construction, & Heavy Equipment Units: C&M Management Administration Unit staff oversees all material procurement, planning and scheduling for construction. Construction Unit staff is responsible for construction, replacement and improvement of Water Department irrigation and drainage facilities. The Heavy Equipment Unit is responsible for availability and operation by IID of heavy equipment.

C&M Section’s maintenance of IID’s irrigation and drainage facilities is separated into five functional divisions: All American Canal River, All American Canal Western, Northend, and Southend, and Drainage. In addition, there is a Biological Control function in this section. AAC River Division starts at Imperial Dam and ends at Pilot Knob (PK) Check. AAC Western assumes maintenance at PK Check and follows the AAC to the end. Responsibility for irrigation facilities is divided into the Northend and Southend geographical areas. The drainage system covers IID’s entire service area.

Engineering Engineering staff functions include management and administration, planning and preliminary engineering, design and drafting, survey investigations, inspection, and construction support. Services are provided to the Water Department, outside agencies, developers, special fund projects and the maintenance and planning projects. Engineering Section functions as a liaison for the District and provides protection of District interests through planning and commenting on technical and legal documents and/or issues involving policies, procedures, legal, real estate, engineering, financial, operation and maintenance, construction, water resources, etc.

This section serves as an IID liaison on Water Department policies and concerns through direct day-to-day contact, attendance at various meetings, and as a voting and non-voting member of various local and regional committees.

Design and Drafting Unit: Staff designs capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) projects and data entry for irrigation and drainage facilities. The unit may also design and/or review designs, reports and documents of entities, developers, and others that involve IID system modifications. Technical administration includes protection of IID interests through review and comment on various (county, city, miscellaneous agency, developer, etc.) plans and documents (e.g., project and

environmental) as they relate to technical and O&M concerns and to general Water Department policies and standards.

Field Engineering Unit: Tasks include surveying projects, preparing paperwork, and data entry for irrigation and drainage facilities for the Water Department, and for a large number of Power Department projects. Unit staff surveys and/or reviews surveying reports and documents involving IID system modifications caused by other entities, developers, etc. Field Engineering’s primary tasks include survey investigations, survey construction staking, survey as-builts, legal surveys, and construction inspection including construction support. Project involvement is from inception (surveying investigations) to closure (data archiving). The unit functions as the contractor’s (IID’s Construction and Maintenance Section) surveyor (construction staking, grade checking, and quality control) and has administrative oversight over surveying consultants. In addition, Field Engineering staff functions as IID liaison for surveying issues involving irrigation and drainage facilities, and policies and procedures.

Resources Planning & Management The Resources Planning and Management Section (RPM) is responsible for development and protection of IID’s water interests. RPM staff reviews and comments on plans and documents (legal, project, and environmental) and represents IID in negotiations and consultations with other California and Lower Basin users of Colorado River water. Staff also writes water management and drainage plans that are required by State and federal law and applications for grant funding. Section staff responds to information requests from the public, other agencies, and consultants working on IID projects. From time to time, staff also conducts District tours.

RPM staff represents IID at technical proceedings and negotiations with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCQ), California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), USBR, and other state and federal agencies. Section members serve on state and federal agencies representing water interests and economic development in the Southern Low Desert region of Imperial and Riverside counties. The section represents IID and the interests of agricultural water users by collaborating on the California Water Plan Update 2009 (Bulletin 160-09), serving as Board Secretary for the Agricultural Water Management Council, and by participating in regional and State Resource Conservation District meetings.

Section staff also represents IID and coordinates activities involved in planning and managing water resource programs for the Salton Sea, including Salton Sea Authority Technical Advisory Committee, Public Policy and Planning Committee, and Project Financing Committee and the CDWR Salton Sea Air Quality Working Group. Section planning activity includes assisting, reviewing and approving concrete lining plans; and completing North American Development Bank (NADBank) grant projects for canal automation.

Section activities include administrative oversight, testing, document review, monitoring and reporting, and project management for wetlands, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs, and IID water transfer conservation projects and programs. Wetlands activities include participation in the Citizen’s Congressional Task Force on the New River, management of federal

grant funds for Task Force projects, and the implementation of monitoring efforts at two constructed wetland sites. TMDL activities include participation in the RWQCB Technical Advisory Committee for TMDL development, participation in the Imperial County Farm Bureau’s Agricultural Water Quality Coordinating Committee, and conducting water quality monitoring as part of a TMDL-mandated Drain Water Quality Improvement Plan.

To comply with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements and avoid termination of canal water service, residents in the IID service area who do not receive treated water service must obtain alternative water service for drinking and cooking from a state-approved provider. To avoid penalties that could exceed $25,000 a day, IID strictly enforces this rule. The section tracks nearly 4,000 raw water service accounts required by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to have alternate drinking water service. The section maintains a small- acreage pipe and drinking water database, and provides an annual compliance update to CDPH.

RPM staff oversees administration of the Fallowing Program that IID instituted in 2003 to meet its IID/SDCWA transfer and Salton Sea mitigation water requirements. Staff activities include distributing solicitation announcements and fallowing proposal forms, issuing contracts, locking delivery gates on fields participating in the program, insuring that the fields are not being watered and that dust mitigation is adequate, and overseeing IID’s payments to participants.

RPM staff is responsible for oversight of flow data collected and stored in IID’s Oracle-based Water Information System (WIS). WIS incorporates quality control (QC) operations and a data storage warehouse function for site-specific, quality controlled, time-series data related to the flow of water through the IID system. The WIS provides an audit trail of data elements as they flow through the quality control operation and is used to store, process, retrieve, analyze and report quality-controlled historic data and to generate both standard and special information reports. WIS contains flow data for IID/MWD water transfer verification and automated IID operations and monitoring sites.

Irrigation Management and Monitoring Unit: IMMU directs and coordinates on-farm outreach efforts of IID and provides a variety of irrigation and farm-related support services to IID and its agricultural water users. In addition to handling special projects related to on-farm water use, leaching requirements, irrigation efficiency, and water measurement, IMMU manages various Water Department monitoring programs and provides support for IID/MWD on-farm water conservation projects. IMMU is also involved with activities related to water conservation, TMDL requirements, crop yield/production, water quality, flow measurement research and development, and the associated data collection.

The unit’s monitoring function consists of three main activities: collection of flow data from IID lateral spill and direct-to-sea monitoring sites (including TMDL sites), sensor validation of all IID flow monitoring sites in the IID service area, and collection of flow data in support of IID’s Tailwater Education Program (TEP).

Data are collected manually from 89 wells, 12 water sampling sites, and three California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) stations; automated flow data are collected from 82 sites, for a total of 186 sites. In 2003, water table elevation data collection for 117

East Mesa Wells was discontinued. Monitoring of 65 wells for the AAC Lining Project has been completed. Collected data include piezometric well water elevation, water sampling for quality analysis, and electronically collected water stage and flow variables. Data are processed and checked for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) to preserve their integrity. Validation of sensor readings, which is performed on over 100 IID/MWD monitoring sites, consists of site maintenance and checking the operation of water level and gate position sensors.

The Tailwater Education Program (TEP) was approved by the Board of Directors in late 2004. Under this program, 10 percent of agricultural fields in the IID service area (about 500) are selected at random annually for monitoring, with 15 or more fields in the program at a given time. IMMU staff installs meters and data transmission equipment on the delivery gate and tailwater box to monitor flow on and off the randomly selected fields. IMMU staff is responsible for QA/QC of these data and for discussing the resulting charts with the farm operator. These irrigation evaluations are provided free of charge to District farmers as are soil salinity maps and soil moisture monitoring.

Operation of the Delivery System As a pubic agency, IID strives to provide the highest level of service at the most economical price while still preserving the unique ecosystem associated with this working landscape. The IID Water Department is responsible for the timely operation and maintenance of the extensive open channel system, and effectively delivers up to 3.1 MAF of IID’s Colorado River entitlement annually to nearly one-half million irrigated acres.

System Operation IID’s main canals are operated through the Water Control Center (WCC), located at IID headquarters in Imperial, CA. Each Wednesday WCC staff prepares a master water order for the upcoming week (Monday through Sunday) and submits the order to the USBR. The master order is based on the Watermaster’s judgment, informed by historical deliveries and weather patterns. The master order can be, and typically is, modified according to trends in water orders, weather conditions and other factors. Master schedule modifications require four days of advance notice to the USBR.

Three decentralized division offices operate the lateral canal distribution system. Divisions receive water orders from growers, consolidate the orders and submit them to the WCC daily at noon for development of the next day’s operating plan. Because total available flow for the upcoming operational day is fixed according to the modified master schedule, demand for water and available supply typically do not match. If demand exceeds supply, orders are carried over to a future operating day, usually no more than one or two days beyond when the water is desired. By shifting water orders forward and backward this way, daily demand for water is matched to the available supply from the Colorado River. Storage levels in main canal regulating reservoirs are also adjusted to help balance supply and demand discrepancies.

Despite the intent to balance each day’s supply with demand, a number of operational factors can cause differences between actual supply and demand within the system. Influential factors include variances between water orders and actual demand due to farmers reducing or shutting off delivery early, changes in canal storage from day to day; measurement of operator error in distributing flows, and other factors. Drawing water from or putting water into main canal regulating storage reservoirs

accommodates mismatches between actual demand and supply. The extent to which water deliveries are made both reliably and flexibly, while minimizing operational spillage, depends primarily on the volume of regulating storage available in the system and the ability to move flow changes smoothly through the canals to the reservoirs.

IID’s main canal system is segmented into six operating reaches defined by the location of its regulating reservoirs. The reservoirs absorb flow mismatches from the main canal reach upstream and allow delivery of scheduled flows into the next reach downstream. The six operating reaches, along with their associated regulating reservoirs, are as follows:

 AAC Drop 1 to Central Main Canal (CM) Check - pool upstream of check serves as small regulating reservoir  East Highline Canal (EHL) Reach 1 - Singh Reservoir  East Highline Canal Reach 2 - Galleano Reservoir  Central Main Canal (CM) - Fudge Reservoir  Westside Main Canal (WSM) Reach 1 - Sheldon Reservoir  Westside Main Canal Reach 2 - Carter Reservoir The operational procedures described above constitute an upstream canal control process, where scheduled water deliveries are released into canals and routed from upstream to downstream according to the operations schedule. The objective at flow control locations, such as main canal and lateral headings, is to maintain scheduled deliveries. Between flow control locations, the objective is to use check structures to maintain a targeted water level.

Table 8. Delivery System 24-Hour Order On-demand 12-Hour Order - Reg. No. 48 – Revised Date: 11/1994 On-demand – maximum of 7 cfs Interceptor Order - Reg. No. 54 – New Date: 4/20001  FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF WATER, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=114

Table 9. IID System Operation Web Links For Water Transportation System VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=117  Irrigation  Drainage  Reservoirs  Water Control Center  Salton Sea For Colorado River Facilities VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=173  Imperial Dam  Senator Wash For AAC VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=176  AAC History  AAC Lining Project

Water Pricing and Billing Practices IID Water Accounts are sub-divided into four main customer groups: Agricultural, Industrial, Rural Pipe Accounts, and Urban Municipalities. Water deliveries to agricultural users (including feedlots), to urban municipalities within its service area, and for use by several industries are measured. These users have accounts with IID, records are kept of all of water delivered to them, and they are billed accordingly per acre-foot (AF).

Deliveries to homes, farmsteads and small businesses throughout the rural areas of the valley, which are made from IID canals and laterals into service pipes, are not metered. In addition, deliveries to schools, parks and playgrounds are distributed throughout the valley. Grass areas for these community facilities are often irrigated with canal water, but delivery is not metered.

Table 10. IID Water Rate Schedules – 2006 1 General Agricultural, Municipal and Miscellaneous Service

Effective Date: 4/1/2005 Water Rate $17/AF Stock Water (min. $8.50/day) $17/AF 1- A Mesa Agricultural Service (above contour 30)– subject to

Reg. 19 - Effective Date: 7/1/2000 Up to 6 AF/AC/yr 1 times Sch. 1 $17/AF Over 6 AF/AC to 8 AF/AC/yr 2 times Sch. 1 $35/AF Over 8 AF/AC/yr 3 times Sch. 1 $70/AF Stock Water (min. $8.50/day) 1 times Sch. 1 $17/AF 2 Pump Service (private pumps) – Effective date: 2/1/1996 Water Rate ($102/yr max. charge) 1 times Sch. 1 $17/AF 3 Pipe and Small Parcel Service - each user

Effective Date: 7/1/2005 Diameter < 2 inches 14 times Sch. 1 $238/yr 2 inch < Diameter < 6 inch ($35/yr min. charge) 5 times Sch. 1 $85/AC/yr 4 Wholesale Service – to water user associations

Effective Date: 7/1/2000 Water Rate 1 times Sch. 1 $17/AF Special condition – cannot measure ($35/yr min. charge) $136/AC/yr 5 Reuse of Drainage Water - Effective Date: 8/1/1988 Prior District approval, users receiving only drainage water No charge 6 Stand-by Service - Effective Date: 1/1/1999 Net Water Availability Charge $3.80/AC 5 AC or less & lands subject to assessment (City, County, No charge State, Federal lands, including public water districts) 7 General Industrial Use - Effective Date: 7/1/2000 Water Rate ($425/yr min. charge) 5 times Sch. 1 $85/AF Excess Drainage 3 times Sch. 7 $255/AF 8 Penalty for Adjusting Gate - Effective Date: 10/1/1987 Rate per incident $100/gate 9 Drainage (outside IID Service Area)

Effective Date: 10/1/1987 Drainage Rate $200/month discharge point) $250/AF Excess Drainage $750/AF 10 Free Water - Effective Date: 10/1/1987 Listed churches, cemeteries, and schools No charge

11 Drainage Construction Capital Improvement Account

Effective Date: 10/1/1987 Drainage Rate (by landowner) $30/AC 12 12-Hour Runs - Effective Date: 1/1/1999 Water Rate 1 times Sch. 1 $17/AF 13 – Conserved Water (outside IID, inside Imperial County)

Effective Date: 1/1/2008 Water Rate $438.17/AF 14 –Municipal & Miscellaneous Service (towns, churches, etc.)

Effective Date: 4/1/2005 Water Rate 3 times Sch. 1 $51/AF Effective Date: 7/1/2006 Water Rate 4 times Sch. 1 $68/AF  FOR IID WATER RATE SCHEDULES, VISIT http://www.iid.com/Water/WaterRateSchedules

Table 11. IID Water Services Web Links

For Water Services VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=4  Water Rate Schedules  Water Rules and Regulations  Water Availability  Water Accounts  How to Order Water

For Division Offices & Contact Information VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=129  Maps of IID Service Area  Zanjero Mobile Contacts & Canal Run Information

For Commercial & Residential Development VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=124  Developer Project Guide  Project Management  Engineering  Maps, Standards and Drawings

For 2005 Annual Report CONTACT IID

Water Shortage (Supply/Demand Imbalance) Allocation Policies In 2006, IID launched an effort to evaluate methods for the equitable distribution of water within its service area in times when water user demand exceeds supply. IID hired two consultants - Dr. Michael Hanemann, UC Berkeley, and Bennett Brooks with CONCUR, Inc. - to undertake an analysis that assessed and ranked methodologies for the equitable distribution of water. Their study process included a public stakeholder committee comprised of community representatives and meaningful discussion of the issues and analysis prior to completion of their equitable distribution recommendation. The report produced from this study process is posted at the 2006 Study Process link, while more detailed information can be found on the Project Website.  FOR IID Equitable Distribution Program Web links, SEE BELOW Table 12.

During the June 12, 2006, regular Board meeting, staff presented the conditions that would trigger a supply/demand imbalance (SDI) declaration within the IID service area. Staff also presented principles of equitable distribution that would serve as the basis for the plan that would be brought to the Board, as follows:

 Farm unit to serve as basis of measurement for apportionment of water.  Straight-line method to be used for apportionment of water.  IID to maintain a supply of last resort (to ensure basic fairness among water users) and to operate an internal water exchange to facilitate movement of water among users, controlling all aspects of the internal exchange (including any financial transaction).  Period of time to be covered by an SDI declared by IID Board to be through the end of a calendar year. If extended, separate vote by the Board to be required; similarly; if during the year SDI is no longer needed, the Board may act to rescind its implementation.

On November 28, 2006, the IID Board directed staff to develop of an equitable distribution plan for apportionment of agricultural water users using the straight-line method for years during which conditions trigger an SDI declaration. The equitable distribution plan staff is to present to the IID Board is to accommodate both agricultural and non-agricultural water usage, with parameters for the program to be consistent with those recommended in the Hanemann and Brooks Final Study submitted to the Board on November 28, 2006.

On June, 19, 2007, IID’s general manager recommended that the Board declare an SDI condition for 2008 and set in motion the process of developing a system of apportionment based on the straight-line method for Board consideration and action. The Board approved this recommendation unanimously in order to initiate development of an equitable distribution program, including implementation rules and policies. Documentation of this approval consists of a Board resolution, IID Resolution No. 31-2007, a notice of determination (NOD), and a negative declaration (containing a more detailed project description), which are posted on IID’s website.

The June 19, 2007, Board action set in motion development of a system for apportionment of water based on the straight-line methodology, as well as the more detailed implementation rules and policies. On October 23, 2007, the IID Board hosted a public workshop to outline basic implementation concepts and solicit public input. On November 14, 2007, the IID Board hosted a second public workshop. Presentations from these workshops are posted on IID’s website as are answers to questions that were raised about the proposed program.

On December 18, 2007, improved end-of-year water use projections based in part on rainfall events caused the IID Board to rescind its earlier 2008 SDI declaration. While this rescission negated the need for formal implementation of an Equitable Distribution Program, the Board directed Water Transfer staff to proceed with an equitable distribution pilot project in 2008.

 FOR IID BOARD ACTION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF, SEE Attachment A - IID Board Minutes for December 18, 2007, No. 9 Equitable distribution program

• FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REPORT, SEE IID Resolution No. 31- 2007: Relating to the Equitable Distribution of water, Attachments A & B AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3045

Table 12. IID Equitable Distribution Program Web Links

For Equitable Distribution (ED) Main Page VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=141  IIID Resolution No. 31-2007 approving the ED Regulations and authorizing the General Manager to implement the EDP in conformance with ED Regulations (12/18/2007) . Attachment A: Equitable Distribution Plan: Regulations for EDP & Exhibit A: Sample Calculations of Ag Field Apportionment of Supply of Last Resort . Attachment B: Environmental Compliance Report

For Equitable Distribution FAQ VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=142  Q&A re Equitable Distribution from Public Workshops

For Equitable Distribution History & Documents VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=144

2006 Hanemann-Brooks Study VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=148  Equitable Distribution Draft Final Report  Equitable Distribution Draft Final Report - Executive Summary  Phase I Report & Phase I Presentation

2006 Workgroup Meetings and Public Workshops VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=149 • Work Group Meetings 1 through 6 & Public Workshops 1 through 3 – Agenda, PowerPoint Presentations, etc.

Equitable Distribution CEQA Compliance VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=150  Notice of Intent - Negative Declaration (10/24/2007)  IID Resolution No. 22-2006: Equitable Distribution (12/8/2006)  Notice of Determination  Final Equitable Distribution Negative Declaration (Adopted by IID Board of Directors)

2008 SDI Recommendation (6/12/2006 Board meeting) VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=147 • Principles of equitable distribution

2007 Implementation Rules Workshop VISIT http://www.iid.com/Water_Index.php?pid=3897 Not Applicable  Equitable Distribution Rules Public Workshop Presentation  2008 Apportionment Analysis Public Workshop Presentation

For Project Activities VISIT http://www.concurinc.com/IID/  Project Overview  Meeting Documents & Schedule

Water Inventory Resources

Water Supplies and Contracts Under the Law of the River and the QSA and Related Agreements, IID has the right to 3.1 MAF. In the event of a declared shortage on the Colorado River, IID may be restricted down to 2.6 MAF, IID’s pre-1914 water right. Conditions that might lead to that reduction are unprecedented in IID history.

On Dec 13, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior signed Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead. The four key elements of the new guidelines are to establish:  Establish rules for shortages – specifying who will take reductions and when they take them, which is essential for prudent water planning in times of drought.  Establish new operational rules for Lake Powell and Lake Mead to allow these reservoirs to rise and fall in tandem, thereby better sharing the risk of drought.  Establish rules for surpluses, so that if the basin has ample runoff, the Department of the Interior will have rules in place to distribute the extra water.  Address the ongoing drought by encouraging new initiatives for water conservation  FOR FURTHER DETAILS, VISIT http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf

Water Supply IID Water Department has been serving the Imperial Valley’s water needs for almost 100 years. IID provides raw Colorado River water for irrigation and for non-potable residential and industrial use. For calendar years 2000 – 2004, IID’s supply of Colorado River water in thousands of acre-feet (KAF) at Imperial Dam (Net IID Station 60) and at IID’s eastern boundary (AAC Mesa Lateral 5 Check), are shown in Table 13, below.

Table 13. Surface Water Supply (KAF)

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 CI 1 IID Station 60 2 2.977 3.191 3.230 3.066 2.823 +1.9% NET IID Station 60 3 2.931 3.090 3.153 2.978 2.744 +1.9% IID @ Pilot Knob 4 3,115.5 3,090.0 3,152.6 2,978.3 2,787.8 +2.4% Delivery to IID Farms above EHL 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 Losses from PK to EHL 99.3 99.2 99.4 99.3 99.3 AAC @ Mesa Lateral 5 Check 4 3,015.3 2,989.8 3,051.9 2,877.9 2,687.4 +2.4% 1 Confidence Interval at 95%, based on analysis of accuracy of data by USDA ARS US Water Conservation Laboratory (USWCL), Maricopa, AZ 2 USBR Decree Accounting, flow measured for IID use into AAC at Imperial Dam (includes return flow to the Colorado River but not water delivered to CVWD via the Coachella Canal) 3 USBR Decree Accounting, flow measured for IID use into AAC at Imperial Dam (minus return flow to the Colorado River) 4 IID 660 Report – Annual Summary of AAC and Coachella Branch, Monthly Distribution 5 Calculated by Keller-Bliesner, Logan, UT, based on IID measurements at Pilot Knob and Coachella Heading BCW, deliveries & recovered AAC seepage above Mesa Lateral 5; & estimates for unrecovered seepage & evaporation between the Pilot Knob gauging station and Mesa Lateral 5. Note: Seepage from portions of the AAC is pumped back into the canals. AAC recovered seepage is included in reported flow at Mesa Lateral 5 Turnout.

Water Contracts From 2003 through 2035 (or 2045 or 2075), IID and the other signatories are to meet the terms of the CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA. IID’s terms for the period of this Water Conservation Management Plan (2008 – 2012) are shown in Table 14. Effective January 1, 2007, the Second Amendment to the MWD 88 Agreement sets the transfer amount at 105 KAF, not 110 KAF.

Table 14. IID Quantification and Transfers (Thousand Acre-Feet, KAF) 1, 2 IID Priority 3a IID Reductions 10 IID IID 4 Priority AAC Total Net CU 3 5,6 7 8 3a MWD 88 Lining - Intra- MWD Reduction (sum of Quanti- Agree- IID, SDCWA Priority 3 Transfer w\ (sum of Col. 4 9 fied ment SDCWA Mitigation Transfer Salton Sea Misc Col. 3 thru thru SDCWA Year Amount (1988) Transfer & SLR Transfer IID/ CVWD Restoration PPRs Col. 9) Col. 12) … 2007 3,100 110 50 -- 25 -- -- 11.5 196.5 2,903.5 2008 3,100 110 50 67.7 25 4 20 11.5 288.2 2,811.8 2009 3,100 110 60 67.7 30 8 40 11.5 327.2 2,772.8 2010 3,100 110 70 67.7 35 12 60 11.5 366.2 2,733.8 2011 3,100 110 80 67.7 40 16 80 11.5 405.2 2,694.8 2012 3,100 110 90 67.7 45 21 100 11.5 445.2 2,654.8 Cols.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Independent of increases & reductions as allowed under Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP). 2 RE Priority 1, 2 & 3b, any higher use than 420 KAF will be covered by MWD; lesser use will produce water for MWD & help satisfy Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG) Benchmarks and Annual Targets. 3 IID/MWD 1988 Conservation Program conserves up to 110 thousand acre-feet per year (KAFY), based on periodic verification. Of amount conserved, up to 20 KAFY to CVWD, which does not count to ISG Benchmarks and Annual Targets; the rest goes to MWD. 4 Ramp-up amounts may vary based on construction progress; final amounts will be determined by the Secretary pursuant to the Allocation Agreement. 5 Any amount identified for mitigation will only be from non-Colorado River sources & amounts may be provided by exchange for Colorado River water. 6 Water would be transferred to MWD subject to satisfaction of certain conditions and to appropriate federal approvals. For Informational purposes only, these transfers may also be subject to state approvals. Schedules are subject to adjustments with mutual consent. After 2006, these quantities will count toward the ISG Benchmarks and Annual Targets only if and to the extent that water is transferred into the Colorado River Aqueduct for use by MWD and/or SDCWA. 7 MWD can acquire if CVWD declines the water. Any water obtained by MWD will be counted as additional ag reduction to help satisfy ISG Benchmarks and Annual Targets. 8 IID has agreed to provide transfer amounts to meet the minimum ISG Benchmarks, not to exceed a cumulative total of 145 KAF. Maximum transfer amounts are 25 KAF in 2006, 50 KAF plus the unused amount from 2006 in 2009, and 70 KAF plus unused amounts from 2006 and 2009 in 2012. In addition to maximum transfer amounts, IID has also committed that no more than 72.5 KAF of reduced inflow to the Salton Sea would result from these additional transfers. 9 Up to the amount shown, as agreed upon reduction to IID or CVWD to cover collectively the sum of individual Misc. PPRs, federal reserved rights and decreed rights. This reduction counts towards ISG Benchmarks and Annual Targets. 10 For purposes of Subparagraph 8(b)(2)(i) and (ii) and 8(c)(1) and (4) the Secretary will take into account: (i) satisfaction of necessary conditions to certain transfers (Cols. 6 & 8) not within IID's control: (ii) amounts of conserved water as determined, where such amounts may vary (Cols. 3, 5, & 8); and (iii) re Col. 6, reductions by IID will be considered in determining IID's compliance regardless of whether the conserved water is diverted into Colorado River Aqueduct. Notes: Substitute transfers can be made provided the total volume of water to be transferred remains equal to or greater than amounts shown consistent with applicable federal approvals. Shaded columns represent amounts of water that may vary. Source: CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA, p 13, Exhibit B - Quantification and Transfers http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825.

350

300

250

200

150 Thousands ofThousands Acre-Feet 100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Efficiency Conservation On-Farm Fallowing Salton Sea Mitigation Fallowing

Figure 2. IID QSA Water Transfer Schedule, CRWDR: Federal QSA, Exhibit B http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825

As part of QSA obligations, IID, MWD and CVWD agreed to a payback schedule for their 2002 and 2003 overruns of Colorado River water use. IID’s payback schedule is shown in Table 15.

Table 15. IID Payback of 2001 and 2002 Overruns (AF) 1 CR Reregulation Canal System Year Obligation Fallowing Conserve & Storage Loss Correction Total Balance 2004 18,900 44,781 3,970 602 48751 102,649 2005 18,900 26,205 5,369 308 31574 71,075 2006 18,900 37,619 -- 465 37619 33,456 2007 18,900 2008 18,900 2009 18,900 2010 19,000 2011 19,000 Total 151,400 1 From 2006 QSA IID/SDCWA Water Conservation & Transfer Agreement Annual Implementation Report, p 15; and Paul Matuska, USBR Boulder City, NV. Note: The districts may, at their own discretion, accelerate paybacks to retire their obligation before the end of calendar year 2011. Payback obligation is subject to acceleration in anticipation of a shortage in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Source: CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA, p 14, Exhibit C - Payback Schedule of Overruns for Calendar years 2001 and 2002 FOR DETAILS, VISIT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825.

Under the terms of the QSA including requirements for Salton Sea mitigation, during calendar year (CY) 2006 through CY 2012, IID is to conserve and deliver water to SDCWA and to CVWD under the following compromise delivery schedule, as shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Compromise IID QSA Delivery Schedule (KAF)

Delivery Conservation Practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Efficiency Fallowing Fallowing Total to to (Col 2+3) or for for for Fallowing CY SDCWA CVWD (Col 5+6) Delivery Delivery Mitigation (Col 6+7) 2006 40 - 40 - 40 20 60 2007 50 - 50 - 50 25 75 2008 50 4 54 4 50 25 75 2009 60 8 68 8 60 30 90 2010 70 12 82 12 70 35 105 2011 80 16 96 16 80 43 120 2012 90 21 111 21 90 45 135

Source: QSA by and among IID, MWD, and CVWD, Exhibit C  FOR DETAILS, VISIT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825 (p 39 of 44)

Storage and Distribution Facilities IID diverts water from the Colorado River, which it delivers to nine cities and nearly 500,000 acres of agricultural land within the Imperial Valley. IID operates and maintains an extensive conveyance and distribution system as well as ten reservoirs, which allow for a degree of delivery flexibility within the IID service area. The drainage system collects tailwater, tilewater, and return flows from users all of which are ultimately discharged into the Salton Sea.

Water Storage IID's distribution system includes six regulating reservoirs and four interceptor reservoirs that have a total storage capacity of more than 3,300 acre-feet of water. Programs undertaken by IID and its partners to increase delivery flexibility have resulted in construction of ten reservoirs that are located throughout IID’s service area.

Table 17. District Reservoirs Type Number Capacity (AF) Regulating Reservoirs 6 2,344 Interceptor Reservoirs 4 1,028 Total 10 3,372

 FOR DETAILS RE IID RESERVOIRS, VISIT HTTP://WWW.IID.COM/INDEX.ASPX?PAGE=170

Water Delivery IID’s water delivery system is gravity-flow. Colorado River water is conveyed from Imperial Dam on the Colorado River, nearly 80 miles through the All-American Canal to the head of the IID's system at Drop 1. Main canals that branch off the AAC distribute water to IID’s service area, among them

the East Highline (EHL), Central Main (CM), and Westside Main (WSM) canals. Imperial Valley receives raw water from these canals or from the tributary and lateral canals that they supply.

IID hydrographers operate the main canals, while zanjeros are responsible for water in the laterals and for operating delivery gates that serve some 480,000 acres of farmland within IID's boundaries.

IID serves water through approximately 5,600 delivery gates for irrigation purposes. It operates and maintains more than 1,438 miles of lateral canals, 230 miles of main canals and the 80-mile-long AAC. The district also maintains approximately 1,406 miles of drainage ditches used to collect surface runoff and subsurface drainage from 32,227 miles of tile drains underlying 462,202 acres of farmland. Most of these drainage ditches discharge into either the Alamo River or New River, which flow to the Salton Sea, while some discharge directly to the Salton Sea.

Each October, USBR asks IID to estimate the amount of water it will need to divert from the Colorado River during the following calendar year. This is commonly referred to as the Annual Water Order. Upon receiving the notice from USBR, IID asks CVWD to submit an estimate of its water needs for the following year. IID's General Manager then submits the estimates to USBR.

In addition to the annual water order, weekly water orders are submitted to USBR. Each Wednesday, IID's Watermaster submits a water order to the River Division office for the following week's (Monday through Sunday) water requirement. These water orders are derived from historic and recent orders on the part of IID's water customers. After USBR has accumulated all the water orders from all water users on the lower Colorado River, it then prepares a master schedule of flows. The amount of water scheduled on this master schedule of flow is typically the amount of water IID is entitled to unless IID’s Watermaster requests a revision at least 72 hours in advance.

Water orders for next-day delivery, which are accepted by IID from its customers until noon, are entered into a computer system by each division. By 12:20 PM, IID's dispatching unit accesses the computer for information on the total amount of water orders. By 1:00 PM, the dispatching unit allots all available water back to the divisions, places a firm water order to River Division for the following day's water deliveries and requests changes to be made in the master schedule for four days in advance. Using the total amount of water allotted, divisions call in water orders for each canal heading to the dispatching unit. The dispatcher at the dispatching unit then prepares a water plan for the following day's water deliveries and schedules the required changes throughout the main canal system in order to meet water user demands. The Water Control operator executes all the changes. Then, with the aid of the water SCADA system, water is transported through the main canal system.

Each morning, hydrographers measure and release the required amount of water from each main canal into the heading of each lateral canal scheduled to receive water under the direction of the field operations unit. In addition, every morning, zanjeros (Spanish for "ditch riders") receive a Run Schedule with instructions on where and when delivery gates should be opened or closed for water delivery within a run. Runs are comprised of a set of lateral canals and all the associated customer delivery gates within a geographic area. From the lateral canals, zanjeros measure and divert the required amount of water from the lateral canal through individual customer delivery gates.

Water Drainage As a part of its operating system, IID maintains an extensive gravity flow drainage system. The lateral drain system is laid out to provide a drainage outlet for each governmental subdivision of approximately 160 acres and, as such, the drains usually parallel the lateral canals.

IID is obligated to provide its drains at sufficient depth - generally 6 to 10 feet deep - to accept tile drain discharge. Where the drain cannot be maintained at sufficient depth, a sump and pump are provided and maintained by the district. These drains are used to collect excess surface flow (tailwater) from agricultural fields, subsurface tile discharges and operational discharge from canals and laterals.

The 1,406 miles of surface drains can be divided into three main areas: Alamo River System, New River System and drains that flow directly into the Salton Sea. Approximately 430 control structures are installed along the drainage system.

Table 18. Conveyance and Delivery System (2005 miles) System Used Total Length Earthen Concrete Lined Piped All-American Canal 79.720 79.720 0.000 0.000 Main Canals 150.290 129.390 20.900 0.000 Lateral Canals 1,437.810 328.880 1,087.986 20.944 Mains & Laterals Total 1,667.820 537.990 1,108.886 20.944 All-American Drains 50.110 37.410 0.000 12.700 Drains 1,405.940 1,298.143 1.180 106.617 Drains Total 1,456.050 1,335.553 1.180 119.317

Tailwater/Spill Recovery Systems Growers received incentives to have tailwater return systems installed as part of the 1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation Program. In addition, growers use these systems when they are of economic and agronomic benefit.

Table 19. Tailwater/Spill Recovery System Area Served System Number (AC) Plum-Oasis Lateral Interceptor IID/MWD Project 8 laterals 37 Mulberry- D Lateral Interceptor IID/MWD Project 11 laterals 47 Trifolium Lateral Interceptor IID/MWD Project 15 laterals 29 Turnip thru Thistle Laterals (WSM) IID Project 11 laterals 51 Tailwater Recovery Systems (TRS) IID/MWD Project 24 systems 6,629 Tailwater Recovery Systems (TRS) Grower Operated Varies

Water Measurement and Accounting Procedures

IID Measurements IID measures all water delivered to users except for service pipes and small parcels. Flow is also measured throughout the delivery system and at key points in its drainage system.

Table 20. Customer Measurements Type Total Number Customer Accounts Owner-Operated 2,405 Tenant-Operated 3,786 Measured Accounts 6,191 Customer Turnouts Delivery Gates 5,586 Small Parcels 792 Pipes 2,259 Measured Turnouts 5,586

Table 21. IID System Measurement Sites Type Process Number Reading Calibration Maintenance Automated System Sharp-Crested Weir Logger 5 15-min Monthly As-Needed Sharp-Crested Weir SCADA 64 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed Grade Board Weir SCADA 31 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed Broad-Crested Weir SCADA 20 15-min Monthly As-Needed Rated Drop or Weir SCADA 10 15-min Monthly As-Needed Long-throated Flume SCADA 4 15-min Monthly As-Needed Notched Weir SCADA 1 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed Orifice Gate SCADA 1 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed Automated Drop-Leaf Gate SCADA 79 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed (ADLG) Total 238 Reported Flow or Level Acoustic Meter SCADA 14 15-min Monthly Semi-Annual Rated Structure 1 SCADA 27 15-min Monthly As-Needed Broad-Crested Weir SCADA 6 15-min Monthly As-Needed Level Only SCADA 1 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed ADLG SCADA 11 15-min Semi-Annual As-Needed Total 59 Tailwater Return System Grade Board Weir (pond SCADA 28 15-min Annual As-Needed spillage) Reported Flow SCADA 28 15-min Annual As-Needed 56 Manual System Main Canal or Lateral Heading Manual 126 5 x/day As-Needed As-Needed Delivery Gate Manual 5,586 4 x/day As-Needed As-Needed Total 5,712 GRAND TOTAL 6,065 1 Check, Heading, Drop, Flume, Siphon, Pump Flow, Spill

IID (or CVWD) contracts with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to maintain the official record at seven of IID’s automated measurement sites. IID collects backup raw data for these sites, which from time to time are used by the USGS.

Table 22. IID System Measurement (USGS) Type Reading Calibration Maintenance

AAC Station 60 (paid by USGS) 15-min Monthly As-Needed AAC below Pilot Knob (Station 1117) 15-min Monthly As-Needed Coachella Canal Heading Flume (paid by CVWD) 15-min Monthly As-Needed AAC below Drop 1 (Station 1973) 15-min Monthly As-Needed New River at US Mexico Border 15-min Monthly As-Needed New River to the Salton Sea 15-min Monthly As-Needed Alamo River to the Salton Sea 15-min Monthly As-Needed

To maintain accuracy at its rated structures and acoustic velocity meter (AVM) sites, IID Hydrography Unit conducted current metering at 24 major sites during 2006 and 2007. The metering data are stored on IID’s WIS. The equipment and maintenance schedule are provided in the following table.

Table 23. Current Metering Equipment 1 Type Number Calibration Maintenance AA Propeller Meter 10+ As-Needed As-Needed Flow Tracker / Point Velocity 1 Each time used As-Needed ADCP (Rivercat – Sontek) 1 Daily As-Needed ADCP (Stream Pro RDI) 1 Daily 1 IN 2006 AND 2007, IID HYDROGRAPHY UNIT PERFORMED 477 CURRENT METERING READINGS ON 24 MAJOR SITES.  FOR FURTHER CURRENT METERING DETAILS, SEE ATTACHMENT B.

IID maintains four CIMIS sites, which are calibrated by CDWR staff. IID downloads CIMIS data into the WIS, where additional QC is performed. IID also maintains a weather station in the yard at IID Headquarters in Imperial, CA. Imperial station data are stored in an EXCEL spreadsheet.

Table 24. Weather Data (CIMIS Sites) Type Station Number Maintenance Calibration Calipatria/Mulberry CIMIS 0041 Monthly As-Needed Meloland CIMIS 0087 Monthly As-Needed Seeley CIMIS 0068 Monthly As-Needed Westmorland North CIMIS 0181 Monthly As-Needed

 FOR CIMIS INFORMATION AND DATA, VISIT http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp

Water Use and Budget

Water Use Accounting IID water supply and use accounting are provided in the following two tables. Table 25. IID Supply and Use - USBR Accounting (AF) 1 2003 2004 2005 2006 Priority 3a – Basic Entitlement 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 IID/MWD Transfer (MWD 88 Agreement) (105,130) (101,900) (101,940) (101,160) Transfer to SDCWA (10,000) (20,000) (30,000) (40,000) Indian and Misc. PPRs (11,500) (11,500) (11,500) (11,500) Inflow from LCWSP 2 (1,249) (1,259) (1,036) (1,412) IID Exhibit C Payback -- (40,665) (23,797) (34,162) Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) Water ------(1,000) Water Exchanged w/SDCWA (Salton Sea) ------(20,000) IID Colorado River Entitlement 2,972,121 2,924,676 2,931,727 2,890,766 Actual IID Consumptive Use (2,978,223) (2,743,909) 2,756,846 (2,909,680) Water Exchanged w/SDCWA (Salton Sea) -- (15,000) (15,000) -- IID (Overrun) Underuse -- 166,408 159,881 (18,914) Amount of ICS Applied to Overrun ------(1,000) Total IID (Overrun) Underuse (6,102) 165,767 159,881 (17,914) Remaining IID ICS ------0

1 IID AND USBR DO THEIR OWN ACCOUNTING; THEY COORDINATE AND TRUE UP IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST DUE TO PROVISIONAL DATA AND DIFFERENT REPORTING DATES. 2 WATER FROM THE LOWER COLORADO WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (LCWSP), A WELL FIELD ALONG THE AAC, IS PUMPED NTO THE

AAC AND IS USED BY IID IN LIEU OF DIVERSION FROM THE COLORADO RIVER. Source: Paul Matuska, USBR Lower Colorado River Office, Boulder City, NV.

Table 26. IID Supply and Use - IID QSA Accounting (AF)

2003 2004 2005 2006 Maximum CU 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 Misc PPR -105,130 -11,500 -11,500 -11,500 88 IID/MWD Agreement -10,000 -101,900 -101,940 -101,160 IID/SDCWA Transfer -11,500 -20,000 -30,000 -40,000 SS Mitigation Delivery -15,000 -15,000 -20,000 CRWDA Exhibit C Payback -18,900 -18,900 -18,900 Early Payback -25,881 -7,305 -18,719 IOPP Water 1 ------ICS (Intentionally Created Surplus) ------1,000 Total 2,906,819 2,915,355 2,888,721 1 Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy Source: QSA IID/SDCWA Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement Annual Implementation Report (2004, 2005, 2006, IID)  FOR IID QSA SUPPLY AND USE DETAILS, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=381

Water Budget The following text, figure and tables describing IID’s water balance are from the Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan, IID DELIVERY SYSTEM ANALYSES (VOL 1), TECHNICAL APPENDIX 1.b (Davids Engineering, May 2007, pp8–35) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=804

Figure 3 provides a conceptual overview of all flow paths within the IID water balance study area boundary. These include all water sources - AAC, rainfall, surface and subsurface inflows. The arrows are sized relative to flow volume. Blue arrows signify water flow paths and red arrows signify discharge of water to the atmosphere via crop evapotranspiration (ET), evaporation from IID conveyance/distribution systems, rivers, drains, M&I consumptive use, and transpiration by vegetation growing along canals, drains, and rivers.

The IID water balance analyses include monthly and annual accounting. The water balances, developed as part of the Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan (Definite Plan), are based on modified versions of spreadsheets developed by the Water Study Team in 2000. A summary report includes documentation of data sources, assumptions, detailed water balance summaries, and a schematic of the IID water balance. The monthly and water year balances are for October 1997 through September 2005 (Water Years 1998 – 2005). The Methods and Assumptions that follow are from Davids Engineering, et al., May 2007.

Methods & Assumptions For the purpose of the IID water balance, boundaries are AAC inflow at Mesa Lateral 5 on the East, the Mexican border on the South, the Westside Main Canal service area on the West, and the Salton Sea on the North. The first step in the IID water balance is to sum inflows and subtract outflows to close on total consumptive use and change in soil water storage:

Σ Inflows – Σ Outflows = Consumptive Use + Δ Storage

Inflows include the AAC, the New and Alamo rivers from Mexico, rainfall, Mesa storm flows, and subsurface inflows. Outflows, which discharge to the Salton Sea, include the New and Alamo rivers, Direct-to-Sea flows, and subsurface outflow.

IID WIS and 660 Report data for AAC inflows at Mesa Lateral 5 are shown at the top of the water balance summary table. Due to some discrepancies between the 660 and WIS data, the Adjusted Modeled System Inflow was used for the water balance. This flow is based on the calibrated Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System (IIDSS) modeled AAC inflow.

IIDSS is demand driven: summing all reported IID water deliveries to users and calibrated estimates of system seepage, evaporation, and spillage to arrive at AAC inflow at Mesa Lateral 5. It does not include unaccounted water. Thus, IIDSS modeled system inflow is expected to be less than measured system inflow by the amount of unaccounted water. Monthly Adjusted Modeled System Inflow is calculated as the maximum of IIDSS modeled system inflow and the lesser of WIS and 660 Report estimated inflows. Unaccounted water in the water balance is the difference between Adjusted Modeled System Inflow and IIDSS modeled system inflow. Monthly Adjusted Modeled System Inflows are summed by water year to obtain the annual inflows used. Change in soil water storage is estimated in the monthly water balance as recorded farm deliveries minus annual portion of soil moisture going to farm drain flows plus effective

1.b, p 2 1.b,

. App

hnical c e T

System Analyses (Vol Flow Paths Delivery IID IID

. IID Water Balance Components and Davids Engineering, et al., May 2007 , May et al., Engineering, Davids 3 Figure Source:

precipitation on agricultural land minus consumptive use on irrigated agricultural land. Annual farm drain flow fraction is calculated in the water year water balance. Monthly crop ET is estimated by multiplying monthly reference ET values by the crop coefficient. Monthly crop coefficients were estimated using October 1997 to September 1998 SEBAL2 ET data with a 15 meter buffer applied within the outside edges of the fields.

 FOR DETAILS, INCLUDING EFFECTIVE RAINFALL CALCULATION, SEE Definite Plan, IID Delivery System Analysis (Vol 1) Technical Appendix 1.b. IID Water Balance Summary AT http://www.iid.com/Media/Appendix1_Vol1_1[1].a._1.g.pdf (p 8 – 35 of 184)

Results of this water balance analysis are provided in the following table.

Table 27. Provisional IID Calendar Year Water Balance (KAF) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 AAC Inflow Delivery to AAC at PK 3,450.6 3,409.6 3,478.6 3,270.6 3,085.4 Delivery to Coachella Canal 335.1 319.6 326.0 292.3 297.5 Delivery to IID at PK 3,115.5 3,090.0 3,152.6 2,978.3 2,787.8 Deliveries to IID Farms above EHL 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 Losses from PK to EHL 99.3 99.2 99.4 99.3 99.3 AAC Inflow at Mesa Lateral 5 (check) 3,015.3 2,989.8 3,051.9 2,877.9 2,687.4 AAC Inflow at Mesa Lateral 5 2,969.4 2,961.9 3,019.0 2,841.4 2,643.2 Difference at Mesa Lateral 5 46.0 27.8 32.9 36.6 44.2

Other Inflows Alamo River from Mexico 2.1 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 New River from Mexico 158.3 153.5 114.8 106.1 111.5 Total Rainfall 29.6 24.9 12.8 116.2 199.4 Mesa Storm Inflows 1.7 1.4 0.7 6.6 11.3 External Subsurface 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Other Inflows Subtotal 211.7 201.5 148.6 249.1 342.5 Total Inflows 3,181.0 3,163.4 3,167.6 3,090.5 2,985.7

Total Outflows Alamo River to Salton Sea 655.8 664.6 678.3 629.0 611.2 New River to Salton Sea 447.7 437.2 430.2 410.3 387.9 Direct to Sea Drains 102.3 102.4 104.5 92.2 91.7 Subsurface to Sea 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Change in Soil & GW Storage 262.1 -68.0 41.3 63.7 31.3 Total Consumptive Use 1,912.1 2,026.2 1,912.2 1,894.4 1,862.6 Total Outflows 3,181.0 3,163.4 3,167.6 3,090.5 2,985.7

Consumptive Use Delivery System Evaporation 22.8 22.5 23.5 22.7 22.9 Drain/River Evap. & Phreat. Use 85.4 84.3 88.1 85.1 85.6 M&I CU of Delivered Water 56.2 54.7 54.6 54.4 55.1 Rainfall ET on M&I Land 3.4 2.9 1.5 13.8 23.7 Crop ET 1,744.3 1,861.9 1,744.5 1,718.4 1,675.4 Total Consumptive Use 1,912.1 2,026.2 1,912.2 1,894.4 1,862.6

2 SEBAL (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land) is a widely applied remote-sensing ET estimation model.

Delivery System AAC Inflow at Mesa Lateral 5 2,969.4 2,961.9 3,019.0 2,841.4 2,643.2 Total Delivery System Inflows 2,969.4 2,961.9 3,019.0 2,841.4 2,643.2

On-Farm Delivery 2,644.3 2,637.9 2,693.2 2,523.6 2,300.4 M&I Delivery 91.3 88.7 88.6 88.3 89.4 Seepage 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 Main Spill 1.4 4.5 1.9 1.3 7.9 Lateral Spill 124.0 122.4 125.9 119.5 111.6 Salton Sea Mitigation Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 Net Evaporation 22.4 22.3 23.4 22.7 22.2 Total Delivery System Outflows 2,969.4 2,961.9 3,019.0 2,841.4 2,643.2 Recorded On-Farm Delivery 2,620.7 2,606.0 2,661.8 2,463.7 2,269.0 Unaccounted Canal Water 23.6 31.9 31.4 60.0 31.4 Unaccounted Canal Water Percent 2.1% 2.5% 2.7% 3.4% 2.0%

On-Farm On-Farm Delivery 2,644.3 2,637.9 2,693.2 2,523.6 2,300.4 Rainfall on Farmland 24.2 20.3 10.4 94.4 161.9 Total On-Farm Inflows 2,668.5 2,658.2 2,703.6 2,618.1 2,462.3

Crop ET 1,744.3 1,861.9 1,744.5 1,718.4 1,675.4 Tilewater 423.3 424.4 450.6 408.8 359.9 Tailwater 438.9 440.0 467.2 423.8 373.1 Rainfall Runoff & Deep Perc. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 22.7 Change in Soil & GW Storage 62.1 -68.0 41.3 63.7 31.3 Total On-Farm Outflows 2,668.5 2,658.2 2,703.6 2,618.1 2,462.3

M&I Use M&I Delivery 91.3 88.7 88.6 88.3 89.4 Rainfall on M&I Land 4.5 3.8 2.0 18.3 31.6 Total M&I Inflows 95.8 92.6 90.7 106.6 121.0

M&I CU of Delivered Water 56.2 54.7 54.6 54.4 55.1 Return Flow 35.0 34.1 34.0 33.9 34.3 Rainfall ET on M&I Land 3.4 2.9 1.5 13.8 23.7 Rainfall Runoff & Deep Perc. 1.1 1.0 0.5 4.6 7.9 Total M&I Outflows 95.8 92.6 90.7 106.6 121.0 M&I Consumptive Use 59.6 57.6 56.1 68.1 78.8

Drainage System Alamo River from Mexico 2.1 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 New River from Mexico 158.3 153.5 114.8 106.1 111.5 Mesa Storm Inflows 1.7 1.4 0.7 6.6 11.3 External Subsurface 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Main Spill 1.4 4.5 1.9 1.3 7.9 Salton Sea Mitigation Water (to Sea) ------25.6 Lateral Spill 124.0 122.4 125.9 119.5 111.6 Delivery System Seepage 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 M&I Return Flow 35.0 34.1 34.0 33.9 34.3 M&I Rainfall Runoff & Deep Perc. 1.1 1.0 0.5 4.6 7.9 On-Farm Rain Runoff & Deep Perc. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 22.7 Rainfall on Drains & Phreatophytes 0.7 0.6 0.3 2.7 4.6 Rainfall on Rivers & Phreatophytes 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.2 Tilewater 423.3 424.4 450.6 408.8 359.9 Tailwater 438.9 440.0 467.2 423.8 373.1 Total Drainage System Inflows 1,292.6 1,289.6 1,302.3 1,217.6 1,178.1

Alamo River to Salton Sea 655.8 664.6 678.3 629.0 611.2 New River to Salton Sea 447.7 437.2 430.2 410.3 387.9 Direct to Sea Drains 102.3 102.4 104.5 92.2 91.7 Subsurface to Sea 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Drain Evap. & Phreatophyte Use 67.5 66.6 69.6 67.3 67.6 River Evap. & Phreatophyte Use 17.9 17.7 18.5 17.9 18.0 Total Drainage System Outflows 1,292.3 1,289.4 1,302.2 1,217.6 1,177.4 Drain Net Evap. & Phreat. Use 66.8 66.0 69.3 64.6 63.0 River Net Evap. & Phreat. Use 17.8 17.5 18.4 17.2 16.7

Source: Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan (Davids Engineering, et al., May 2007)  FOR DETAILS, SEE Definite Plan, IID Delivery System Analyses (Vol 1), Technical Appendix 1.b. Water Balance Summary http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=804 (p 8 – 35 of 184)

Quality of Water Sources Water quality is tested throughout IID’s source and drain water systems. Since February 2004, IID has added 26 TMDL drain monitoring sites in compliance with its Drain Water Quality Improvement Plan. Water quality sample data are provided in Attachment C.

Table 28. Water Quality Monitoring Location Practice Frequency Agency Source Water Imperial Dam EC (salinity) Daily USBR TDS, pH, Ca+, Mg, Na+K, AAC Drop 1 1 Monthly IID CO3, HCO3, SO4, Cl, Temp TDS, pH, Ca+, Mg, Na+K, Semi- Salton Sea (5 sites) 1 IID HCO3+CO3, SO4, Cl annually 10 sites: AAC, EHL, CM, WSM 1 Total Coli. Fecal Coli. E.coli Monthly IID AAC (12 sites) 2 Silt load analysis Monthly IID 4 sites: AAC, EHL, CM, WSM 3 Title 22 compliance Yearly IID Drain Water 1 Alamo R at US/Mexico Border TDS, pH, Ca+, Mg, Na+K, Alamo R Outlet at Salton Sea Monthly CO , HCO , SO , Cl, Temp New R Outlet at Salton Sea 3 3 4 TMDL Drain Water 4 7 main drains: DO, EC, pH, Field & Lab 5 to Alamo River Turbidity, TSS, NH -, NO -, Monthly IID 2 to New River 3 2 NO , Kjeldahl-N, 18 minor drains: 3 Orthophosphate, Total P, 9 to Alamo R Total Hardness, Ca+, Mg, Quarterly IID 6 to New R 4 Direct to Salton Sea Total AT, HCO3+CO3, SO4 1 COLLECTED BY IID; ANALYSIS BY ATS LABS, INC. BRAWLEY, CA; ALAMO R AT US/MEXICO BORDER TO BE DISCONTINUED JAN 2008 DUE TO LOW FLOW (410.4 AF IN 2008) 2 COLLECTED BY IID; ANALYSIS BY IID 3 PHYSICALLY COLLECTED & ANALYSIS BY CLINICAL LAB OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA, HTTP://WWW.CLINICAL-LAB.COM/ 4 COLLECTED BY IID; ANALYSIS BY BABCOCK LABS, RIVERSIDE, CA, HTTP://WWW.BABCOCKLABS.COM/ FLOW DATA COLLECTION AT SIX (6) MINOR DRAINS: I, NETTLE, PEACH, NORTH CENTRAL SPRUCE AND TIMOTHY 2 WILL BEGIN IN EARLY 2008.

Imperial Valley Groundwater Basin

Table 29. District Groundwater Basin Basin Name Size (Sq. Mi.) Usable Capacity (AF) Safe Yield (AF/year) Imperial Valley 1,870 None – highly saline water Not applicable

In general, as reported in County of Imperial, Imperial County Groundwater Study (Montgomery Watson, 1995, pp 3-13 & 3-14):

Groundwater moves toward the axis of the valley and then northwestward toward the Salton Sea. Groundwater discharge occurs along the lower reaches of the New and Alamo rivers. Where the New River crosses the International border, the groundwater is exceedingly shallow, less than five feet below ground surface in most places.

While a large amount of water is stored in the groundwater basin, few wells have been drilled for production purposes because the yield is low and of poor quality.

Chapter 7 of the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (CDWR, et al., 2007) contains a detailed description of the Imperial Valley Basin. Regarding usage of groundwater, the report (p 7-5) states:

Groundwater quality varies extensively in the Imperial Valley Basin. Total dissolved solids, a measure of salinity, ranged from 498 to 7,280 mg/L (CDWR, 2003). High concentrations of fluoride have been reported (IID and USBR, 2002b).

Due to the low yield and poor water quality, few production wells have been drilled in the Imperial Valley. Most of the wells in the Imperial Valley are domestic wells. Total production from these wells is estimated to be a few thousand acre-feet per year (Salton Sea Authority, 1999).

Extremely deep groundwater has been developed along the southern Salton Sea shoreline for geothermal resources. These wells access non-potable groundwater from several thousand feet below ground surface.

The Imperial Groundwater Management Ordinance was revised May 11, 2004 and amended August 3, 2004. Portions referring to IID are contained in Section 92202.01, which states:

The Imperial Irrigation District shall not be required to comply with the permit requirements of this Ordinance and shall be entitled to extract groundwater under the following specific conditions:

A. Imperial Unit #1

The Imperial Irrigation district shall not be required to comply with the permit requirements of this Ordinance for any of its authorized activities as a District within the Imperial Irrigation District boundary known as the Imperial Unit # 1 in effect as of July 1, 1988. This boundary shall also include any area within (1) mile east of the East Highline Canal as said canal exists as of July 1, 1996, and (1) one mine west of the West Side (sic) Main Canal as said canal exists as of July 1, 1996.

B. Water Seeping From the All American Canal

The Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to extract the water seeping from the All American Canal. The Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to extract such water only to the extent that the Groundwater Model sows that such water is still present in the groundwater basin for extraction. As referred to in this Ordinance, the Groundwater Model is that certain document accepted by the Board of supervisors on February 2, 1996, entitled “The County of Imperial and Imperial Irrigation District County-wide Groundwater Model” and any modifications thereto as my be accepted by the Board of Supervisors.

C. Recharge and Recovery

The Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to develop, implement and operate artificial recharge facilities and extraction facilities for recovery of artificially recharged groundwater, within any of its existing service boundaries, or within the East Mesa as such area is shown on the Groundwater Model/Study, excluding the Ocotillo/Yuha Basin (Coyote sub-area) and the Borrego Basin (Borrego sub-area) as shown on the Groundwater Model. Such artificial recharge facilities and extraction facilities may not be operated in any basin whose water quality would be affected or deteriorated by such operations. The Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to operate such artificial recharge facilities and extraction facilities upon establishing that the operation of such facilities complies with the Groundwater Model, shows that operation of such facilities will not adversely affect water quality in the basin or will not be inconsistent with such other groundwater management practices as may be approved by the Planning Commission after presentation by the Imperial Irrigation District of technical data or information to the Planning Commission in support of such practices.

D. All-American Canal

The Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to extract groundwater from the East Mesa, within one (1) mile of the All American Canal, over and above the amount set forth in paragraphs (b) or above under the following conditions:

1. In the event that (a) a third party, without being requested by and without the concurrence of the Imperial Irrigation District, restricts or reduces the amount (sic) the allocation of Colorado River water available to IID, and (b) the Imperial Irrigation District is required to use groundwater as “makeup” water to meet its delivery requirement within the County, then the Imperial Irrigation District shall be allowed to extract groundwater at a rate that will not place the basin(s) in overdraft, adversely affect other groundwater users, or cause other environmental damage. Under extreme conditions of drought or in the event of a natural disaster that causes an interruption of Colorado river delivery, the Imperial Irrigation District may, under extreme conditions of drought, if allowed by the Planning Commission, extract more groundwater than the available supply even if such extract results in an overdraft, if the Groundwater Model shows that the basin would be recharged the following year.

2. In the event that the demand by Imperial Irrigation District for use of water within the County exceeds the Imperial Irrigation District’s present full allocation of Colorado River water, plus water otherwise still available to the Imperial Irrigation

District from the Colorado River, the Imperial Irrigation District may be allowed by the Planning Commission to extract groundwater to meet such demand, provided that the basin is not in or does not become in overdraft and that other environmental damage does not result.

E. Limitations.

In no event shall the Imperial Irrigation District be allowed to extract groundwater under subsection 92202.01(D) to replace water sold, transferred or lost from the Imperial Irrigation District’s allocations of Colorado River water by its own actions or with its consent or acquiescence. In no case shall the Imperial Irrigation District be allowed to extract groundwater under this subsection 92202.01(D) if such extraction places the affected basin(s) into an overdraft other than as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) above. In no event shall the Imperial Irrigation District be allowed to extract groundwater under this provision for use outside of the County either by its own transfer or by agreement by the Imperial Irrigation District with another person, district, City, County, State or Company.

 FOR ENTIRE IMPERIAL COUNTY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, SEE County of Imperial Codified Ordinances - Title 9 Land Use Code - Division 22 Groundwater Management, Sec. 92202.01 AT http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/imperial_co/

 FOR MAP SHOWING IMPERIAL VALLEY BASIN, SEE BELOW, Figure 4, Salton Sea Watershed Groundwater Basins

Legend: Salton Sea Watershed

Figure 4. Salton Sea Watershed Groundwater Basins SOURCE: CDWR, et al., 2007, Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Draft PEIR (p 7-2)  FOR DETAILS, VISIT http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov/PEIR/draft/)

Water Conservation Measures and Results As the Imperial Valley grows and as its economy diversifies so do the function and role of IID’s Water Department. By implementing extraordinary conservation projects, developing innovative efficiency measures and utilizing progressive management tools, the Water Department is working to ensure both the long-term viability of agriculture and the continued protection of water resources within its service area. IID’s Colorado River water entitlement is significant, and as the agency in charge of these water rights IID will continue to responsibly manage its Colorado River water supply and related resources. Information regarding IID’s implementation of new programs intended to increase efficiencies, maximize service levels, and increase water user flexibility is available on IID’s Water Department website.

Existing Water Conservation Measures IID’s on-farm and distribution system efficiencies are high. This is largely due to the fact that IID and the farmers it serves continuously invest money and resources to rehabilitate and modernize their irrigation and delivery systems to improve water management and to conserve water. To obtain their high on-farm efficiency, farmers have concrete-lined their farm head ditches, installed tile drains, leveled farmland, and implemented water management and conservation measures. At the same time, IID has concrete-lined its canals, built regulating reservoirs, implemented canal seepage recovery programs, built interceptor canals, and undertaken many non-structural measures to achieve its high level of conveyance and distribution efficiencies.

Aware that the demand for water in California would continue to increase as a result of the State’s rapid population growth, IID, as a good steward, initiated water management and water conservation programs several decades ago. In the early 1950’s, IID started a very ambitious program of concrete lining of its canals to reduce seepage and conserve water that would then be available to the farms. In conjunction with to the canal lining program, IID initiated a program of improved water management including the automation of the delivery system to enable water operations to better track water levels and flows in the canals. IID also augmented the canal lining and automated delivery system programs by building regulating reservoirs in strategic areas within the District. Additional non-structural measures such as providing increased flexibility for irrigators to change orders during the last day of the run and promoting water conservation programs at the farm level were also implemented.

In 1988, IID finalized a 35-year water conservation and transfer agreement with MWD (1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation Agreement) followed by the 1989 Approval Agreement among IID, MWD, PVID and CVWD. The agreement provided for MWD to pay the costs of water conservation projects in exchange for conserved water, estimated to be over 100 KAF/year. The conservation projects were similar to those implemented by IID in earlier years including regulating reservoirs, canal lining and system automation. Added to the list of water management and conservation projects were multi-lateral interceptor canals designed to allow improved on-farm flexibility and redistribution of canal operational water. Finally, a provision to verify the amount of water was included as part of the 1989 Approval Agreement. In 1994, IID received the USBR Commissioner’s Water Conservation Award for outstanding record of water conservation as a result of these agreements.

On April 28, 1998, IID and SDCWA approved the 1998 IID/SDCWA Conservation and Transfer Agreement. The agreement provided for water conserved by IID by methods chosen by IID to be transferred to SDCWA for a negotiated and agreed upon price formula. Pursuant to the original terms of the transfer, IID agreed to make available annually to SDCWA a minimum quantity of 130 KAF, which would be ramped up to a maximum quantity of 200 KAF over a 10 year schedule. All water was to be provided by efficiency conservation projects.

On October 10, 2003, following years of negotiation among Colorado River Compact States and affected California water delivery agencies, the QSA and related agreements and documents were signed by the Secretary of the Interior, IID, CVWD, MWD, SDCWA and/or other affected parties. The QSA quantifies California’s Priority 3a apportionment for a period of 35 to 75 years (2037 or 2077). In general, the terms of the QSA define allocations for consumptive use of Colorado River water by IID, CVWD and MWD that will enable California to stay within its basic annual apportionment under the Law of the River of 4.4 MAF plus not less than half of any declared surplus.

The QSA stipulates that IID must increasingly reduce its Colorado River Priority 3a water use, until by 2026 its reduction totals 487.2 KAFY, including 67.7 KAFY from AAC lining and conserved water (105 KAFY) from the 1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation Program. IID plans to implement on-farm and system conservation projects to conserve this water for transfer to other water delivery agencies. As part of its QSA obligation, IID adopted a mitigation strategy, detailed in its environmental compliance documents, designed to mitigate impacts to biological resources of the Salton Sea resulting from reduced flow to the sea during the first 15 years of IID/SDCWA Water Conservation and Transfer Program (2003 – 2017). To this end, IID agreed to undertake a fallowing program during this period in order to conserve more water than needed to meet the transfer obligations and to deliver to the Salton Sea this additional conserved water, in a volume equal to the amount that would have flowed to the Salton Sea absent the transfer program.

Details of IID’s water conservation programs are provided in the following three tables.

Table 30. IID Water Conservation Programs and Projects Conservation Project Year Activity Summary On-Farm Tile Drainage 1940 – IID in cooperation with USDA Soil Conservation Service present designed & installed tile drainage systems to remove water & salts from the soil. AAC Seepage Recovery 1947 – AAC seepage returned to the canal. AAC Drain 2 present AAC Seepage Recovery 1948 – AAC seepage returned to the canal. AAC Drain 1 present AAC Seepage Recovery Drain 1951 – AAC seepage returned to the canal. Pumps 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 & 34 present Concrete Lined Canals & 1954 – Cumulatively 3,679 miles of canals, laterals & head Laterals present ditches have been lined (owned privately, owned by IID, & MWD funded through 1994). Water Distribution System 1958 – A telemetry system, installed in 1958, w/automated Automation – Installation & present structures on upper reaches of main canals, using Operation telephone lines to access remote sites. In the 1990’s a SCADA system was installed, using computers, radio & microwave communication network.

Drain Pipelines 1962 – Cumulatively installed 117.24 miles of drain pipelines, present 1962 – 1994, and 119.317 miles by 2006. EHL Seepage Recovery 1967 – EHL seepage returned to canal with 12 pump systems. present Regulating Reservoirs – 1976 – Singh (1976), Sheldon (1977), Fudge (1981) Sperber Construction & Operation 1988 (1983) Carter (1988), storage capacity of 1,619 AF. 13-Point Water Conservation 1976 - Program to reduce tailwater, canal seepage & Program 1987 operational spill. Water Conservation Advisory 1979 – 15-member board makes additional water conservation Board (WCAB) present recommendations to IID Board of Directors. 21-Point Water Conservation 1980 – Policies & procedures for water orders, delivery system Program 1987 operation & assessing charges for excessive water use. Water Conservation Program 1981 – Personnel hired to staff the Water Conservation present Program. Irrigation Scheduling Program 1981 – Assist growers to reduce on-farm tail & tile water; present IMMU is responsible for this program. Aquatic Weed Control 1981 – Support research; build & operate fish hatchery to present produce sterile Triploid Grass carp that feed on hydrilla, which would clog IID’s canals & drains. Field Irrigation Evaluations 1982 Improve on-farm irrigation management. Modified Demand Irrigation 1984 Water orders could be terminated up to four hours Trial before or after the regular (24-hr) end time. Irrigation Training Program 1984 For growers & irrigators, to reduce volume of on-farm tailwater; IMMU is responsible for this program. IID Water Conservation Plan 1985 – Plan with yearly updates. 1987 EHL Seepage & System 1985 – Cooperative IID/USBR study to identify water Improvement Study 1989 conservation opportunities. Tailwater Recovery 1985 – Five-year demonstration of 5 tailwater-return Demonstration Program 1990 (recovery) systems (TRS). 12-Hour Delivery Program 1986; Program allows water delivery in 12-hour increments. 1989 – present Lateral Fluctuation Study 1986, Cooperative study IID & USWCL of causes & effects of 1987 water level fluctuation in open channel irrigation to identify conservation opportunities. Irrigation Field Trials 1987 & Determine effect of tested soil moisture conditions on 1988 sugar beet tonnage & sugar content. 15-Point Water Conservation 1987 – Replaced the 13-Point & 21-Point Water Conservation Program present Programs. Non-Crop Irrigation Demand 1991 – Limit on length of time water could be applied to lands Reduction Program 1992 that were not seeded (i.e., could be flooded). Crop Specific Modified 1991 Evaluate removal of irrigation water from alfalfa during Irrigation Pilot Program the period August 1 - October 15, 1991. Concrete Lining Rehabilitation 2003 - IID received a $2.5 million, 3-year matching grant from 2006 NADBank. IID Water Management Online IID contracted with consultants to develop WMS using System (WMS) Dec 2006 IID’s SAP & WIS data & capabilities to: manage water ordering/delivery & water operations, reduce manual

procedures, & manage response to QSA requirements by improved tracking of water & system performance. CM Automation 2005 USBR Water 2025 Grant - $350,000 for use in automation of 10 headings & 15 gates on the CM. Water Quality Monitoring in 2005 SWRCB Grant - $500,000 for water quality monitoring support of TMDL program for TMDL program. AAC Flow Monitoring 2006 USBR grant - $115,000; install 4 AVMs on AAC - U/S & D/S of Pilot Knob, at Drop 1, and U/S of Mesa Lateral 5

Equitable Distribution 2006 - Hired consultants to perform Equitable Distribution present Analysis; hired TruePoint Solutions for development of web-based water order & management system. Tailwater Education Program 2007 - Each year 10% of irrigated fields (~550) are selected at (TEP) present random. Delivery & tailwater flow are electronically tracked for 3 consecutive irrigations. After each event, farmer receives graph, which is reviewed by IMMU; if tailwater exceeds delivery by 15% on third irrigation, attendance at a quarterly irrigation class is required.

Table 31. IID/MWD Water Conservation Program and Projects Conservation Project Year Activity Summary Agreements IID/MWD Water Conservation 1988 - Agreement provided for water conservation from 17 Agreement present projects to be constructed by IID; 2 pre-Program augmentation projects & 15 projects to be newly constructed. Projected conservation when final project was placed into operation was 106,110 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water. MWD funded all costs of the 15 new projects in return for having conserved amount of Colorado River water available for diversion to its Colorado River Aqueduct. 1989 Approval Agreement 1989 - Approval Agreement called for a Water Conservation among IID, MWD, PVID and present Measurement Committee (WCMC) to provide an orderly CVWD basis, among the parties, for verification of amount of water conserved & amounts conserved by each project. WCMC membership comprised of all three members of the Program Coordinating Committee (PCC), plus one representative each from PVID & CVWD. PCC Chair to serve as WCMC Chair. Second Amendment to 1988 2007 - Effective January 1, 2007, IID, MWD, et al. agreed that Agreement present the amount transferred is 105 KAFY. MWD is to cover O&M costs. Programs & Projects IID/MWD Water Conservation 1990 – Construction, from 1990 thru 1998, at which time 35- & Transfer – Construction 1998 year water transfer period began. Water conservation studies & reports were completed. FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD FINAL PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION REPORT, http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060 IID/MWD Water Conservation 1990 - Water transfer for each calendar year is based on & Transfer – Delivery 2005 conservation estimate for previous water year; amounts are determined from IID data using methodology developed by team of three consultants and approved by all affected parties. 2007 - IID is to transfer 105 KAFY to MWD. present Augmentation Program See IID used a State loan to construct Carter Reservoir & (Projects 1 & 2) Table 34 complete South Alamo Canal Lining Phase I prior to finalizing Approval Agreement, which provided that IID would make water conserved from these projects, an augmentation program, available for MWD use.

Lateral Interceptors See Three interceptor projects constructed with automated (Projects 3, 8, 17) Table 34 reservoir facilities. Automated drop-leaf gates control flow from each intercepted lateral & function as measurement structures for flow from lateral to drain. Collected water is transported to a reservoir; flow in interceptor canal upstream of reservoir is measured using a BCW. Flow discharged from reservoir is distributed to other parts of system, as needed. Reservoirs See Two regulating reservoirs, Carter & Galleano, & four (Projects 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 17) Table 34 interceptor reservoirs – Bevins, Young, Russell & Willey - were constructed; installed pumping plant at Singh. Concrete Lining – Main & See Lateral canals: Sections throughout IID service area Lateral Canals Table 34 where projected conservation savings cost/AF was (Projects 5, 7, 10, 11, & 16) $125/AF or less in 1988 dollars (199.7 miles lined) Main canals: South Alamo II, Vail Supply, Rositas, & Westside Main (13.3 miles lined) 12-Hour Delivery See IID delivery requirement was a 24-hour order; to (Project 9) Table 34 provide added flexibility to match on-farm crop requirements & to conserve water, 12-hour delivery was instituted; allows growers to take AM or PM order (max. 7 cfs; or flow reduction on last 12 hours of 24-hr delivery, not to exceed 5 cfs or ½ delivery rate). Non-Leak Gate See Of 25 investigated sites, 19 were developed based on (Project 12) Table 34 projected savings (flow leakage & expected opportunity time), 5 were subsequently removed. Irrigation Water Management 1995- Irrigation evaluations are performed using portable (Project 14) present water level sensors to monitor delivery & tailwater flow on selected fields; evaluation chart showing delivered water & tailwater is used for grower/irrigator education. 1995 – Linear move irrigation pilot project was designed to 2002 demonstrate and evaluate viability for Imperial Valley conditions; Pilot drip irrigation rebate (cost-sharing) project was conducted. System Automation See Water Control Center (WCC) was constructed to house (Project 15) Table 34 computer-based monitoring equipment, including workstations, map board, file & database servers, & centralized communications equipment; field site improvements were upgrade of 63 water control sites (34 major sites, 6 minor sites, 23 overshot gates); SCADA system was developed to monitor & operate IID’s irrigation distribution system. Additional Irrigation Water See 25 tailwater recovery systems, serving 6,779 acres, Management Table 34 were installed; first TRS began operation in June 1991, (Project 18) last installation was completed in August 1995 Conservation Verification Program Systemwide Monitoring Program developed to identify & explain trends in IID (SWM) system performance as a function of operational environment within which IID/MWD conservation projects operate. Water Information System To collect & process flow data needed in support of (WIS) water conservation verification, an automated data collection, quality control, processing & retrieval system was developed; generates daily, monthly, calendar year & water year tables, summary tables & charts that are available and/or are presented in annual reports.

Table 32. IID QSA Programs and Projects Conservation Project Year Activity Summary FOR DETAILS, SEE IID WATER/QSA Agreements http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=122 IID/SDCWA Water Conserv- 1995 – In 1995 IID & SDCWA signed an MOU to pursue & in ation & Transfer Agreement 1998 1998 signed water conservation & transfer agreement. Quantification Settlement 1999 IID, CVWD, MWD, SDCWA, State of CA & USBR issue Agreement (QSA) Key Terms key terms for a QSA re Colorado River water supply. Quantification Settlement Oct. 10, QSA & Related Agreements are a set of interrelated Agreement & Related 2003 contracts that settle certain disputes among the US, Agreements State of CA, IID, MWD, CVWD, & SDCWA, for period of 35 to 75 years, including issues re reasonable & beneficial use of Colorado River water; ability to conserve, transfer & acquire conserved Colorado River water; quantification & priority of Priorities 3 & 6 within CA for use of Colorado River water; & obligation to implement & fund environmental impact mitigation related to the above. Conserved water transfer agreements between IID & SDCWA, IID & CVWD, & IID & MWD identify volumes & transfer schedules for IID with price & payment terms. As specified, IID will transfer up to 200 KAFY to SDCWA & up to 103 KAFY to CVWD & MWD combined, of water conserved from additional system & on-farm efficiency improvements. IID will also transfer up to 67 KAFY of water conserved from AAC lining to SDCWA & certain San Luis Rey Indian Tribes in exchange for payment of all lining project costs & a grant to IID of certain rights to use the conserved water. Extends IID/MWD Water Conservation Program (105 KAFY) for term of QSA.

FOR DETAILS, SEE QUANTIFICATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & RELATED AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT & SO. CALIFORNIA ARE SIGNATORIES, AT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=208

FOR DETAILS SEE IID Water/Fallowing Fallowing Program (FP) http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=190 2003 – 2003 – 2004 Emergency FP 2004 2004 – FOR DETAILS, SEE 2006 QSA IID/SDCWA WATER 2004 – 2005 FP 2005 CONSERVATION & TRANSFER AGREEMENT ANNUAL 2005 – IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, AT 2005 – 2006 FP 2006 http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=381

2006 - 2006 – 2007 FP 2007 EFFICIENCY CONSERVATION DEFINITE PLAN (DEFINITE PLAN) is to Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan serve as roadmap for implementing programs to achieve required QSA on-farm and system conservation 2006 – FOR DEFINITE PLAN PROCESS, VISIT www.definiteplan.com 2007 May FOR FINAL REPORT & TECHNICAL APPENDICES, VISIT 2007 HTTP://WWW.IID.COM/INDEX.ASPX?PAGE=203 2007 - EFFICIENCY CONSERVATION PLAN (ECP) IMPLEMENTATION present

Measured Water Conservation

IID System Conservation

Table 33. IID System Water Conservation (AFY) 1 Project 2005 2006 AAC Seepage Recovery 1964 -1994 avg ~ 23,300 ~18,800 ~25,300 EHL Seepage Recovery 1967- 1994 avg ~ 14,350 12,644 12,857 12-Hour Delivery Program Program savings go to IID/MWD Program 1 Values are based on pump readings; for 2005 and 2006 no readings were available for three AAC pumps on the Mexico side of the AAC (estimates for those pumps were made based on prior years’ data). Note: Seepage from portions of the AAC and EHL are pumped back into the respective canals. Seepage recovered from the AAC is included in reported flow at Mesa Lateral 5 Turnout. EHL recovered seepage is included in Net Irrigation Water Supply.

IID/MWD Program Conservation

Table 34. IID/MWD Water Conservation (AF) 1 Project No. Project Name Delivery Dates HSV 2005 1 Robert F. Carter (Trifolium) Reservoir 1990 – present 3,880 2 South Alamo Canal Lining, Phase I 1990 – present 510 3 Plum-Oasis (Lateral) Interceptor 1993 – present 6,750 4 Bernard Galleano (Z) Reservoir 1992 – present 4,490 5 South Alamo Canal Lining, Phase II 1991 – present 900 7 Lateral Canal Lining 1991 – present 24,250 8 Trifolium Interceptor 1998 – present 12,990 9 12-Hour Delivery 1991 – present 21,060 10 Vail supply Canal Lining 1992 – present 10 11 Rositas Supply Canal Lining 1992 – present 130 12 Non-Leak Gates 1991 – present 630 14 Irrigation Water Management 1995 – 2002 14,720 15 System Automation 1991 – present 260 16 Westside Main Canal Lining, North 1992 – present 7,640 17 Mulberry-D (Modified East Lowline) Interceptor 1996 – present 3,720 18 Additional Irrigation Water Management 1992 – present 3,880 Total 101,940 1 Historical Verified Savings (HVS) for Water Year 2005 are available for delivery to MWD in calendar year 2006. Effective January 1, 2007, by agreement, total water available to MWD is 105 KAFY with continued operation of tailwater return systems or implementation of a potable water conservation program.

QSA - IID Fallowing Program Conservation

Table 35. IID Fallowing Program Program Fallow Conserved AF Total No. of Year Acres at farm Payment Fields $/AF 2003-2004 5,764 38,641 $ 1,774,782 69 $ 46 2004-2005 12,127 67,273 $ 3,356,392 118 $ 60 2005-2006 11,676 69,764 $ 3,180,992 105 $ 60 2006-2007 17,984 96,395 $ 5,326,065 169 $ 60 2007-2008 16,172 89,512 $ 6,246,532 150 $ 75

Fundamental Water Conservation Measures

A. Water measurement and accounting system designed to measure and account for the water conveyed through the District distribution system to water users. IID’s measurement and accounting system has been described in detail in previous sections of this report. As indicated, except for delivery to service pipes and small parcels, IID measures and accounts for all water volumes conveyed to individual users.

IID conducts its water accounting activities using its SAP capability and Oracle-based Water Management System (WMS). Orders and delivered amounts, along with other on-farm information the district tracks, are entered into these systems by Division staff. The data are subsequently transferred to IID’s WIS where they are maintained for the historical record.

In 2007, as part of its Equitable Distribution program, IID contracted with TruePoint Solutions to implement a web-based water entry and recording system that will allow tracking of on-farm water use and intra-district customer transfers. For the purpose of Water Order and Delivery, this system will replace the WMS and SAP functions, including billing.

In addition, IID has an extensive and accurate flow measurement system throughout its delivery system, much of which is automated. As part of the Definite Plan, over time, IID expects to install flow measurement structures on all heading and spill sites, and to upgrade its farm delivery measurements. Water measurements for all automated flow structures are stored in IID’s WIS, where QC/QA is performed and the data are warehoused.

B. Water pricing structure that encourages efficiency improvements by water users. IID‘s pricing structure is based, almost exclusively, on quantity of water delivered. Agricultural water users will be compensated for participating in the Fallowing Program and, when the terms of the QSA allow it, for participating in on-farm efficiency programs as outlined in the Definite Plan. Water users will be compensated for the amount of water they conserve.  FOR DEFINITE PLAN CONTENTS & WEB LINKS, SEE Table 36, below.

C. An information and education program for users designed to promote increased efficiency of water use.

Tailwater Education Program: IID’s Tailwater Education Program (TEP) is similar to a previous IMMU tailwater reduction program, which used 20 sets of electronic meters that stayed on a farmer’s field for an entire season. By its eighth year, this program yielded nearly 3,000 irrigation evaluations and reached over 80 farmers.

Under the TEP, each year 10 percent of irrigated fields (up to 550 sites) will be selected at random and measurement hardware will be installed. Meters are placed on the delivery gate and the tailwater box, and remain at the site for three (3) consecutive irrigations. After each irrigation event, the farmer is sent the results. Irrigation education support is provided to the farmer through IID’s IMMU. If tailwater exceeds delivery by 15 percent on the third irrigation, attendance at a quarterly irrigation class will be required.

Fields in the program will be given priority access to IID’s Salinity Assessment Vehicle, known as the “Salty Dawg,” to determine salt levels in the soil, assist in determining leaching requirements, and contribute to effective water use.

EQUIPMENT AND LOGISTICS Site preparation includes bracketing and calibration of the delivery and tailwater structures. It takes approximately 2 months to set up 550 sites (10% of the delivery gates). Equipment cost is about $125/site x 550 sites = $68,750/yr. Based on 2003 water orders, 60 sets of meters are needed to accommodate multiple-day orders, finish heads, and irrigations that start the same day others are ending. A one-time purchase of meters cost about $5875/set x 60 sets = $352,500. Data retrieval requires cables, palmtops, and laptops at a one-time cost of around $17,600.

Approximate cost (based on 2003 rate) with benefits and overhead is $96,000/yr x 5 employees = $480,000/yr. Five employees will share 4 trucks at a cost of $10,932/truck x 4 trucks = $43,728.

Equipment and materials are expected to last at least 5 years for a replacement cost of 1/5 or 20% x (352,500+$17,600) = $74,020. Implementation began in April 2007.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS First Year cost • Meters and Retrieval Equipment $370,100 • Labor and Overhead $523,728 • Replacement Equipment and Materials $74,020 $967,848 Second and subsequent year cost • Labor and Overhead $523,728 • Replacement Equipment and Materials $74,020 $597,748

Salty Dawg (Salinity Assessment Vehicle): IID and the USBR work as partners to improve provide better understanding of soil salinity for Imperial Valley growers. The Imperial Valley Research Center (IVRC) analyzes soil samples required for ground-truthing. IID staff meets with the cooperating grower to discuss the results, which include two sets of two-dimensional salinity maps of the field and transect trends depicting average profile salinity along every other transect across the field. Other reports include projected potential yield/yield loss for specific crops, laboratory results and the soil-sample plan map.

Growers see how soil salts are distributed throughout the field, at various depths to the maximum sampling depth, and throughout the profile along individual transects/lanes; how subsurface tile drain location affects operation effectiveness in fields with such systems; and how soil texture and moisture content change within the field boundaries. Growers use the information to improve farming practices such as modifying their irrigation management plans, irrigation schedules and leaching irrigation, or scheduling tile line cleaning.

Water Flow Measurement Classes: With the implementation of an Equitable Distribution Pilot Program for 2008, IID is offering monthly instruction on water flow measurement to its water

users upon request. Instruction includes teaching applicable measurement procedures for both over-pour and under-pour applicable for delivery gates and tailwater boxes. Classes are offered by appointment only from 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM, the same day and location of the WCAB meeting (the second Thursday of each month) at the WCC conference room in Imperial). Instruction is to be provided in English and Spanish.

Key Customer Coordinator: In June 2007, the IID Water Department hired a Key Customer Coordinator (KCC) whose primary focus is communication with IID’s agricultural water users. The KCC’s overarching goal is to improve the flow of accurate information between IID staff and agricultural water users. The day-to-day focus is oversight of IID’s individual projects and/or field-level issues as they progress internally through IID towards resolution. Through this function, the Water Department is working to communicate with its agricultural customers about programs the district and the growers themselves can implement to improve the efficient use of water and about conservation services available to growers from the District and other resource providers. IID anticipates that the result will be increased efficiencies based on a higher degree of understanding and communication.

News from the Ditchbank: In October 2007, IID reintroduced a monthly publication, News from the Ditchbank, to keep water users apprised of issues facing the district. The publication is included as an insert in the water bills. It can also be found online at the IID website and the link is forwarded by email to a list of agricultural water users. Copies are also available at IID Division offices and at all IID Board meetings.  FOR PAST ISSUES OF News From The Ditchbank, Available upon request.

D. A water conservation coordinator David Bradshaw, General Superintendent Agricultural Water Management Phone: (760) 339-9083 Cell: (760) 427-7586 Fax: (760) 339-9009 [email protected]

Additional Agricultural Water Conservation Measures As noted in IID’s Water Conservation and Transfer Project (Transfer Project) Final EIR/EIS Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 3, in addition to establishing water budgets for IID, MWD and CVWD, the QSA sets forth the approved parameters of various water transfers and exchanges, including conservation by IID ramping up an additional 303 KAFY by 2026 for delivery to SDCWA, CVWD and/or MWD. The QSA further allocates water to be conserved by the AAC and Coachella Canal lining projects. The QSA incorporates a consensual limit by IID on its total Priority 3 diversions of Colorado River water at 3.1 million acre-feet per year (MAFY). IID’s limit is further reduced by the amounts IID conserves and transfers to others under the QSA, by the amount to be conserved by the AAC Lining Project, and by any Priority 3 water made available by IID to holders of miscellaneous present perfected Colorado River water rights (PPRs) and Indian reserved rights, resulting in a net Priority 3 diversion of approximately 2.6 to 2.7 MAFY for use within the IID service area (Vol 2, HCP, p A1-4 AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1486).

Of the initial 200 KAF anticipated to be conserved for transfer to SDCWA, 130 KAF is projected to come from voluntary on-farm conservation programs adopted by farmers in the Imperial Valley. Farmers will enter into agreements with IID committing to implementation of conservation measures. These measures will likely require farmers to make capital investments in selected types of water conservation equipment and facilities. In some cases, farmers may be required to obtain financing and pay for construction costs and implement and maintain conservation measures (Vol 2, HCP, pp A1-5 to A1-6 AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1486).

In addition to on-farm conservation, IID will implement system improvement projects that will support the on-farm activities or that will result in direct system conservation. Both the on-farm and system elements are outlined in the Definite Plan and the Board is undertaking their implementation as needed. Specific initiatives and programs that IID is pursuing that relate to the Additional Agricultural Water Conservation Measures (A – M) are presented below. Details of these IID initiatives and programs can be found on IID’s website, as noted for each measure.

A. On-farm program incentives - Facilitate/provide financial incentives & assistance for on-farm water use efficiency improvements (e.g., lease, low interest loans, or water charge rebates for on- farm conservation measures).

IID FALLOWING PROGRAM: Since December 2003, IID has been paying growers and land owners to participate in its QSA Fallowing Program, which will continue through 2017.  FOR DETAILS, SEE QSA by and among IID, MWD, and CVWD, Exhibit C http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825

3 The Water Conservation and Transfer Project (Transfer Project) includes all IID programs in the QSA.  FOR DETAILS, SEE Approval Documents for IID Transfer Project IID Board Resolution 9-2003 http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=231  AND SEE IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project; Final EIR /EIS; Habitat Conservation Plan http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=229

IID established a Local Entity to develop and implement a mitigation plan to address third- party (socioeconomic) impacts. The Local Entity is also responsible for distribution of funds provided by SDCWA for this purpose.  FOR DETAILS, SEE LOCAL ENTITY IID LOCAL ENTITY WEBSITE & ASSOCIATED LINKS, AT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=199

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: As of 2018, all conservation under the QSA must be efficiency conservation. The Definite Plan includes the analysis of potential on-farm efficiency incentives for this phase of the program.  FOR DETAILS, SEE Alternatives Development Technical Appendices 4.c & 4.d http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=798  AND SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 2, Technical Appendix 3.h http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=799  AND SEE Final Report Section 3.3 On-Farm Conservation Measures & Section 3.5 On-Farm Incentive Programs http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=805

B. Drought/water shortage contingency plan - Develop a drought/water shortage contingency plan for the District that outlines policies & procedures for operation and allocation during water supply shortages.

IID Initiative: Throughout 2006 and 2007, IID developed an Equitable Distribution Policy to deal with potential supply/demand imbalances (SDI) within its service area in times of water shortage. This policy was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2008.  FOR AN OVERVIEW, SEE ABOVE, pages 14 – 18 Water Shortage (Supply/Demand Imbalance) Allocation Policies  FOR DETAILS, SEE Equitable Distribution http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=141

C. Water transfers - Facilitate voluntary water transfers that do not unreasonably affect the District, the environment, or third parties.

IID/MWD TRANSFER: In December 1988, IID and MWD entered into the IID/MWD Water Conservation Agreement. Major construction work was completed in December 1997, with construction of the last project completed in September 1998. The first water was made available for delivery to MWD in 1990.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060  AND SEE Attachment D: IID/MWD Water Conservation Program Savings

QSA TRANSFERS: In October 2003, IID became a signatory to the QSA and Related Agreements, which includes the CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA. These documents define the transfer of water from agricultural users in the Imperial Valley to urban users in the Coachella Valley and in California’s South Coast region. IID and its agricultural water users will participate in the designated water transfers throughout the 35-year up to 75-year life of the QSA (2037, 2047 or 2077).  FOR DETAILS, SEE Quantification Settlement Agreement & Related Agreements to which the Federal Government & So. California are Signatories http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=208

 IN PARTICULAR, SEE Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for the purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825

D. Conjunctive use – Where appropriate, increase conjunctive use of surface & groundwater within the District, & work with appropriate entities to develop a groundwater management plan.

DEMONSTRABLY INAPPROPRIATE: The Draft Salton Sea Restoration Project EIS/EIR, states, “The groundwater is generally of poor quality and is not used for agriculture. In the central part of the valley, the TDS in most wells is between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L. Water with TDS above 1,000 mg/L is considered to be of poor quality” (Tetra Tech, 2000, pp 3-31 & 32).  FOR FURTHER DETAILS, SEE Draft Salton Sea Restoration Project EIS /EIR, Part 3.2 Groundwater Resources http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/saltnsea/deis/08-Chapter_3_part_2.pdf  AND SEE FOR ENTIRE IMPERIAL COUNTY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, SEE County of Imperial Codified Ordinances - Title 9 Land Use Code - Division 22 Groundwater Management, Chapter 2, Sec. 92202.01 Imperial irrigation district AT http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/imperial_co/

E. Land management - Facilitate potential alternative uses for lands with exceptionally high water duty, or whose irrigation contributes to significant problems (e.g., drainage that precludes attainment of water quality standards).

DEMONSTRABLY INAPPROPRIATE: No such lands exist within the IID water service area.

F. Operational practices and procedures - Evaluate potential District operational policy & institutional changes that could allow more flexibility in water delivery and carry-over storage.

IID INITIATIVE: IID deliveries are based on a 24-hour run. IID will take water back with three (3) hours’ notice, but the user is charged for full order (12 or 24-hour).  FOR DETAILS GOVERNING IID’S DELIVERY OF WATER SEE, Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution and Use of Water http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=31

IID/MWD PROGRAM: In 1994, 12-hour water deliveries were instituted to the limit of IID’s system capacity. A 12-hour delivery may be an AM or PM order. Initially, both were limited to a maximum of 7 cfs, Now, due to seasonal flow fluctuation, as a matter of policy, the AM rate is restricted to a limit of 5 cfs during Sept-Nov and March–May (vegetable seasons) and 7 cfs for the rest of the year. The PM order restriction was raised to 12 cfs. These restrictions are due to capacity limitations of IID’s gravity delivery system.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Media/MWD_IID-OnlineDoc.pdf  AND SEE Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution and Use of Water Reg. No. 48, 12-Hour Runs AT http://www.iid.com/Media/Rules-&-Regulations-August-2007.pdf

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVE: As noted above, IID is operating at the limit of its infrastructure in terms of delivery flexibility. Thus, operational policies and institutional changes alone will not permit increased delivery flexibility.  FOR PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE BELOW J. Distribution control

G. Distribution system scheduling - Implement a program of distribution system scheduling based on area-wide crop demand modeling or advanced ordering requirements.

IID INITIATIVES: IID provides water based on grower demand. As the water transfer requirements increase and/or in the case of drought, IID’s growers will have to adjust their practices. This was analyzed in the Definite Plan.

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: Analysis and recommendations pertinent to distribution scheduling are contained in the Definite Plan.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 2, Technical Appendix 1.h - 1.j http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=803  AND, SEE Imperial irrigation Decision Support System Vol 2, Technical Appendices 3.g http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=799

The goal of improved system scheduling is to allow IID growers to institute on-farm efficiency practices that produce water conservation sufficient to meet IID’s QSA water transfer requirements.

H. On-farm irrigation scheduling - Facilitate the delivery of crop water use and on-farm water delivery information to District customers for on-farm irrigation scheduling.

IID INITIATIVES: IID provides scheduling information upon grower request. With publication of News from the Ditchbank, IID is providing additional information about scientific irrigation scheduling. Should additional programs be required in the case of a water shortage and/or as on-farm efficiency programs are implemented, IID will respond to meet this demand.

I. Pump efficiency evaluations - Coordinate the evaluation of District and private pumps with local utilities, evaluating both energy and water efficiency.

IID PUMPS IID/MWD PUMPS  Drain Pumps for seepage recovery (30)  Reservoirs (15)  Irrigation pumps (around 32)  Tailwater Recovery Systems (TRS) (26)  Sump pumps (over 630)

IID PUMPS: Powers Services, Inc. evaluates pump efficiency on a quarterly basis and provides an evaluation. IID plans to replace at least five (5) drain pumps with the lowest efficiency each year.

IID/MWD PUMPS: Flow tests were conducted on these pumps for the first five (5) years of the program to verify flow meter accuracy. When the flow rate drops off or a mechanical defect is noticed, the pump is pulled for repairs. Two pumps have been replaced. Flow meters are digital with no moving parts except the propeller in the pipe. Energy use, which is tracked on spreadsheets from site visits, has been relatively consistent. Flow meters are calibrated annually.

J. Distribution control - Modify distribution facilities and controls to increase the flexibility of water deliveries (e.g., automate canal structures, institute variable turn-off times, etc.).

IID INITIATIVES: In 1958, IID installed a telemetry system and automated structures on upper reaches of its main canals. Telephone lines were used to access remote sites. In 1984, IID conducted a Modified Demand Irrigation Trial, wherein water orders could be terminated up to four hours before or after the regular (24-hr) end time.

IID/MWD PROGRAMS: In the 1990’s, a distributed control SCADA system that uses computers, radio & microwave communication network was developed to monitor & operate IID’s irrigation distribution system. A new Water Control Center was constructed to house the computer-based monitoring equipment, including workstations, map board, file and database servers, and updated communications equipment. Field site improvements consisted of upgrades to 63 water control sites (34 major sites, 6 minor sites, and 23 overshot gates). In 1991, 12-hour delivery was instituted, allowing growers to take AM or PM orders (7 cfs maximum; or flow reduction on last 12 hrs of 24-hour delivery, not to exceed 5 cfs or ½ delivery rate).  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060

Additional delivery flexibility is provided to growers served by the three (3) IID/MWD Lateral Interceptor projects.  FOR DETAILS, SEE Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution and Use of Water Reg. No. 54, Interceptor Orders http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=31

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: To meet QSA obligations through system efficiency conservation and to allow on-farm efficiency conservation, IID’s delivery distribution system will have to be upgraded. Analysis of infrastructure improvements and costs that would provide further flexibility is included in the Definite Plan.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 2, Technical Appendices 1.h -1.k http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=803

A major Definite Plan recommendation is implementation of Integrated Information Management (IIM), which uses SCADA technology to enable real-time lateral spill monitoring and remote operation of lateral headings by zanjeros in their vehicles, together with lateral and main canal regulating storage and other selected system improvements.

The goal of increased system delivery flexibility is to allow IID growers to institute on-farm efficiency practices that match on-farm crop requirements and that produce water conservation sufficient to meet IID’s QSA water transfer requirements. The IIM is expected to generate 60 KAFY to 73 KAFY of water at an estimated cost of $160/AF.

K. Reuse systems - Construct District operational spill reuse systems.

IID & GROWER INITIATIVES: From 1947 through 1951, IID installed recovery drain pumps along the AAC. A similar program was initiated on the EHL in 1967. These pumps remain in operation, with conservation savings in the order of 25 KAFY. IID intercepts discharge from laterals that lie to the south of the WSM (Tuberose – Thistle). IID growers use Tailwater Recovery Systems (TRS) where agronomically and economically beneficial on their own fields.

IID/MWD PROGRAM: Three (3) Lateral Interceptor Systems were constructed as part of the IID/MWD Water Conservation Program.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: Analysis of additional reuse systems is contained in the Definite Plan.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 1, Technical Appendix 1.g http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=804  And, SEE Alternatives Development Technical Appendices 4.a - 4.f http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=798

The first efficiency program IID is undertaking to meet its QSA water transfer obligations is additional main canal seepage recovery (for delivery of 4 KAF to CVWD in 2008).  FOR DETAILS, SEE BELOW Efficiency Conservation Plan (ECP) - Main Canal Seepage Recovery

L. Reduction of conveyance seepage - Line distribution ditches and canals; convert to pipe.

IID & GROWER INITIATIVES: IID initiated concrete lining of canals, laterals and delivery ditches in 1954. The last major concrete lining projects were completed in 1994, although IID lined portions of several laterals under a matching NADBank grant in 2003 – 2006. IID has lined approximately 910 miles and piped 21 miles of laterals; lined 8 miles of main canal, and piped over 119 miles of drains. Growers, with IID and federal assistance, have lined nearly 2,570 miles of delivery ditches.

IID/MWD PROGRAM: From 1989 through 1992, 13.3 miles of main canal were lined. For lateral canals, the objective was to line sections throughout IID’s service area where the cost per projected AF of conservation savings would have a total life-cycle cost of $125/year or less in 1988 dollars; 199.7 miles of lateral canal were lined under this program.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: Analysis and recommendations regarding canal seepage and recovery potential are presented in the Definite Plan.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 1, Technical Appendix 1.f http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=804

M. Construction, lining or covering of regulatory reservoirs - Construct line or cover small regulatory reservoirs within the distribution system.

IID INITIATIVES: IID is served by 10 regulating reservoirs, having a storage capacity of nearly 3.4 KAF. IID constructed five of the reservoirs as part of an ongoing water conservation program. They receive water that would normally be surplus and store that water for beneficial use when needed.  FOR FURTHER DETAILS, SEE Reservoirs IID website http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=170

IID/MWD PROGRAM: Reservoirs that are part of the IID/MWD Program include two (2) regulating reservoirs, Carter and Galleano; a pumping plant addition at Singh Reservoir; and four (4)

interceptor reservoirs, Bevins, Young, Russell and Willey. Carter Reservoir, built by IID, is part of the IID/MWD Augmentation Program. Galleano Reservoir is a stand-alone project built under the IID/MWD Agreement. A pumping plant was installed at the existing Singh Reservoir, as part of the 12-Hour Deliver Project, to offset EHL fluctuations caused by increased flexibility. Four reservoirs – Bevins, Young, Russell and Willey – were constructed as part of the three IID/MWD lateral interceptor projects.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID/MWD Final Program Construction Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4060

DEFINITE PLAN INITIATIVES: Analysis and recommendations regarding construction of new reservoirs are presented in the Definite Plan.  FOR DETAILS, SEE IID Delivery System Analyses Vol 2, Technical Appendix 1 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=803

Summary of Definite Plan Costs thru 2007

Total Costs associated with Definite Plan thru 2007 $4,545,837

Selected Measures and Projected Results

QSA Water Transfer Programs

QSA Program Overview The QSA is a compendium of agreements, legislation, and accords hammered out over many arduous years of negotiations. Signed by policy makers on Oct. 10, 2003, the QSA details how to meet the changing water needs of Colorado River water uses. Through the QSA, four California water users (IID, SDCWA, MWD and CVWD), the state, and the federal government sealed a deal that will be a major step forward in reaching these goals.

To fulfill its commitment under the QSA, IID growers have entered into contracts with IID to fallow land so the district has been able to make water transfers of 10 KAF in 2003, 20 KAF in 2004, 30 KAF in 2005, and 40 KAF in 2006 - from agricultural use in the Imperial Valley to the California coast for use in the area served by the SDCWA. Mitigation water was delivered to the Salton Sea in the amount of 15,800 AF in 2004 and 21,476 AF in 2005. Due to the volume delivered in these two years, no Salton Sea delivery was required in 2006.

IID is also embarking on an aggressive effort to further on-farm and system water conservation savings in the Imperial Valley. By 2026, the CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA calls for the transfer of 303 KAFY of conserved water from the Imperial Valley to urban users in the San Diego area and in the Coachella Valley – the largest ag-to-urban water transfer ever contemplated. These amounts are in addition to those being transferred under the IID/MWD program (105 KAFY), which is extended for the term of the QSA, water conserved from the AAC Lining Project (67.7 KAFY), and 11.5 KAFY satisfaction of Miscellaneous Present Perfected Rights (PPRs).

The QSA water transfer affects, and must make accommodation, for three elements:  Environmental mitigation for the Salton Sea – California’s largest inland body of water and one of the richest wildlife habitats left in the state;  Agricultural production in the Imperial Valley, as well as socioeconomic impacts in the Imperial Valley resulting from required fallowing; and,  Increases in delivery system efficiency by IID and in on-farm efficiency by Imperial Valley growers, with efficiency delivery transfers starting in 2008.

To achieve IID’s contractual efficiency improvements, those involved in planning and implementation must take into account complex interrelationships among the many systems involved in this large undertaking – the environment, on-farm irrigation, IID’s delivery and drainage system, legislative mandates, conservation, fallowing, and more.

QSA Program Planning The challenge of making the QSA concepts tangible was tackled by a team of engineers, scientists, and operations experts that IID assembled. To oversee the activities, IID has established a Water Transfer Program Office, which is staffed by an Executive Program Manager, an Engineer, an Environmental Project Manager (biologist), an Administrative Secretary, and the services of an IID Budget coordinator and the RPM Assistant Manager. An Executive Program Manager also was hired to oversee the AAC Lining Project.

Temporary Fallowing Program (through 2017) staff includes the Water Transfer Executive Program Manager, RPM Assistant Manger, RPM Water Operations Analyst and RPM Engineering Aide. IID’s General Manager and the IID Local Entity Liaison were involved in mitigation of socioeconomic impacts of the Fallowing Program.

System Improvement Study IID contracted with Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc. (NRCE) to document existing (baseline) service levels, analyze District customer service in terms of adequacy, flexibility, reliability, and service variations (time/space). The draft report was completed in 2005.

Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan (Definite Plan) Davids Engineering, Inc. and Keller-Bliesner Engineering, LLC were contracted by IID to develop the Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan (Definite Plan), which is to serve as “a roadmap for implementing programs that achieve voluntary grower participation in on-farm conservation and for designing and constructing district system projects that conserve water and provide flexible, reliable service to growers.” The Definite Plan was completed in May 2007.  TO ACCESS THE DEFINITE PLAN, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=203

To facilitate use of the Definite Plan files on IID’s website, a guide to the contents of each volume along with the link to the pertinent pdf file is provided in the following table.

Table 36. Definite Plan Contents & Web Links Content Web Link http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocumen Final Report t.aspx?documentid=805 Technical Appendices

IID Delivery System Analyses (Vol 1) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 1.A - 1.G 1.a Delivery System Analyses Overview 1.b IID Water Balance Summary 1.c Improved Delivery Measurement http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocumen 1.d Tailwater Measurement 1.e Cost Estimates Data Report t.aspx?documentid=804 1.f Canal Lining Cost Analysis 1.g Canal Seepage Interception IID Delivery System Analyses (Vol 2) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 1.H - 1.K 1.h Malva 1 System Demonstration 1.i System Modernization Scenarios Integrated Information Management (IIM) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocumen 1.j Improvements to IID Water Distribution System to t.aspx?documentid=799 Facilitate Shutoff Flexibility and Reduce Spills 1.k Future Utility of IID System Analyses On-Farm Analyses (Vol 1) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 2.A - 2.C 2.a On-Farm Analysis Overview http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocumen 2.b Conservation Families 2.c Historical On-Farm Water Use t.aspx?documentid=802 On-Farm Analyses (Vol 2) - TECHNICAL APPENDIX 2.D http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocumen 2.d Conservation Measures and Costs t.aspx?documentid=801

On-Farm Analyses (Vol 3) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 2.E - 2.G Conservation Measure Water Savings and Flow Path 2.e Changes http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocum On-Farm Conservation Technology Demonstration 2.f Projects ent.aspx?documentid=800 2.g Future Utility of On-Farm Analysis Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System (Vol 1) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 3.A - 3.F 3.a IIDSS Overview 3.b MODSIM Network Model 3.c 2006 GIS Work in Support of MODSIM Modeling http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=203 3.d IIDSS Conveyance Loss Summary 3.e Lateral Spillage Analysis 3.f Lateral Hydraulics Summary Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System (Vol 2) - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 3.G - 3.K 3.g Rejected Water Analysis 3.h On-Farm Incentives and Decision Logic 3.1 Demand Generator: Software Overview http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocum Development of Data Tables for the Demand 3.j ent.aspx?documentid=799 Generator 3.k Future Utility of IIDSS Alternatives Development - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 4.A - 4.F 4.a Overview of Alternatives Development 4.b IID Delivery System Options 4.c Development and Screening of Incentive Approaches http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocum 4.d Evaluation and Comparison of Incentive Approaches Integrated On-Farm and Delivery System Alternatives ent.aspx?documentid=798 4.e Development 4.f Implementation and Verification http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocum Public Involvement Overview - TECHNICAL APPENDIX 5 ent.aspx?documentid=4266

Equitable Distribution of Water Study In 2005, IID launched an effort to evaluate methods for equitable distribution of water in the event that District water users’ demand exceeds supply. The District hired two consultants - Dr. Michael Hanemann of UC Berkeley, and Bennett Brooks of CONCUR, Inc. - to assess and rank possible methodologies, including included meaningful stakeholder community involvement. In 2005, 30 confidential water user interviews and four of 10 Work Group Meetings were conducted, with preliminary reports presented to the IID Board, with work completed in 2006.  FOR PROGRAM WEB LINKS, SEE Table 12 IID Equitable Distribution Web Links

Fallowing Program While fundamentally opposed to fallowing, IID ultimately agreed to a 15-year fallowing program (2003 through 2017) to mitigate potential impacts to the Salton Sea resulting from the transfer of water out of the Imperial Valley. Through the Fallowing Program, willing land owners and/or lessees contract with IID to fallow fields to enable IID to meet its IID/SDCWA water transfer, Salton Sea mitigation, and 2001 and 2001 overrun payback obligations per CRWDA/FEDERAL QSA Exhibits B and C (sEE http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=825). Socioeconomic impacts of fallowing in the Imperial Valley are to be mitigated through the Local Entity with funds provided by SDCWA.

Fallowing Program Details: Each year the price for the water to be conserved from fallowing is set by IID and solicitations are sent out requesting voluntary participation to fallow a field in

return for payment of the conserved water. The applications are processed for eligibility and water delivery data analyzed further to determine contract values. As contracts are declined or applicants fail to meet response deadlines, additional contracts are issued as per the order determined by a random selection process as described in the solicitation announcement. Once all contracts have been issued and the Fallowing Program is fully subscribed, IID sends final notifications to any fields that submitted applications but were not offered contracts. Each field is limited to participation in the fallowing program for two of every four years.

IID takes actions to ensure that no water can be delivered to any field participating in the Fallowing Program. In most cases this involves locking the delivery gate, but in some cases participants may be required to make alternative accommodations to physically prevent the possibility of water reaching a field. Cropping codes for fallowed fields are changed to reflect their participation in the Fallowing Program, which also prevents water from being ordered for these gates. In addition, IID monitors all Fallowing Program fields and water accounts associated with them, and no water deliveries will be scheduled for these lands during the fallowing period (e.g., July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008). Biannually, USBR staff conducts validation site visits on five percent of the acreage fallowed for QSA obligations. Fallowing program participants are required to follow approved dust mitigation plans and adhere to local weed control ordinances. Third party socioeconomic impacts from fallowing farmland are mitigated with funds made available to the Local Entity.

The initial Emergency Fallowing Program consisted of a thirteen month contract which began December 1, 2003, and ran through December 31, 2004. Subsequent fallowing programs are entered into on an annual basis with the fallowing period modified to a twelve month term running from July 1st of one year through June 30th of the following year (to more closely track farm lease terms). By the end of 2007, IID had completed three fallowing programs and was midway through a fourth program. The completed programs have generated conserved water in excess of that required to meet IID’s annual QSA obligations for 2003, 2004, and 2005. The excess volumes were applied toward the early payback of CRWDA/Federal QSA Exhibit C flows.  FOR FALLOWING PROGRAM DETAILS, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=190  FOR WATER CONSERVED AND FALLOWING PROGRAM COST DETAILS, SEE IID’ S QSA Annual Reports IID/SDCWA Water Conservation & Transfer Agreement Annual Implementation Report (2004, 2005, 2006, IID) http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=381

Fallowing for Salton Sea Mitigation: As part of its QSA obligations, IID adopted a mitigation strategy, which is detailed in its environmental compliance documents. The strategy is designed to mitigate impacts to the biological resources of the Salton Sea resulting from flow reduction to the sea caused by activities during the first 15 years of IID/SDCWA Water Conservation and Transfer Program (2003 – 2017). IID agreed to undertake fallowing in an effort to mitigate Salton Sea impacts during this period by conserving more water than needed to meet its transfer obligations. IID will deliver additional conserved water in a volume equal to the amount that would have flowed to the Salton Sea absent the transfer program. Water required for Salton Sea mitigation purposes was 5 KAF in 2003, 10 KAF in 2004, 15 KAF in 2005, 20 KAF in 2006, and 25 KAF in 2007. Water conserved from the fallowing program for SDCWA transfer delivery is to ramp up for the first ten (10) years and then decrease for the following five (5) years as efficiency conservation projects are developed and implemented. Water conserved for delivery to the Salton Sea to mitigate the

impacts of the transfer ramp up from 5 KAF in 2003 to 150 KAF in 2017, after which water no longer has to be conserved for delivery to the sea. Efficiency conservation replaces all fallowing by 2018.  FOR DELIVERY SCHEDULE AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT DETAILS, SEE Revised Fourth Amendment Exhibit 1 - Compromise IID/SDCWA and QSA Delivery Schedule, and Exhibit 2 - Guidelines for Estimation and Measurement of Socioeconomic Impacts and Timeline for Implementation of Defined Tasks AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=886  AND SEE Settlement Agreement Resolving Present and Future Disputes Under Sections 14.5 and 18.1 of the Revised Fourth Amendment AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=884

Efficiency Conservation Plan (ECP) The adopted portions of the Definite Plan are referred to as the Efficiency Conservation Plan (ECP). To date, the IID Board has adopted the Main Canal Seepage Project and approved a Major Work Authorization (MWA) to investigate Near-Term Actions.  FOR RECOMMENDED ECP, SEE Definite Plan Final Report, pp 35 – 39 AT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=805

Main Canal Seepage Recovery On May 29, 2007, the IID Board approved an MWA for design and construction of the Main Canal Seepage Interception project. This project is IID’s first step to meet its efficiency conservation water transfer obligations under the QSA. The project will provide lower-cost water conservation and accommodate staged implementation to meet the immediate efficiency conservation ramp-up schedule while allowing time for other delivery system and on-farm efficiency conservation projects to be finalized for design and construction.

The Compromise IID/SDCWA and QSA Delivery Schedule (SEE http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=884 Exhibit 1) shows that 4 KAF are to be conserved by efficiency conservation in 2008. Seepage interception will be used for this purpose and any excess will be used for inadvertent overrun payback or will be stored in Lake Mead via the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program4 - both of which are allowed by the QSA and related agreements.

Project Elements: Main canal seepage contributes a large portion of the estimated 86 KAFY of total canal seepage from the IID delivery system. In areas of highly permeable soils where main canal losses are greatest, open drains parallel to the AAC, EHL, and WSM canals were constructed to intercept seepage so the down-slope lands could be farmed. Some of the intercepted water is recovered and was returned to the AAC and the EHL, with the rest being carried to the Salton Sea.

4 An important part of the seven States' proposal for the Secretary's guidelines involves the concept of "Intentionally Created Surplus" (ICS). ICS means that a water contractor may add water to the system through conservation or importation and the Secretary will release water in the future to the Lower Division State (Arizona, California or Nevada) that added the water.

The Record of Decision (ROD) contains a Forbearance Agreement with Nevada and California that will allow creation and release of ICS and domestic surplus deliveries under certain, specific conditions, by forbearance of the three States from claiming their rights to another State's ICS or domestic surplus. Forbearance authority is needed from the Arizona Legislature in order to proceed with the agreement.

As part of the Definite Plan, in the fall and winter of 2006, water quality and flow quality data were collected from drains parallel to the EHL, AAC, and WSM to estimate the amount of seepage water available for recovery. Data collection and analysis estimates indicated that construction of pumping stations in the existing parallel drains would result in the recovery of more than 40 KAFY.

The Definite Plan identified 24 sites near main canals where seepage recovery systems could be effectively implemented. As designs were refined, two sites were divided, four were deferred for further analysis, and 22 sites have scheduled for design and construction.

Table 37. Main Canal Seepage Recovery Project Phases (26 proposed sites) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Deferred Holtville Main Holtville 2C Verde 2 Malva 1 Dixie 4 Fig & Fig 1 EHL 14 Township Warren 2 Malva 2 Dixie 2 Maple Orita (N) Pampas Moss Holtville 1-3 Mesquite Munyon Orita 1 (S) Verde 4 Magnolia Holtville 6 Dixie 3 & 3B Holtville 7 Mulberry Verde & Mesa

Project Schedule and Water Conservation: Phase 1 systems are estimated to intercept 10 KAFY. If these four (4) systems become operational in early 2008, as scheduled, it is anticipated that they will return more than 9 KAF of seepage water to the EHL Canal by the end of 2008. That would provide ample water to meet the 2008 water conservation obligation of 4 KAF for delivery to CVWD as well as some ICS water.

Following an aggressive schedule for design and construction of the other systems, the first Phase 2 system could be online in summer 2008, with the remaining systems being completed by fall 2008. If the construction schedule is achieved, these systems could recover more than 11 KAF in 2008. Thus, if all goes as planned, the project is estimated to intercept about 20 KAF of seepage in 2008. It is anticipated that the Main Canal Seepage Recovery program will yield approximately 40 KAFY in subsequent years.

Project Cost: The most recent estimates of design and construction are in the range of $7.5 million. With projected operation & maintenance costs, anticipated unit cost is $17.45/AF.  FOR MAIN CANAL SEEPAGE RECOVERY DETAILS, SEE ATTACHMENT E Project Status Report: Design and Construction of Main Canal Seepage Interception System, Jan 8, 2008

Near-Term Actions: On-Farm, System, and Measurement As noted previously, IID and the farmers it serves need to develop a total of 303 KAFY of water through an integrated program of on-farm and delivery system conservation. Activities and projects that eventually will comprise the efficiency program are highly interrelated. For example, the irrigation systems and practices that growers implement to generate on-farm conservation denote required levels of service and flexibility in water delivery by IID. Conversely, projects implemented to conserve delivery system water might not only impact other system improvement projects but also influence the levels of service that IID is able to provide to growers.

The purpose of this project is to proceed with completion of the ECP. This work is designed to address remaining details or near-term actions identified by the Definite Plan for on-farm and system efficiency conservation projects. The ECP will be designed to be adaptable and flexible so as to meet the needs of the water users as they change, with each component approved by the IID Board before implementation. The Main Canal Seepage Interception System project already approved by the Board allows time for the on-farm and delivery system efficiency conservation projects to be finalized for design and construction.

When the QSA and related agreements (including the IID/SDCWA Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement) were negotiated and executed, estimates were made of the on-farm and delivery system projects to be constructed and the related water conservation savings that could potentially be achieved by each project. Based on those assumptions, agreement was reached on the total volume of water to be conserved and transferred as well as a ramp-up schedule to produce the conserved water. The Definite Plan has been completed and the recommended ECP was developed using the optimal combination of integrated on-farm and delivery system efficiency conservation projects.  FOR RECOMMENDED ECP, SEE Definite Plan Final Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=805.

However, remaining details need to be tested and finalized in order to meet the water conservation ramp-up schedule. These details or “Near-Term” actions fall into three areas: 1) On-farm conservation program, 2) Identification and testing of system improvements, and 3) Improved delivery measurement.

Projected cost of the near-term actions is based on knowledge gained from the Definite Plan. Over a period of 2 ½ years, work will be carried out to set up the programs that will ultimately be used to create the 303 KAFY of transferred water by efficiency conservation. The anticipated cost to complete the Near-Term actions is $5.74 million.

1) On-Farm Program: The objective of the on-farm program is to create conserved water through voluntary participation of IID landowners and growers. Details of the program as identified by the Definite Plan as near-term actions need to be developed and finalized. These include methods for determining the conserved amount of water for each participating conservation measure and/or field; payment schedules for conservation measures and conserved water amounts; a conserved water data collection, verification and accounting system; and particulars of the voluntary contracts. Once the details are finalized and incorporated into an on-farm program, a small-scale enrollment and implementation test will be completed to validate the program details. In addition, the required water delivery system changes needed to accommodate the on-farm conservation measures will be validated.

TASK 1: DEVELOP METHODOLOGY TO ESTABLISH CONSERVED WATER AMOUNTS A methodology for establishing the conserved water quantity will be determined based on the participating field’s physical properties, the crop to be grown, and the implemented conservation measure. Two methods will be evaluated: 1) Establishing a certified gate history by crop for each field, and 2) Developing an industry standard based water conservation schedule for each participating conservation measure applied to a specific crop and field properties. The first

methodology uses the certified gate history as a conservation baseline from which the amount of conserved water will be measured and verified. The second methodology is effectively a menu of conservation measure options with predetermined conserved water amounts and payments based on level of implementation to specific field properties and crop being grown. This method would require periodic validation of conservation amounts and updates to the schedule in order to ensure verified water conservation amounts. The final selected water conserved methodology will be developed in collaboration with the advisory group and tested for acceptability as part of the small scale enrollment and implementation program.

TASK 2: DEVELOP CONSERVATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE To attract landowners and growers to voluntarily participate, IID must offer a conservation payment that covers the cost of implementing and maximizing the use of conservation measures as well as the risks involved in their successful operation. Payment schedules can be based on: 1) Payment for conservation measure, 2) Payment for conserved water, or 3) Payment based on a combination of conservation measure and conserved water. The Definite Plan recommended the combination payment so as to offer up-front funds for growers to install conservation measures and an incentive payment for conserved water amounts to encourage efficient use of the installed conservation measure. Trial payment schedules for all three options will be developed using information from the Definite Plan and IID historical records. Working with the advisory committee, a final payment schedule will be selected and tested as part of the small scale enrollment and implementation program.

TASK 3: DEVELOP CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR EFFICIENCY CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS WITH LANDOWNERS AND GROWERS On-farm water conservation will be governed by contracts entered into between IID and landowners or IID and tenant growers. It is anticipated that long-term (multi-year) agreements involving capital repayment for conservation will be between IID and landowners. Short-term (seasonal or annual conservation agreements) will be between IID and tenant growers. The objective of this task is to develop standard contract language acceptable to IID, landowners, and growers. Water user input, from the advisory group using a process similar that used to develop Fallowing Program contracts, will be essential to creating an Efficiency Conservation Agreement (contract) that will maximize voluntary participation.

Standardized contract language for the IID, landowner, and grower will be developed to address terms of participation, conservation requirements, payment schedules, and other relevant details. Multiple variations of these standardized terms will likely be necessary to account for different conservation methods, participation levels, and contracting periods; however, core elements will remain for all participants. In conjunction with IID staff and legal representatives, an outline for the initial general terms and provisions of the conservation agreements will be developed. This will serve as a model for further refinement during the small-scale enrollment and implementation program. It is likely that contract development will be ongoing during the early years of ECP implementation to ensure that the terms prove flexible to meet the needs of on-farm efficiency conservation participants while retaining the certainty and surety required by IID. Upon finalization of the Efficiency Conservation Agreements, guidelines for contract administration and information management processes will also be prepared. TASK 4: DEVELOP CONSERVATION DATA AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

A conservation data collection and accounting system will be developed to support efficient administration and verification of the on-farm program. It will be designed to track program enrollment, conservation agreements, payments, and water savings over time. The system will be integrated with existing IID data systems to the maximum practical extent. Forms and reports used for entering and analyzing program data will be designed in cooperation with IID staff that will use the system.

TASK 5: IMPLEMENT A SMALL-SCALE ENROLLMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION TEST PROGRAM To test the on-farm program components, a small-scale enrollment process will be implemented. Similar to the fallowing program, a specified amount of conserved water will be solicited. Information such as crop type, irrigation method, and participant classification (tenant or owner) will be solicited and analyzed regarding payment options (base payment or variable payments), conservation measure preferences, participant interface (internet based, emailing, traditional mailing, or one-on- one) and other issues relevant to facilitating and maximizing on-farm participation. Responses from the initial solicitation will be screened and a select number of respondents will be chosen for early ramp-up of on-farm conservation measure implementation. Scientific irrigation scheduling and irrigation event management will be used as the primary test program conservation measures.

This task will serve as a way to test and evaluate components of the on-farm program including conserved water measurement and yields, contracting, payment schedules, reporting and verification procedures, as well assessment of interactions between these on-farm conservation efforts and IID system operations.

2) Identification and Testing of System Improvements: To facilitate water user participation and on- farm conservation efforts, components of the IID delivery system will need to be improved and reoperated to offer additional flexibility to the water users while maintaining existing levels of service and increased reliability. The Definite Plan determined the optimal cost-effective approach for delivery system improvements as a function of on-farm conservation needs. These recommendations for improved operations and minor system improvements were incorporated into an Integrated Information Management (IIM) system.

The IIM consists of a set of proposed changes to the IID delivery system that will allow better water delivery management that will allow the capture returned water from delivery gates and reduction of operational spill. The level of water savings is dependent on human interaction with real-time information and minor system changes; therefore, testing and training are required to develop and refine operational procedures for optimum utilization of this new control and information technology. Tests will focus on refining operating procedures, training personnel, updating IID’s SCADA system, and testing equipment to assess systemwide conservation levels and long-term implementation processes. The end result will be a more refined set of system operating procedures that will allow IID to benefit from improved information and minor delivery system modifications ranging from automatic heading and spill gates to small operational reservoirs. Spill reductions of roughly 60% and recapture of 60% or more of rejected water from on-farm conservation efforts are anticipated as a result of IIM system implementation.

TASK 1: DEVELOP TEST PROGRAM (1-2 ZANJERO RUNS)

IIM implementation will require a change in the basic operation of the delivery system. To determine how best to use the tools to be provided, a test program on one or two zanjero runs is needed. In consultation with Water Department staff, existing data sets and operational configurations will be analyzed to select representative zanjero runs. The test runs should have historical spill records (for comparative purposes) and the ability to be easily set up with hardware for control and monitoring. Operating decision processes will be analyzed to determine data requirements and procedures at each level of water operations from the zanjero to the WCC. The operations plan will also examine zanjero motivation options, establish a verification procedure, and provide for equipment testing.

TASK 2: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT FACILITIES FOR TEST ZANJERO RUNS Automated heading and spill monitoring structures and equipment will be designed and installed (or improved) on test run locations, as necessary. Mobile laptop specifications for zanjero vehicles on these runs will be developed and the units purchased and installed along with updated SCADA communications. Finally, operations staff will be trained in the use of this technology for water management decision-making and in the capabilities (and limitations) of the IIM system.

TASK 3: DESIGN AND DEVELOP LATERAL OPERATION DECISION SUPPORT SOFTWARE This task covers development of lateral operation decision support software that will provide rules and guidance for operations staff to use to minimize spills, reduce carryovers, improve deliveries and better define and utilize delivery system improvements. Details of the decision support system will be developed in conjunction with operations staff and will include routing and scheduling specifications. It will be an integrated system, linking control and monitoring data to the WCC and to zanjero mobile equipment. Once specifications are complete, the software will be written, validated, and tested. During the testing phase, the software will run in parallel with existing operations. Upon completion of testing, it will be incorporated into IID’s overall system and control software.

TASK 4: INITIATE TEST The test will be implemented in two phases. Phase I will implement the new lateral operating procedures, with basic monitoring tools and modified operational practices, at the zanjero level. This will include frequent consultation with operational staff throughout the testing period. This phase will run concurrent with development of lateral operation decision support software, and initial findings will be incorporated into the software. Phase II testing will add enhanced decision support tools.

TASK 5: MONITOR AND EVALUATE RESULTS During IIM testing, spills will be monitored and evaluated for reduction. Water operation staff’s adaptability to IIM changes, including the adoption of new technology, operating procedures, and response to incentives, will be assessed. Overall equipment performance and integration of delivery system improvements will be tracked throughout the test.

TASK 6: ANALYZE PERFORMANCE AND REFINE PROCEDURES Development of the revised operating plan will be iterative. Results will be analyzed after the first year of operation and the plan modified as necessary to meet the objectives, incorporating lessons learned in operation. This may include changes in procedure, modifications in equipment specifications, modifications of the decision support software or changes to the Definite Plan recommended delivery system improvements.

TASK 7: DEVELOP SYSTEM WIDE OPERATING PLAN Once testing and refinement of operating procedures are completed, a systemwide operating plan that incorporates the developed procedures will be finalized. The operating plan will include integrated decision support software, lateral operation guidelines, staff training, conservation savings verification procedures, needed modifications to the SCADA system, and potential changes to delivery system improvements. Plans and specifications for the ECP systemwide implementation will be developed once the operating plan is complete.

3) Improved Delivery Measurement: Improved delivery measurement is integral to the ECP because it is a key part of on-farm conservation verification and payment. It is prudent to test technology prior to broad implementation to assure proper function and understand the impacts on IID water operations. In consultation with IID Water Department staff, the effectiveness and cost of up to two selected water delivery measurement approaches for improved measurement will be developed, along with consideration of possible automation of farm deliveries. The impact of gate automation on the operation of the delivery system with IIM improvements in place will be evaluated.

TASK 1: DEVELOP LAB TESTING PROTOCOL AND SEEK BIDS FOR LABORATORY TESTS OF GATE PERFORMANCE Testing of measurement and control accuracy and gate function is best accomplished in a controlled setting where a broad range of hydraulic conditions can be tested quickly. Each measurement gate or device will be tested over the range of installation and hydraulic conditions expected at IID. They will be tested for flow accuracy at any given condition and for the ability to maintain a constant flow over a range of inflow conditions. Specifications will be prepared for the required testing and bids sought from entities with facilities capable of such testing. Testing procedures will be coordinated with IID and with the gate/device manufacturer to insure that the appropriate range of conditions is tested and the tests are compatible with the equipment. Water operations staff will assist in development of performance criteria and establish minimum acceptance standards against which the gates/devices will be evaluated. Criteria to be evaluated include measurement accuracy, control accuracy, time to reach set flow, SCADA compatibility, local programmability, etc.

TASK 2: CONDUCT LABORATORY TESTS ON EACH MEASUREMENT GATE AND EVALUATE PERFORMANCE This task will be performed in steps, with basic function evaluated first in a laboratory setting. If a gate or device fails to operate satisfactorily under basic operating parameters, the test for that gate or device could be terminated and the item removed from further consideration. However, given the cost to set up the test procedures, termination of the tests for any given gate or device would require gross failure under the most basic operating conditions. Data from the tests will be collected, analyzed, and the gates/devices evaluated against the standards developed under Task 1. Gates or devices that meet or exceed acceptance criteria will be moved forward to field testing.

TASK 3: CONDUCT FIELD TESTS ON TWO OF EACH MEASUREMENT GATES OR DEVICES THAT PASS THE LABORATORY TESTS Field tests will focus on long-term functionality and reliability. Two each of the gates or devices that pass the laboratory tests will be field tested in locations that allow the maximum amount of on-time (e.g., farm gates that serve large acreages). Test protocol and a data collection plan will be included, along with regular coordination with zanjeros and Water Department staff on observations. Each manufacturer will be responsible for maintaining their gates/devices during this time period.

TASK 4: DEVELOP DATA MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL TO INCORPORATE FLOW DATA INTO WIS FOR NEW GATES OR DEVICES

Substantial changes in data management and water accounting will occur as a result of new measurement implementation. The following tasks are expected for full implementation. Initial protocols will be developed to incorporate data from the test installations, but full development will not occur until the recommendations are completed and the field test begins.

 Develop requirements for integrating delivery flow data from improved delivery measurement into WIS/TruePoint.  Identify existing QC/QA, forms and reports for managing and reporting data; specify new tables, QC/Q/a procedures and forms and reports.  Develop new WIS tables, data QC/QA procedures and forms and reports.  Revise WMS/TruePoint zanjero charge out based on requirements.

TASK 5: EVALUATE FIELD RESULTS AND SELECT GATES OR DEVICES FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING Gate or device performance will be evaluated and a recommendation made to the IID Board for moving forward to operational testing. Evaluation will include comparison of initial installed cost for full implementation, expected operation and maintenance cost, accuracy, functionality and reliability. Manufacturers will be asked to supply costs based on full installation on an approved schedule. IID staff will be fully involved in evaluation of the data and the final recommendation.

TASK 6: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT TEST OF AUTOMATED GATES OR DEVICES ALONG WITH IIM TESTING ON ONE LATERAL Once the recommendation is made and accepted, approved gates or devices will be installed on at least one complete lateral that is included in IIM testing. It is expected that having automated gates or devices installed will substantially change operations. Test procedures will be developed. At a minimum, monitoring of gate/device reliability and functionality will continue. Impact on delivery steadiness, lateral management, spills, and operating labor will also be assessed. Operating procedures may be adjusted throughout the course of the operational test as needs are identified.

TASK 7: MAKE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPDATE OPERATING PROCEDURES TO INTEGRATE RESULTS On completion of IIM testing, a final recommendation on gate/device selection and implementation will be made, including whether automation is to be included. Operation procedures developed as part of IIM testing will be updated to incorporate the results of this study.

Cost Estimate, Schedule and Staffing: Cost estimates including the development of on-farm contracts, data collection and analysis, and design and construction of gates, devices and equipment is $5.74 million. The anticipated schedule of this project will be from January 2008 to December 2009.

Staff consists of:  Program Managers: John R. Eckhardt, Ph.D. and Tina A. Shields  Project Managers: Frank Ruiz, Francisco Pena, and David Escobar  Project Engineers: Darren R. Fillmore and vacant  Key Customer Coordinator: Vince Brooke  Budget Control: Bruce Williams

 FOR FURTHER NEAR-TERM ACTION DETAILS, SEE ATTACHMENT F Draft Work Plan: IID Efficiency Conservation Program Near-Term Actions, Nov 20, 2007

Table 38. IID ECP Programs and Projects Conservation Project Date Activity Summary Main Canal Spillage Project May 2007 IID Board approves MWA

Aug 2007 Construction begins Near-Term Action Aug 2007 IID Board approves MWA

AAC Lining Project Oct 2003 Authorization included in QSA

Notice to Proceed with Construction & July 2006 Start of Construction

Managed Marsh Project 2007 EIR/EIS and HCP

Other Projects AAC Lining Project Authorized and constructed pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the AAC is operated and maintained by IID under a contract with USBR. The AAC is currently unlined, resulting in substantial seepage. The AAC Lining Project consists of construction of a 23-mile concrete lined canal that will parallel the existing earthen AAC, from one mile west of Pilot Knob to AAC Drop 3.

Figure 5. AAC Lining Project Map

Required measures for completion of the AAC Lining Project include planning; environmental compliance and permitting activity; preparation of schedules, plans, specifications and cost estimates; administration; design; construction; and implementation of environmental mitigation tasks. The new concrete lined section of the AAC will result in the conservation of an estimated 67.7 KAFY of Colorado River water that currently seeps from the AAC.

The new section of concrete lined AAC is being constructed parallel to the existing AAC alignment using conventional construction methods. This is to permit the existing section of the AAC to remain in service and to provide normal water deliveries to IID customers during construction. Upon completion of the Project, IID will operate and maintain the entire AAC in accordance with its existing contract with USBR.  FOR AAC CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FROM JULY 2006 TO PRESENT, SEE AAC Monthly Construction Project Reports AT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=178

Vail Canal System Automation Project IID submitted a proposal list of five agricultural water conservation projects to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) to obtain North American Development Bank (NADBank) grant funding from the Water Conservation Investment Fund (WCIF). From 2004 through 2008, IID obtained WCIF funding and completed a Concrete Lining Rehabilitation Project under this program. At the request for NADBank, IID subsequently proposed to implement a System Automation Project for the Vail Canal.

Project Funding July 2007, the IID Board accepted WCIF grant funding, according to matching restrictions and project certification process required by BECC and NADBank, for the Vail Canal system automation project. The project is 50 percent cost-share funding with up to $1,259,012 in matching grant funds. The project will be installed over a three year period, starting in 2008 and concluding in 2010.

In 1993 an agreement between the Government of the United States of America (US) and the Government of the United Mexican States (Mexico) established the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) to help preserve, protect, and enhance the environment of the border region in order to advance the well-being of the people of the United States and Mexico and achieve sustainable development. BECC cooperates with the NADBank; other national and international institutions; and with private sources to supply capital for environmental infrastructure projects in the border region. Projects located within 100 km (62 miles) on either side of the US/Mexico border may be considered for certification to be funded.

Project Description The system automation project will provide improvements to modernize the water delivery system and minimize water loss as well as to improve efficiencies of the irrigation system, thereby conserving water and energy. The proposed segment for full system automation is the Vail Canal’s ten automated check structures and ten automated lateral canal headings. Automating the check and heading structures will reduce delivery inaccuracies due to operational imprecision of the control structures. The project also includes installation of flow measurement devices which will allow the system to be remotely operated using IID’s SCADA system and to store flow data for these sites in the WIS.

Project Benefits The project is designed to improve measurement accuracy and record keeping and to provide better flow coordination and service reliability including a quick response to emergencies. Project implementation is expected to result in a 25 percent reduction of spill. IID’s systemwide average spill is equivalent to about 0.5 cfs per lateral as a result of obsolete infrastructure, which in turn is equivalent to approximately 912.5 AFY for the Vail Canal system upgrades. Other project benefits are reduced PM10 emissions due to reduction of driven miles and fewer vehicles than are required to operate and monitor the system under the current manual system.

AAC Drop 2 Reservoir On December 13, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior and USBR Commissioner signed a Record of Decision titled Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortage and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (the seven-state drought plan). The guidelines, which were agreed to by all basin states, included funding and construction of the Lower Colorado River Drop 2 Storage Reservoir (Drop 2 Reservoir) Project Agreement among the US, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRNCN).

Particulars of the program were described in a January 12, 2008, article by Shaun McKinnon in Phoenix, Arizona, newspaper, The Arizona Republic.

Arizona will invest nearly $30 million in the new reservoir at the end of the Colorado River, money that will buy the state more water and added insurance against future shortages. The reservoir will be built about 20 miles west of Yuma, on the California side of the river, and will capture water that now flows unused into Mexico. The structure was included in the seven-state drought plan adopted last month (December 2007).

Nevada originally agreed to pay the full $172 million cost of the reservoir in return for access to more water but approached Arizona and California late last year about buying shares of the project. For its money, Arizona will receive a one-time water allocation of 100 KAF. Equally important, the reservoir will slow declining water levels at Lake Mead, delaying shortages that would take water away from Arizona. "It really is protecting the future," said Susan Bitter Smith, president of the Central Arizona Project board of directors, which agreed to the deal last week. "We don't know what will happen 15 or 20 years from now. This will help us augment supplies for the future."

The deal also buys a measure of goodwill on the lower Colorado River. Nevada and California face more immediate needs and will benefit first from the water stored at the reservoir. The CAP can tap its share beginning in 2016 and all the way through 2036, a period when some studies suggest the river could fail to meet all demands. Under the seven-state agreement, Arizona absorbs the largest share of any shortages. CAP water is delivered through a 336-mile canal to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties.

MWD is expected to buy an equal share in the reservoir for the same $28.7 million contribution. The district's board will consider the proposal in April. SNWA will pay the remaining $115 million and gain access to 400 KAF of water. The agency also will cover cost overruns in exchange for additional water.

Lower river states began exploring the idea of building a reservoir several years ago to capture water lost due to inefficient management rules. Those losses approached 800 KAF over the past 10 to 15 years, enough water to serve more than 6 million people. Most of the water was discharged to Mexico when agricultural users on the lower end of the river failed to take water as ordered. Under the existing system, a user places an order up to a week before the water is needed to allow time for it to flow downstream from Lake Mead.

In the meantime, if it rains or other conditions change, the customer can decide not to take the water, which then flows down the river into Mexico. That water is not counted against Mexico's legal allocation of 1.5 MAF, though it is often diverted by farmers.

The new reservoir, to be called simply the Drop 2 Reservoir, will be built along the AAC. It will be managed by USBR. The Drop 2 will hold just 8 KAF in two earthen basins that cover about 460 acres. Water will be moved in and out regularly, which allows the states to build a relatively small structure.

The reservoir will be strictly utilitarian, fenced in at the site. The public won't have access for any uses such as fishing or other recreation. Water will reach a maximum depth of about 22 feet. By capturing the water and delivering it to users at the end of the river, the states can leave more water in Lake Mead. Water levels in the lake are used to determine when water-shortage restrictions go into effect. Conserving just 100 KAF can add 1 foot to the lake's level.

Larry Dozier, the CAP's deputy general manager, said that from a business standpoint, "it's a lot of money for not a huge amount of water," but when viewed as a future investment, "we think it'll be a good deal. We think by 2030, we could all be desperate for water supplies," he said. "In the meantime, it was better for us to work in a partnership with the other states."

Had Arizona passed, he said, California would probably have bought both shares. The deal also gives Arizona an added benefit from the seven-state drought plan, which had offered the state mostly a clearer plan for rationing supplies. "Historically, we've all been at each others' throats, and if we all fight, no one gets anything," the CAP's Bitter Smith said. "If we work together mutually, we can benefit our residents."

Source: New Yuma-area reservoir to guard against drought - Colorado River facility will catch water now flowing to Mexico - By Shaun McKinnon - The Arizona Republic - 01/12/2008

Environmental Review

QSA Environmental Compliance http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=215

QSA Environmental Assessments & Permits http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=216

CEQA Compliance for the IID Transfer Project http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=236 These documents assess the environmental impacts of IID actions under the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project (Transfer Project)5 and the Quantification Settlement Agreement and Related Agreements (QSA), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 Draft EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project and Draft HCP http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=217 IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Draft EIR/EIS and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, issued by IID and USBR; publication date: January 2002; Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is included as Appendix C.

 Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project and Draft HCP http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=229 IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project, Final EIR/EIS, (incorporates Draft EIR/EIS), issued by IID, dated June 2002; Draft HCP is included in Vol 2 as Attachment A.

 Addendum to Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=222 Addendum: Amended and Restated Addendum to Final EIR/EIS for Transfer Project, prepared by IID, dated September 2003 The purpose of this Amended and Restated Addendum is to evaluate environmental impacts associated with minor modifications to the Proposed Project described in the IID Transfer Project and HCP Final EIR/EIS, as certified by IID (as the CEQA Lead Agency) in June 2002.

 Supplement to Final EIR/EIS – IID Transfer Project The IID Transfer Project is being implemented by IID together with biological mitigation measures included in the 2002 Draft HCP and measures required under existing incidental

5 “As described in the Final EIR/EIS, the [Transfer] Project may be implemented under one of two possible scenarios. Under the first scenario (IID/SDCWA Transfer Agreement Implementation Only), the terms of the waiter conservation and transfer transactions are set forth in the Agreement for Transfer of Conserved Water (IID/SDCWA Transfer Agreement) executed by IID and SDCWA in 1998, as amended. Under the second scenario (QSA Implementation), the terms of the water conservation and transfer transactions are set forth in the proposed Quantification Settlement Agreement and related agreements (collectively, the QSA), to be executed by IID, CVWD, and MWD.” Source: Amended and Restated Addendum to EIR/EIS for the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project (Sept 2003), p 1-1 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2179 “The [Transfer] Project also includes implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) … to address impacts to species and habitats within the IID water service area, the right-of-way of the All American Canal (AAC), and the Salton Sea.” Source: IID Water conservation and Transfer Project/Draft Habitat conservation Plan/ Draft EIR/DIS, p 1.2 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1523

take authorizations issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Following initiation of the Transfer Project and using the 2002 Draft HCP as a basis, IID began preparation of an HCP and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) to support applications for incidental take authorizations for the Transfer Project pursuant to ESA Section 10 and CFDG Code Section 2835, the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act (CNCCPA).

As a result of consultation with USFWS and the CDFG, it is expected that the proposed HCP/NCCP under preparation will contain certain modified or new mitigation and conservation measures that were neither included in the 2002 Draft HCP nor evaluated in the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS. Specifically, it is expected that the managed marsh requirement will be increased in size by 307 acres to a total of 959 acres, including the addition of a non-emergent vegetation component. The increased acreage of the managed marsh complex is primarily the result of a drain vegetation survey completed by IID in 2004, which documented more drain vegetation than estimated in the 2002 Draft HCP.

Development of the Draft HCP/NCCP is still in process; however, IID is required to begin creating the managed marsh complex pursuant to existing biological mitigation measures and ESA/CESA approvals. IID wishes to designate a site that will accommodate the managed marsh currently required (up to 652 acres) as well as the expanded managed marsh (959 acres) anticipated to be required by the Draft HCP/NCCP. In-Valley Biological Opinion, In-Valley CESA Permit, and 2002 Draft HCP requirements were assessed as part of the evaluation of the Transfer Project in the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS.

Pursuant to the CEQA, IID is preparing a Supplement to the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS that will provide any additional environmental assessment that may be required to designate, construct, and manage a specific site for the expanded managed marsh complex, including an analysis of four potential sites for the marsh; provided, however, that implementation of the expanded managed marsh is subject to and contingent upon final approval of the HCP/NCCP by IID, USFWS, and CDFG. IID wishes to assess the expanded managed marsh complex at this time in order to permit the designation of a single contiguous site to satisfy the requirements for both the smaller and the expanded managed marsh. This combined assessment is intended to avoid segmentation of the project and to satisfy the purpose and intent of CEQA. It should be noted that the Supplement will not support approval of the Draft HCP/NCCP in its entirety. After the Draft HCP/NCCP has been prepared, IID, USFWS, and CDFG will evaluate the need for further supplemental assessment of that document and conduct appropriate assessment pursuant to CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex was made available for public review and comment (see below). Copies of the Draft Supplement were also available for public inspection and review at the IID Community Relations Office (1284 Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243) and local libraries as outlined in the Notice of Availability (NOA) below. The NOA was also sent to responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties as part of the public review process required by CEQA (Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code) and the CEQA

Guidelines (Section 15087). Written comments on the Draft Supplement must be received by March 14, 2008, the close of the 45-day public review.

• Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2236

• Appendices to Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2229

• Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement to IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2228

• Notice of Preparation: Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2227

 Approval Documents for IID Transfer Project http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=224

• IID Board Resolution 8-2002 certifying the Final EIR/EIS for Transfer Project pursuant to CEQA, dated 6/28/2002 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2225

• IID Board Resolution 9-2003 approving the Final EIR/EIS as Modified and Supplemented by the Amended and Restated EIR Addendum for the IID Transfer Project and approving the Transfer Project, dated 10/2/2003 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2224

. Amended and Restated Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=222

. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2222

. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2324

• Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Transfer Project Issued by IID, dated 10/6/2003 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2220

CEQA Compliance for the QSA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=225 These documents include the programmatic environmental assessment of California water agency actions under the QSA, pursuant to CEQA. IID, MWD, CVWD, and SDCWA served as Co-Lead Agencies for purposes of this assessment.

 Final QSA PEIR for Implementation http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=226 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for Implementation of the Colorado River QSA, issued by CVWD, IID, MWD, and SDCWA, dated June 2002  Final QSA PEIR Volume I http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2275  Final QSA PEIR Volume II http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2274  Appendices A: Summary of Proposed QSA http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2273

B: Notice of Preparation PEIR for the Colorado River QSA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=226

C: AAC Lining Project (Final EIR/EIS) 1994 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2272

D: Analysis of River Operations and Water Supply http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2271

E: Sensitive Species Living within the Project Area http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2270

 Approval Documents for QSA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=227

• IID Board Resolution 7-2002, certifying the Final QSA PEIR, dated June 28, 2002 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2219

• IID Board Resolution 10-2003, dated Oct 2, 2003, http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2218 approving:

• Addendum to the Final PEIR, Implementation of the Colorado River QSA http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2217

• CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2216

• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2215

NEPA Compliance for the CRWDA/Federal QSA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=228 Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement – Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy and Related Federal Actions, Oct 10, 2003 6 These documents assess environmental impacts of the actions of federal agencies required to implement the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project and the QSA, pursuant to NEPA, including actions of the USBR and the Secretary of the Interior. Actions of the Secretary of the Interior are described in the CRWDA, formerly entitled the Implementation Agreement (IA).

 Final EIR/EIS – IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=229  Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation for the Transfer Project, issued by USBR, dated 10/2002 7 http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/IID_FEIS/Vol_1/contents.pdf (Contents are hyperlinked) • Environmental Evaluation, New Information Related to the Colorado River Water Deliver Agreement and its Relevance to the Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued by USBR, dated 10/2003. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/crwda/ee_october_2003.pdf

6 Subsequent to the filing of the Final EIS – Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions in 2002, the Implementation Agreement (IA) described in that document was renamed and redrafted and, as of Oct 10 2003, is titled Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for the purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines QSA (CRWDA/Federal QSA). 7 This USBR Final EIR/EIS for the IID Transfer Project is substantially the same as the Final EIR/EIS certified by IID. However, USBR's version is an integrated, stand-alone document that revises and restates the Draft EIR/EIS, rather than incorporating it by reference.

 Final Implementation Agreement (IA) EIS http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=230 Final EIS – Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions (INT-FES-02-35), issued by USBR, dated Nov 1, 2002 • Final IA EIS Volume I http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2267 • Final IA EIS Volume II & Appendices http://www.iid.com/Media/Final-EIS-Volume-II.pdf (Document is very large and may take several minutes to download) • Scoping Summary Report http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2266

 Approval Document for IID Transfer Project and CRWDA IA, IOPP and Related Actions http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=231 • Record of Decision (ROD) for Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement, Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions, issued by Secretary of DOI, dated 10/10/2003 http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=231

ESA/CESA Compliance Process for the IID Transfer Project and QSA http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=232 These documents include the final determinations and incidental-take permits issued (1) by the USFWS pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) by the CDFG pursuant to the California State Endangered Species Act (CESA). These permits authorize IID's actions under the IID Transfer Project and the QSA.

 ESA Compliance http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=233 • LCR BO: Biological Opinion for Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial Implementation Agreement for California Water Plan Components, and Conservation Measures on the Lower Colorado River, Lake Mead to Southerly International Border of Arizona, California, and Nevada (LCRBO), issued by USFWS, dated Jan 12, 2001 http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g2000/BO2001surpluscriteria.pdf

• In-Valley BO: Biological Opinion on USBR Voluntary Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures and Associated Conservation Agreements with the California Water Agencies, issued by USFWS, dated Dec 1, 2002 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2263

• Funding Agreement among USBR, MWD & SDCWA re Implementation of Conservation and Mitigation Measures Identified in USFWS BO dated Jan 12, 2001, “For Interim Surplus Criteria (hereinafter Guidelines), Secretarial Implementation Agreements, and Conservation Measures on the Lower Colorado River, Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary Arizona, California, and Nevada,” dated Oct 10, 2003 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2263

• Agreement between MWD and SDCWA re Allocation of the Benefits of the BO for Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial Implementation Agreements, and Conservation Measures on the Lower Colorado River, Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary, Arizona, California, and Nevada, dated Jan 12, 2001 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2261

• Conservation Agreement among USBR, IID, CVWD and SDCWA, dated Oct 10, 2003 http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=233

 CESA Compliance http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=234 • In-Valley CESA Permit: CESA Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2003-024-006 (In-Valley CESA Permit), issued by CDFG for the effects of the Transfer Project and IID's operation and

maintenance activities within the Imperial Valley/Salton Sea area, dated Oct 22, 2004 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2280

• CESA Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2005-008-06 (LCR MSCP CESA Permit), issued by CDFG for activities covered by the LCR Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, including the Transfer Project, dated 2005 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2281

• Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement among CVWD, IID, and SDCWA, dated Oct 10, 2003, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, dated Aug 15, 2005 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2279

• QSA Joint Powers Authority Creation and Funding Agreement among CDFG, CVWD, IID, and SDCWA, dated Oct 10, 2003 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2259

 HCP/NCCP Process http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=235 At the end of 2007, IID was in the process of preparing a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in consultation with CDFG and USFWS. The NCCP is generally described as a collaborative state effort to identify and provide for measures necessary to conserve and manage natural biological diversity at the ecosystem scale within a Planning Area while allowing other covered activities to occur. Similarly, a HCP is a broad- based, landscape-level federal planning tool utilized to achieve long-term biological regulatory goals that provides a legal protection to discretionary activities covered by the ESA.

For permitting purposes, an approved HCP is required to receive an Incidental Take Permit for federal threatened or endangered species, while an NCCP provides similar coverage from a state perspective. These permits also cover non-listed species that may become listed in the future and, as such, serve as a risk management tool to ensure a higher level of regulatory certainty that will run parallel to the IID/SDCWA Transfer Agreement. An approved HCP/NCCP guarantees that the terms of the permit will not change over time, a condition commonly known as a 'no surprises' assurance.

More specifically, IID's HCP/NCCP permit is anticipated to cover 96 fish, wildlife, and plant species for a term of up to 75 years. Covered activities will include all water conservation projects and mitigation measures, whether undertaken by IID or by farmers, tenants, or landowners, in connection with both the conservation and transfer of up to an additional 303 KAFY Colorado River water pursuant to the Transfer Project and/or the QSA, compliance with the cap on IID's annual diversions of Colorado River water established by the QSA, and adaptive habitat management and monitoring activities. All activities related to IID Water Department operations including water delivery, drainage, and O&M will also be covered by these permits. All mitigation activities associated with IID's HCP/NCCP are funded by the QSA Joint Powers Authority (http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2259), to which IID's financial contribution is capped as per the terms of the QSA.

• Planning Agreement by and among IID, CDFG, and USFWS re Imperial Valley Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=235

Mitigation Implementation http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=237

• IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=235

 Managed Marsh http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=238 IID is implementing the Transfer Project together with the biological mitigation measures included in the 2002 Draft HCP and the measures required under existing incidental take authorizations issued pursuant to ESA and CESA. Following initiation of the Transfer Project and using the 2002 Draft HCP as a basis, IID began preparing an HCP and an NCCP to support applications for incidental take authorizations for the Transfer Project pursuant to ESA Section 10 and CDFG Code Section 2835, and the California NCCP Act. As a result of consultation with USFWS and CDFG, it is expected that the proposed HCP/NCCP under preparation will contain certain modified, or new, mitigation and conservation measures that were neither included in the 2002 Draft HCP nor evaluated in the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS.

Specifically, it is expected that the managed marsh requirement will be increased in size by 307 acres to a total of 959 acres, including the addition of a non-emergent vegetation component. The increase in the acreage of the managed marsh complex is primarily the result of a drain vegetation survey completed by IID in 2004, which documented more drain vegetation than the amount estimated in the 2002 Draft HCP.

Development of the Draft HCP/NCCP is in process; however, IID is required to begin creating the managed marsh complex pursuant to existing biological mitigation measures and ESA/CESA approvals. IID wishes to designate a site that will accommodate the managed marsh currently required (up to 652 acres) as well as the expanded managed marsh (959 acres) anticipated to be required by the Draft HCP/NCCP. Requirements of the In-Valley Biological Opinion, the In-Valley CESA Permit, and the 2002 Draft HCP were assessed as part of the evaluation of the Transfer Project in the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS. Pursuant to CEQA, IID is preparing a Supplement to the Transfer Project Final EIR/EIS that will provide any additional environmental assessment that may be required to designate, construct, and manage a specific site for the expanded managed marsh complex, including an analysis of four potential sites for the marsh; provided, however, that implementation of the expanded managed marsh is subject to and contingent upon final approval of the HCP/NCCP by IID, USFWS, and CDFG.

IID wishes to assess the expanded managed marsh complex in early 2008 in order to permit the designation of a single contiguous site to satisfy the requirements for both the smaller and the expanded managed marsh. This combined assessment is intended to avoid segmentation of the project and to satisfy the purpose and intent of CEQA. It should be noted that the Supplement will not support approval of the Draft HCP/NCCP in its entirety. After the Draft HCP/NCCP has been prepared, IID, USFWS, and CDFG will evaluate the need for further supplemental assessment of that document and conduct the appropriate assessment pursuant to CEQA and NEPA.

The Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex will be made available for public review and comment (see PDF link below). Copies of the Draft Supplement will also be available for public inspection and review at the IID Community Relations Office (1284 Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243) and at local libraries as outlined in the Notice of Availability (NOA) below. The NOA will be sent to responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties as part of the public review process required by CEQA (Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code) and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15087).

• Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2312

• Appendixes to the Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2313

• Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS for the Managed Marsh Complex http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2311

• January 15, 2008 Managed Marsh Presentation http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2310

• Notice of Preparation: Supplement to the IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project EIR/EIS http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2310

To learn more about IID’s desert environment and its efforts to train and educate IID employees, VISIT IID ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=81

Implementation Schedule and Budget

ECP Implementation The Water Department, under direction of the IID Board, will be implementing projects to meet its QSA obligations based on the findings and recommendations of the Definite Plan. The Definite Plan Final Report (pages ES-6 and ES-7) includes six recommendations and an overview of the cost tradeoffs, as follows:

Below is a set of six recommendations that address: (1) the blend of on-farm and delivery system savings that IID should target; (2) the on-farm incentive approach that IID should employ to attract landowners and growers voluntarily into participation; (3) the improvements that should be implemented within the IID delivery system; (4) the need to improve measurement of farm deliveries; (5) provisions for fulfilling IID’s early-year (2008 – 2010) water transfer obligations; and (6) near-term actions to ensure IID has sufficient capacity to meet its water transfer obligations. Importantly, recommendations 1 through 4 are not separable; rather, they form an integrated package that cannot be separated without implication to the viability and performance of the overall efficiency conservation program.

. Recommendation #1: IID should target on-farm savings in the range of 180,000 to 210,k000 acre-feet and delivery savings ranging from 93,000 to 123,000 acre-feet, at program build-out.

. Recommendation #2: IID should use the Scaled Pay-for-Measures Hybrid Incentive approach to attract growers voluntarily into the efficiency conservation program and to achieve the targeted on-farm savings.

. Recommendation #3; IID should implement seepage recovery and Integrated Information Management to achieve the targeted delivery system savings, and to enable the targeted on-farm savings.

. Recommendation #4: IID should implement improved measurement of farm deliveries. Consideration should also be given to equipping the farm delivery gates with automatic flow control to hold deliveries steady and radios to enable remote control.

. Recommendation #5: IID should rely on selected seepage recovery projects and on- farm and delivery system pilot projects to generate early year – 2008 through 2010 – water savings.

. Recommendation #6: IID should take a series of steps to ensure it is ready to meet its near-term water transfer obligations.

 FOR DETAILS RE EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING COST OVERVIEW, SEE Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan Final Report, Executive Summary http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=805

 For Efficiency Conservation Workshops, SEE BELOW UNDER Public Involvement and Support

A graphic overview of the recommendations, costs and tradeoff was provided in the following figure from the Definite Plan, Final Report (May 2007, p ES-5).

Note: PFM stands for Pay-for-measures Source: Davids Engineering, et al., May 2007, Final Report, p ES-5 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=805

The IID Board of Directors, in May 2007 approved an MWA for Main Canal Seepage Recovery and in August 2007 approved an MWA for Near-Term Actions. These Board actions will result in the implementation of Recommendation No. 5: “IID should rely on selected seepage recovery projects and on-farm and delivery system pilot projects to generate early year – 2008 through 2010 – water savings” (Davids Engineering, et al., 2007, Final Report, p ES-7).

Main Canal Seepage Recovery An overview of this program is provided above, pages 58-59. • FOR BUDGET, STAFFING, AND OTHER DETAILS, SEE Attachment E

IID Efficiency Conservation Program Near-Term Actions An overview of this program is provided above, pages 59-65. • FOR BUDGET, STAFFING, AND OTHER DETAILS, SEE Attachment F

IID Efficiency Conservation Program Staffing and Budget Projections (2008 – 2012) • FOR 2008 THROUGH 2012 ECP STAFFING AND BUDGET PROJECTIONS, SEE BELOW Tables 39, 40 and 41

Table 39. IID ECP Staffing Program Administration Water Transfer Unit Executive Program Manager Fallowing Program Administrative Secretary C&M Management Admin Unit Biologist CM Worker Engineer RPM Section Engineer Water Department Asst Mgr Engineer Senior Operations Analyst Water Financial Accountant IMMU WCDT1 Key Customer Coordinator IMMU WCDT2 Student Aide IMMU ENGTECH C&M Management Admin Unit Envr Mitigation Aide Senior Envr Mitigation Aide Western Farm Lands RPM Section Water Transfer Unit Water Department Asst Mgr Executive Program Manager Water Conservation Data Tech II Financial Accountant C&M Management Admin Unit Mitigation Program CM Worker Water Transfer Unit RPM Section Envr Project Manager Ag Land Mgmt Tech Financial Accountant Operations Analyst Water C&M Management Admin Unit IMMU Water Conservation Data Tech I Envr Mitigation Aide SR IMMU Water Conservation Data Tech II Envr Mitigation Aide IMMU Engineering Tech RPM Section Water Department Asst Mgr

Table 40. IID ECP Projected Budgets 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 IID/SDCWA PROGRAM REVENUE & FUNDING Water Sales to SDCWA 16,050,000 20,640,000 25,060,000 30,320,000 35,370,000 Water Sales to CVWA 238,700 487,000 745,200 1,013,400 1,356,700 QSA/JPA Envr Mitigation 5,002,300 5,067,300 4,206,300 2,622,700 2,416,000 JPA Payment Mitigation H2O 2,601,700 3,207,900 3,845,400 4,515,700 5,219,800 Legal Reimbursement 300,000 300,000 - - - 1 Prepayment from SDCWA 8,975,490 - - - - Capital Loan 914,310 544,000 39,737,300 40,730,700 44,068,300 TOTAL REVENUE & FUNDING 34,082,500 30,246,200 73,594,200 79,202,500 88,430,800 EXPENDITURES Environmental Mitigation 5,002,300 5,067,300 4,206,300 2,622,700 2,416,000 Envr Obligation Payments 1,810,300 1,153,700 1,386,400 1,631,900 1,891,000 Local Entity Payment - - 1,253,000 1,516,000 1,768,500 Fallowing Program 6,897,700 8,523,000 10,467,500 12,160,300 13,945,200 Efficiency (Non-Cap Sys O&M) 212,900 304,100 1,757,300 3,272,000 4,861,400 Efficiency (Non-Cap On-Farm) 1,437,000 525,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Efficiency (Capital) 9,889,800 544,000 39,737,300 40,730,700 44,068,300 Admin/Program Management 1,548,100 1,731,700 1,707,100 1,741,100 1,775,700 Legal W-0500 390,000 600,000 300,000 250,000 315,000

G&A Expense Legal 1,815,000 1,800,000 700,000 250,000 200,000 Equitable Distribution 361,200 - - - - Debt Service (2000 COP) 2,235,400 2,229,300 2,227,000 2,232,700 2,231,000 (WD 2006 Capital Loan Pmt) 238,300 476,600 476,600 476,700 476,600 (WT Capital Loan Pmt) 74,500 101,700 - - - (WT Cap Loan Pmt $250 mil) - - 6,250,000 16,263,000 16,263,100 Lost Water Sales 1,343,000 1,666,000 1,989,000 2,312,000 2,652,000 Lost Power Sales TOTAL EXPENDITURES 33,255,500 24,722,400 72,707,500 85,709,100 93,113,800 IID/SDCWA Rev v. Exp 827,000 5,523,800 886,700 (6,506,600) (4,683,000)

WESTERN FARM LANDS (WFL) REVENUE & FUNDING Rental Income 900,000 - - - - Fallowing Income - - - - - Proceeds From Land Sales 32,000,000 - - - - Interest Income WFL Sales 3,500,000 - - - - 1 Loss From Land Sales (8,960,000) TOTAL REVENUE & FUNDING 27,440,000 - - - - EXPENDITURES Land Management 534,700 - - - - Legal 20,000 - - - - Land Sale Expenditures 1,990,000 - - - - Debt Service (2004 COP) 5,702,400 - - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,247,100 - - - - WFL Rev vs. Exp 19,192,900 - - - -

LOCAL ENTITY (RESTRICTED FUND) REVENUE & FUNDING SDCWA Contributions 5,250,000 1,750,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Interest Income 175,000 - - - - TOTAL REVENUE & FUNDING 5,425,000 1,750,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 EXPENDITURES Economic Mitigation 5,000,000 1,500,000 - - - Administrative 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,250,000 1,750,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 LOCAL ENTITY REV VS. EXP 175,000 - - - -

HCP / NCCP (RESTRICTED FUND) REVENUE & FUNDING SDCWA Contributions 450,000 - - - - Interest Income - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE & FUNDING 450,000 - - - - EXPENDITURES Negotiations/Meetings 250,000 - - - - Legal 200,000 - - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 450,000 - - - - HCP / NCCP REV VS. EXP - - - - - 1 Assumes lands are sold and bonds defeased.

Table 41. IID ECP Water Transfer Project Summary Mitigation Budget Projection May 2006 Mitigation Tasks 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Implementation Team 100,660 43,351 44,817 46,331 47,897 IT Biologist 145,900 181,483 187,617 193,958 200,514 Envr Reporting & Monitoring (Gen) 69,360 45,337 48,057 50,941 53,997 SS Salinity/Elevation Program - 39,326 41,686 44,187 46,838 Mitigation Water to Salton Sea 2,566,872 2,904,785 3,526,664 4,180,551 4,867,734 Tamarisk Scrub Habitat - Surveys & Mitigation 49,355 403,198 423,868 445,601 28,772 Drain Habitat - Initial Vegetation & Habitat Surveys 20,700 16,854 17,865 18,937 20,073 Drain Habitat (Aquatic) - Create/ Manage/Monitor Managed Marsh 3,699,075 1,569,386 4,794,161 490,838 535,898 Drain Habitat - Restrictions/ Requirements for Drain C&M 36,380 36,809 39,018 41,359 43,840 Worker Education Program Covered Species Training 34,500 71,540 75,832 80,382 85,205 Worker Education Manual Covered Species - - 19,461 20,629 21,867 Desert Habitat – ROW Survey & Mapping - 18,360 40,495 42,924 45,500 Desert Habitat - Create/Maintain Desert Habitat - Impact Mitigation 16,200 56,180 11,933 12,336 12,753 Changes to Operations Activity on IID Canals to Avoid Covered Species 12,000 11,542 23,523 24,934 26,430 Burrowing Owl Worker Annual Education & Manual 25,800 22,191 251,029 273,541 298,072 Pre-construction Burrowing Owl Surveys & Relocation 175,000 230,369 - - - Burrowing Owl Relative Abundance & Distribution Surveys 1,501,250 457,867 10,719 11,362 12,044 Farmer & Public Education Program 12,000 10,112 138,872 - - Pupfish Abundance & Distribution Study - 131,012 229,866 126,248 66,911 Pupfish Selenium Drain Studies 200,000 244,945 57,574 61,028 64,690 Fund Se threshold/Toxicity Study 375,000 - 3,013 3,194 3,386 Pupfish - C&M Conservation Measures - 54,315 192,945 204,521 216,793 Salvage of Razorback Suckers for Construction Dewatering of Canals 5,270 2,843 243,143 256,863 - Plant Cover Crops to Maintain Habitat on Fallowed Parcels - - 76,247 80,417 - Other Species - Fauna 330,000 100,127 59,551 63,124 66,911 Other Species – Flora 60,000 11,236 53,596 63,124 73,602 Salton Sea Air Quality 53,375 56,180 15,721 16,665 17,665 Minimize PM10 Emissions from Fallowed Fields Lands 48,000 44,944 69,674 73,855 78,286 Drain Connectivity Due to Salton Sea Elevation Decrease - 14,832 - 3,156 - Grade Spoil/Roads from Drain maint. 48,900 65,731 - - - Power Line Markers for TRS Systems - 55,653 57,551 61,004 64,664 Prepare & Implement Management Plan for AAC Abandoned Portions 36,250 - 5,955 6,312 6,691 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Pre- Activity Surveys 45,000 54,293 19,414 20,578 21,813 Elf Owl Surveys 34,950 21,068 59,551 63,124 - Desert Tortoise Surveys 35,095 18,315 29,775 - -

Avian Point Count Surveys 352,500 296,181 - 38,809 41,137 Least Tern Surveys - - 21,854 22,593 23,357 Rail & Bittern Surveys 45,000 - 11,565 12,259 12,994 Management & Planning 82,920 21,140 29,775 31,562 - JPA Audit Fees 9,320 10,910 2,892 3,065 3,249 Baseline Surveys Desert 600,300 282,824 - - - JPA Bank Fees 2,500 2,728 - - - Environmental Permit Enhancements - - - - - Backwater Marsh Creation - - - - - 2001 Biological Opinion Measures 1,250,000 1,416,714 - - - Willow Flycatcher habitat - - - - - Bonytail Chub Rearing - - - - - Brown Pelican Coast - - - - - Brown Pelican Sea - - 11,910 12,625 13,382 SS Shoreline Strand Survey 8,500 - 29,775 31,562 33,456 Pupfish Refugium - 11,236 - - - Recreation Facilities at Sea - 28,090 - - - TOTAL $12,087,932 $9,064,004 $10,976,965 $7,234,499 $7,156,421

Public Involvement and Support

Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan

Public Involvement Overview Public involvement outreach for IID’s Definite Plan involved a grower participation plan, and public outreach. As noted earlier in this report, the public involvement plan was spearheaded by CONCUR, Inc, a Bay Area-based firm that specializes in fostering public input into technical challenging and often contentious public policy issues. Individual Team members also worked directly and independently with growers, IID staff and others

Grower Participation included a team of 15 local on-farm technical advisors, 13 demonstration projects, and a grower/landowner survey that was mailed to all identified IID growers and farm landowners, with a response from roughly 16% of those surveyed representing between 203,000 and 300,000 acres of farmland. In addition, team members had numerous conversations with individual growers, farm service companies and others and growers and the public were also invited to provide response and comments through the project website and newsletter.

Public outreach included project newsletters, which were distributed to approximately 3,500 people as well as being available at IID offices and elsewhere. In 2006, two Field Days were held as were a number of public workshops. In addition, the Team developed and maintained a project web page to provide an overview and updates on the Definite Plan process. Launched in early 2006, as of February 2007, the website had logged more than 1,400 visits.  For outreach details including methodology and results, see Public Involvement Overview Technical Appendix 5 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4266

The Definite Plan Team provided regular updates to IID’s Water Department staff. and Dr. John Eckhardt provided quarterly update to IID’s Board of Directors.

Efficiency Conservation Workshops In 2007, the Team held three Public Workshops in IID’s William R. Condit Auditorium (IID Boardroom) from 1-4 p.m.

• FOR AN EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM DETAILS, SEE Efficiency Conservation Workshops . Workshop #1 Feb 28, 2007: Project overview, technical approach (95 pages) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4436

. Workshop #2 March 16, 2007: Evaluate and screen alternatives (78 pages) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4435

. Workshop #3 April 2, 2007: Present recommended approach (39 pages) http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4434

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAC All American Canal AC acre or acres ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler ADLG Automated Drop-Leaf Gate Admin Administration AF acre-foot, or acre-feet AF/AC/yr acre-feet per acre per year AFY acre-foot per year, or acre-feet per year Asst Assistant Avg Average AVM Acoustic Velocity Meter AZ Arizona BO Biological Opinion C&M Construction & Maintenance CA California Ca+ Calcium CDC California Development Company CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDPH California Department of Public Health CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California State Endangered Species CFDG California Department of Fish and Game cfs cubic feet per second Ch chapter CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System Cl Chlorine CM Central Main Canal CNCCPA California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act

CO3 Carbonate Col. Column Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification CRWDA/Federal Settlement Agreement for the purposes of Section 5(B) of Interim QSA Surplus Guidelines, Oct 10, 2003 CU consumptive use CVWD Coachella Valley Water District CY calendar year D/S downstream IID Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan, Davids Engineering, et al., Definite Plan May 2007 deg. F (oF) degree Fahrenheit EC Electrical Conductivity ECP Efficiency Conservation Plan

ED Equitable Distribution EDP Equitable Distribution Plan EHL East Highline Canal EIS/EIR Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Envr Environmental EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 ET evapotranspiration Evap. evaporation FAQ Frequently Asked Questions FP Fallowing Program (IID) GW groundwater

HCO3 Bicarbonate HCP Habitat Conservation Plan hr hour Historical Verified Savings, savings in a given water year for delivery HVS in the subsequent calendar year (IID/MWD Program) IA Implementation Agreement ICS Intentionally Created Surplus IID Imperial Irrigation District IID/MWD IID/Metropolitan Water District of Southern California IID/SDCWA IID/San Diego County Water Authority IIDSS Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System IIM Integrated Information Management IMMU Irrigation Management and Monitoring Unit In inch IOPP Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy ISG Interim Surplus Guidelines IVRC Imperial Valley Research Station (USDA Agricultural Research Service) K Potassium KAF thousand acre-feet KAFY thousand acre-feet per year KCC Key Customer Coordinator (IID) LCR Lower Colorado River LCRWSP Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project M&I municipal and industrial MAF million acre-feet MAFY million acre-feet per year Max (max.) Maximum Mg Magnesium mg/L milligrams per liter Mgr Manager Min (min.) Minimum Misc. Miscellaneous MOU Memorandum of Understanding mph miles per hour

MSCP Multi-Species Conservation Program MWA Major Work Authorization (IID) MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD 88 Agreement 1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation Agreement Na+ Sodium NADBank North American Development Bank NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act No. number NOA Notice of Availability NOD Notice of Determination NRCE Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc. O&M operation and maintenance PCC Program Coordinating Committee (IID/MWD Program) PEIR Preliminary Environmental Impact Report Perc. Percolation PFM Payment for conservation measures pH measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution Phreat. Phreatophyte PK Pilot Knob Pmt payment mil. million min. minimum PPR Present Perfected Right PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District QA/QC quality assurance/quality control QC quality control QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement Reg. Regulation Reg. No. Regulation Number RPM IID Resources Planning and Management Section RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAP Business software used by IID SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Sch. schedule SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SDI supply/demand imbalance Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land, a remote-sensing evapo- SEBAL transpiration estimation model SLR San Luis Rey Indians

SO4 Sulphate Sq. Mi. square miles SWM Systemwide Monitoring (IID/MWD Program verification sites) SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board Total dissolved solids: total mass content of dissolved ions and TDS molecules or suspended microgranules in a liquid medium

Temp Temperature TEP Tailwater Education Program (IID) Total Maximum Daily Load, maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can contain and still meet water quality standards; based TMDL on allowable load of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. Water Conservation and Transfer Project, includes all programs in Transfer Project the QSA (IID) TRS Tailwater Return (Recovery) System TSS Total Suspended Solids U/S upstream USBR US Bureau of Reclamation USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Services USGS US Geological Survey USWCL US Water Conservation Laboratory Vol volume WCAB Water Conservation Advisory Board (IID) WCC Water Control Center (IID) WCMC Water Conservation Measurement Committee (IID/MWD Program) WFL Western Farm Land Water Information System, Oracle-based system to collect & process WIS flow data needed in support of water conservation verification (IID) Water Management System, Oracle-based system for order/delivery WMS (IID) WSM Westside Main Canal

References

CDWR, 2006, California Water Plan Update 2005, Vol 3 Regional Reports, Chapter 11 Colorado River Hydrologic Region http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2005/vol3/v3ch11.pdf

CDWR, CDFG, CH2M HILL, Feb 14, 2007, Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 7 Groundwater, pages 7-2 to 7-5; and Chapter 26 Bibliography http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov/PEIR/draft/

CH2M Hill, Jan 2002, IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Habitat Conservation Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=217

CH2M Hill, June 2002, IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Habitat Conservation Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=217

Davids Engineering, Inc. Keller Bliesner Engineering, LLC., et al., May 2007, Imperial Irrigation District Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan, Final Report and Technical Appendices 1 – 5. http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=203

Dowd, M., 1956, History of Imperial Irrigation District and the Development of Imperial Valley

IID Annual Inventory of Areas Receiving Water & Crop Report, 2002 – 2006, http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=119

IID Crop Survey, 2006 http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=495

IID and MWD Water Conservation Program Final Program Construction Report, April 2000, http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=201

Montgomery Watson, Dec 1995, County of Imperial, Imperial county Groundwater Study, Final Report

Swan, William, Esq., Sept 28, 2007, Law of the River Seminar

Tetra Tech, Jan 2000, Draft Salton Sea Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Review

USBR, Lower Colorado River Region, Boulder City, NV,

Lower Colorado Region Reports and Brochures Archive http://www.usbr.gov/lc/reportsarchive.html Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement Documents, Oct 2003 & Mar 2004 Decree Accounting Report, 2003 – 2006, Lower Colorado River water use by calendar year EIS (Final) - Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions, Oct 2002 & Oct 2001 EIS (Draft) - Salton Sea Restoration Project, Jan 2000 Matuska, Paul, Jan 2007, Telephone conversation and emails

US Secretary of the Interior, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead, Dec 13, 2007, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf

Web Links

A Soils Map – VISIT http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ B Historical Crop Patterns - Annual Inventory of Areas Receiving Water & Crop Report  FOR YEARS 2002 – 2006, VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=119 C Water Service - VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=4 D Water Rates and Assessments – VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=137 E Water Shortage Allocation Policy – VISIT http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=141 F IID Water Balance Summary  Definite Plan Final Report, Technical Appendix 1.b - VISIT http://www.iid.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=804 G Imperial County Groundwater Management Ordinance  County of Imperial Codified Ordinances - Title 9 Land Use Code Division 22 Groundwater Management, Sec. 92202.01 – VISIT http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/imperial_co/_DATA/TITLE09/index.html