DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Rainfall and Reservoirs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Local Rainfall and Reservoirs San Diego County Reservoirs ORANGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RED MOUNTAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESERVOIR Fallbrook 76 DIVERSIFICATION MORRO HILL RESERVOIR Local Storage: LAKE HENSHAW Enhancing Water 15 TURNER LAKE A Vital Water Supply Reliability Vista Resource Oceanside 78 DIXON LAKE MAERKLE RESERVOIR LAKE WOHLFORD San Marcos SUTHERLAND Carlsbad San Diego Escondido RESERVOIR County’s semiarid OLIVENHAIN RESERVOIR climate means that SAN DIEGUITO Encinitas RESERVOIR 5 truly wet years are LAKE HODGES LAKE RAMONA few and far between, Solana Beach LAKE POWAY CUYAMACA and dry years are very 15 RESERVOIR Del Mar 56 Poway SAN VICENTE RESERVOIR common. Since 1976, the EL CAPITAN MIRAMAR RESERVOIR amount of local surface RESERVOIR 805 Santee water used to help meet La Jolla 52 LAKE JENNINGS annual demand has been as 67 high as 140,300 acre-feet LAKE MURRAY El Cajon 163 LOVELAND 8 RESERVOIR and as low as 4,071 acre- La Mesa feet. Consequently, runoff from 5 San Diego 94 SWEETWATER RESERVOIR BARRETT LAKE Lemon local rainwater that flows into Coronado Grove reservoirs – commonly National City MORENA 54 RESERVOIR called surface water – Chula Vista AF = acre-foot LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR represents a vital One acre-foot is but small portion of 905 approximately San Diego County’s Maerkle, Red Mountain and Morro Hill store 325,900 gallons, MEXICO treated water and do not capture local runoff. enough to supply water supply needs. 2.5 single-family Over the past 10 years, an Enhancing Water Storage households of four average of about 7 percent of the Today, the Water Authority and its mem- for a year. region’s total annual water supply ber agencies have 24 reservoirs that store im- came from local surface water. San ported and local runoff water for normal use, Diego County has not relied solely emergency conditions and imported water on its local water sources since 1947, when shortages. Combined water storage capacity imported water flowed through the region’s now totals approximately 723,000 acre-feet. first aqueduct, making Colorado River water This is a 30 percent increase since 2003, available to fuel the region’s post-World created by the Water Authority’s $2 billion War II growth. Capital Improvement Program to improve the region’s water infrastructure. The San Diego County Water Authority sustains a $245 billion regional economy and the quality of life for 3.3 million residents through a multi-decade water supply diversification plan, major infrastructure investments and forward-thinking policies that February 2020 promote fiscal and environmental responsibility. A public agency created in 1944, the Water Authority delivers wholesale water supplies to 24 retail water providers, including cities, special districts and a military base. Local Rainfall and Reservoirs A crucial component of this Lindbergh Field: Actual vs. Normal Rainfall program is the $1.5 billion Emergency & Carryover Storage Inches Actual Rainfall Project, which created new emer- 14 Normal Rainfall gency water storage at the Oliv- enhain, Hodges and San Vicente 12 reservoirs. This new system ensures the region has up to a six-month 10 supply of water should an earth- 8 quake or other disaster disrupt imported water deliveries. 6 Why can’t we get more water from underground? Olivenhain Dam and 4 Reservoir and Lake Hodges 2 Groundwater basins are The Olivenhain Reservoir, underground reserves of completed by the Water Author- 0 water that may take the ity in 2003, was the region’s first 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 form of a single aquifer or new major dam and reservoir a group of linked aquifers. in 50 years. The reservoir holds They are a major sup- Lake Henshaw: Actual vs. Normal Rainfall ply source in many parts 24,000 acre-feet of water and of Southern California. is designed to withstand a major Inches Unfortunately, San Diego earthquake to keep water avail- 40 County’s geologic makeup able and flowing to the region. Actual Rainfall has relatively limited 35 Normal Rainfall groundwater assets to Improvements to Lake Hodges complement surface began in 2005 and were 30 water stored in reservoirs. completed in 2012. The proj- 25 ect connects Lake Hodges to the Olivenhain Reservoir and to the 20 Water Authority’s Second Aque- 15 duct, and makes spillovers from Lake Hodges during heavy storms 10 less likely. 5 San Vicente Dam Raise 0 The largest piece of the Emer- 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 gency Storage Project was rais- Lake Cuyamaca: Actual vs. Normal Rainfall ing the City of San Diego’s San Vicente Dam. The Water Authority project increased the height of Inches Actual Rainfall the dam by 117 feet – the largest 45 Normal Rainfall dam raise in U.S. history. Comple- 40 tion in 2014 added 52,100 35 acre-feet of emergency water 4677 Overland Ave. storage and more than 105,000 30 San Diego, California acre-feet of carryover storage to 25 92123-1233 collect water in wet periods for 20 858.522.6700 use in dry years. The San Vicente 15 Dam Raise produced the largest sdcwa.org increase in regional water storage 10 in San Diego County’s history. 5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 @sdcwa Printed on recycled paper.
Recommended publications
  • Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report

    Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report

    Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan December 2015 (Revised - July 2016) Prepared for Vallecitos Water District This page is intentionally left blank. Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan Contents 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Vallecitos Water District .................................................................................................................... 11 5 Historical and Projected Water Demands ......................................................................................... 13 5.1 Demand Management ............................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1 BMP Categories ......................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Senate Bill X 7-7 ......................................................................................................... 16 6 Existing and Projected Supplies .......................................................................................................
  • Open Space and Agriculture (OS)

    Open Space and Agriculture (OS)

    Part Three: General Plan Elements – Open Space and Agriculture Open Space and Agriculture (OS) A. Introduction State law requires the Open Space Element to provide plans and measures for the preservation and conservation of open-space lands, which can include open space for the preservation of natural resources; the managed production Refer to the Safety Element of resources (including agricultural lands); outdoor for Open Space recreation (including areas of historic and cultural value, related to Public areas suited for park and recreation purposes, access to Health and Safety. beaches, rivers and streams, and areas which serve as links Refer to the between major recreation and open-space reservations); Safety and Land open space for public health and safety; open space in Use Element for a support of the mission of military installations, and open discussion of space for Native American historical, cultural, or sacred military sites1. installations. Approximately five percent of the planning area is dedicated to open space, parks, and agricultural uses. Only 2.3 percent of land within the planning area remains vacant. Parks – Open Due to the highly developed nature of the community, the space lands whose City faces significant challenges in the provision of primary purpose is recreation additional open space and recreational facilities. (Institute for Local Despite a lack of vacant land, opportunities exist within the Government) urban fabric of the community to provide new recreational and open space areas. Possible solutions include: rooftop gardens; closing or converting a limited number of redundant streets for the purpose of creating mini parks, community gardens, and plazas; incorporating trail systems into utility corridors; turning vacant parcels into parks or community gardens; and the enhancement of public street rights-of-way for use as open space.
  • Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Vista Irrigation District

    Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Vista Irrigation District

    MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT February 7,2018 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Vista Irrigation District was held on Wednesday, February 7,2018 at the offices of the District, l39l Engineer Street, Vista, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER President Dorey called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors present: Miller, Vásquez, Dorey, Sanchez, and MacKenzie. Directors absent: None. Staff present: Eldon Boone, General Manager; Lisa Soto, Secretary of the Board; Brett Hodgkiss, Assistant General Manager; Don Smith, Director of Water Resources; Brian Smith, District Engineer; Randy Whitmann, Director of Engineering; Frank Wolinski, Operations and Field Services Manager; Alisa Nichols, Management Analyst; Al Ducusin, Engineering Services Manager; Sherry Thorpe, Safety and Risk Manager; Marlene Kelleher, Finance Manager; and Marian Schmidt, Administrative Assistant. General Counsel Joel Kuperberg was also present. Other attendees: Karen L. Thesing, Associate in Risk Management (ARM), Director of Insurance Services, and Peter Kuchinsky II, Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Lead Risk Management Advisor. 3 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director MacKenzie led the pledge of allegiance 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA t8-02-12 (Ipon motíon by Director Vdsquez, seconded by Dírector MøcKenzie and unanímously carrìed (5 ayes: Miller, Vósquez, Dorey, Sønchez, and MacKenzie), the Board of Dírectors the AS 5. PUBLIC COMMENT TIME No public comments were presented on items not appearing on the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 8-02-13 Upon motion by Dírector MacKenzíe, seconded by Dírector Vdsquez and unanìmously carried (5 øyes: Mìller, Vdsquez, Dorey, Sanchez, and MacKenzíe), the Board of Dìreclors øpproved the Consent Calendar, íncluding Resolution No.
  • Biological Resources Core Area

    Biological Resources Core Area

    Sweetwater Reservoir/ San Miguel Mountains/ Sweetwater River BRCA 94 Jamul Mountains BRCA eArea.mxd Mountains/Marron Valley BRCA Project Area Proposed Proctor Valley Road Alignment Otay Lakes/Otay Mesa/ Otay Ranch RMP Preserve, Conserved Open Space and Non-Impacted LDA Otay River Valley BRCA Cores Linkages 0 1,700 3,400 Feet SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map; Hunsaker 2017; SANGIS 2016 FIGURE 3-3 Biological Resources Core Area Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 - Preserve Status Report NOTE: See Figure 6-2 for Corridor and Habitat Linkages Post Exchange and Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 2/8/2018 - Last saved by: mmcginnis - Path: Z:\Projects\j820701\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BTR\PreserveAppendix\Figure3_3_BioCor - Path: mmcginnis by: saved Last - 2/8/2018 Date: Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Otay Ranch RMP Preserve Status Report INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8207 122 February 2018 L4 R1 L4 R1 94 L3 L3 R1 L4 PRESUMPTIVE CORRIDOR Project Area R1 Proposed Proctor Valley Road Alignment Otay Ranch RMP Preserve, Conserved Open Space and Non-Impacted LDA Otay Ranch Village 13 L3 Public Lands CDFW Owned Land L3 K R E Wildlife Crossings Z U A R1 L E Upper R7 U R D C Proctor Valley Land Use Otay Project Applicant Otay Ranch Development Reservoir R7 Project Applicant Otay Ranch Preserve feCorridors.mxd Existing Wildlife Corridors Major Local Corridor for Focal Mammal and Bird Species Regional Corridor for Focal Mammal and Bird Species R2 R10 Public Lands R2 BLM R2 CDFW R10 DOD USFWS R11 R2 R8 0 1,700 3,400 Lower Otay Reservoir
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses

    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
  • San Vicente Dam San Diego, California

    San Vicente Dam San Diego, California

    CASE STUDY Sika at Work Content contributed by the San Diego County Water Authority (www.sdcwa.org), the City of San Diego (www.sandiego.gov) and Petr Masek Photography (www.masekphoto.com). Sika… One Name. One Source. Worldwide. San Vicente Dam San Diego, California ISO 9001 Certificate # FM 69711 RC 14001 Certificate # RC 510999 Sika Corporation Sika Canada Inc. Sika Mexicana S.A. de C.V. 201 Polito Avenue 601 Delmar Avenue Carretera Libre Celaya Km. 8.5 Lyndhurst NJ 07071 Pointe Claire QC H9R 4A9 Fracc. Industrial Balvanera Tel: 800 933 7452 Tel: 514 697 2610 Corregidora Queretaro C.P. 76920 Fax: 800 294 6408 Fax: 514 694 2792 Tel: 52 442 2385800 www.sikausa.com www.sika.ca Fax: 52 442 2250537 San Vicente Dam • Construction Period: 2009 – 2014 Raising the Dam Layers of roller-compacted concrete 24 inches thick completely cover the down- stream side, producing a stairstepped surface. The new concrete is nearly equal in • Owner: City of San Diego San Vicente Dam, which is owned and operated by the city of volume to the original dam. • Engineer: Parsons Engineering San Diego, currently stands at 220 feet. The Water Authority will raise the dam an additional 117 feet – the tallest dam raise Additional phases of the project include a new marina, a replacement pipeline, and • Contractor: Shimmick Construction & in the United States and the tallest of its type in the world. The restoration of project construction areas. They will begin, one at a time, after the Obayashi Constructors JV raised dam will store an additional 152,000 acre-feet of water, dam raise is complete.
  • APPENDIX G Least Bell's Vireo Report

    APPENDIX G Least Bell's Vireo Report

    APPENDIX G Least Bell’s Vireo Report Least Bell’s Vireo Report San Pasqual Undergrounding Project July 2016 Prepared for: City of Escondido Vista Irrigation District Bureau of Indian Affairs Prepared by: 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Atkins Project No.: 10004195 Contents 1.0 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Background Information .................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 Listing and Regulatory......................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Natural History .................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Methods ..........................................................................................................................................
  • Description of Source Water System

    Description of Source Water System

    CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE WATER SYSTEM 2.0 Description of the Source Water System During the last 100 years, the CSD’s water system has evolved into a very complex system. It is now estimated to serve a population of 1.4 million people spread out over 370 square miles (Table 2.1). The CSD treats imported raw water and local runoff water at three City WTPs which have a combined capacity of 378 MGD. The CSD treats water by conventional technologies using coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. Recently, all CSD water treatment plants have been modified to provide for the addition of fluoride to the potable water supply. To ensure safe and palatable water quality, the CSD collects water samples at its reservoirs, WTPs, and throughout the treated water storage and distribution system. The CSD’s use of local and imported water to meet water demand is affected by availability, cost, and water resource management policies. Imported water availability decreases the need to carry over local water for dry years in City reservoirs. CSD policy is to use local water first to reduce imported water purchases; this policy runs the risk of increased dependence on imported water during local droughts. Table 2.1 - City of San Diego General Statistics Population (2010) 1,301,621 Population (Estimated 2014) 1,381,069 Population percent change 6.1 Land Area Square Miles 370 Population Density per Square Mile 3733 Water Distribution Area Square Miles 403 Number of Service Connections (2015) 279,102 2.1 Water Sources (Figure 2.1) Most of California's water development has been dictated by the multi-year wet/dry weather cycles.
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations

    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations

    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
  • 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

    4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

    4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the potential impacts to visual resources and aesthetics associated with implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including information from the San Diego County Draft General Plan and its associated Draft EIR (2010), and the SANDAG 2030 RTP EIR (2007). 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Character The San Diego region is an area of abundant and varied scenic resources. The topography of the region contributes greatly to the overall character and quality of the existing visual setting. In general terms, the region is characterized by four topographical regions: coastal plain, foothills, mountains, and desert. The visual character of each is described briefly below. The coastal plain ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and varies from rolling terraces to steep cliffs along the coastline. The coastal plain provides expansive views in all directions, with the coastline visible from some local roadways. Much of the coastal plain is already developed with varying densities of urban and suburban development. Agricultural uses within the coastal area include row crops, field flowers, and greenhouses. The foothills of the San Diego region range in elevation from 600 to 2,000 feet AMSL and are characterized by rolling to hilly uplands that contain frequent narrow, winding valleys. This area is traversed by several rivers as well as a number of intermittent drainages. The foothills are also developed with various urban and rural land uses. Agriculture consists of citrus and avocado orchards as well as row crops.
  • HEP Letterhead Template

    HEP Letterhead Template

    HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com September 8, 2016 Mr. Jon Corn Grandview Community Homes, LLC 160 Chesterfield Drive, Suite 201 Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: Biological Resources Addendum for the Grandview Pointe Project Dear Mr. Corn: At the request of Grandview Community Homes, LLC, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has prepared this letter report to serve as an addendum to the April 2015 biological technical report (DUDEK 2015) for the Grandview Pointe Project (project) located in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, California. The project generally consists of a 30-lot residential community. Subsequent to preparation of the April 2015 report, minor modifications have occurred to the project design and corresponding impact footprint. Additionally, new project components are currently proposed that were not addressed in the April 2015 report. The previous project in combination with the project modifications and new components are collectively referred to herein as the project and are the subject of this report. This addendum report documents the existing biological conditions within the project boundary, including the new component areas, and provides a focused analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City of Oceanside (City) and other responsible agencies for the project. INTRODUCTION Project Location The proposed project site is located in the City of Oceanside (City) in northern San Diego County, California (Figure 1).
  • East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029

    East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029

    Attachment 1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 December 2018 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 December 2018 | KJC-24.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................ F-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................... 18 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 19 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 23 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................