DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U. A San Joaquin River Basin. It is a system of lakes, rivers, canals and Colusa reservoirs that spans from Lake Shasta in the north to the Kern River near Bakersfield. It serves both the San Francisco Bay Area as well as INDIAN VALLEY RES. NORTH FORK AMERICAN RIV. the farmlands of the San Joaquin Valley. Nevada I.D. Yolo Co. F.C.W.C.D. Yuba City NEVADA I.D. Lake Spaulding UKIAH P.U. Middle and South Yuba River k Bear River F Lake Pillsbury, Lake Mendocino M North Fork American River , and the Russian River R C Olivehurst n R CLEAR LAKE a a u c ic s h r s Yolo Co. F.C.W.C.D. e ia e m n C A R r e PLACER CO. W.A. e k Lake Spaulding r R Bea CACHE CREEK Yolo Co. F.C.W.C.D. STUMPY MEADOWS RES. Clearlake Georgetown Divide P.U.D. RUSSIAN RIVER Marin M.W.D. North Marin W.D. Sonoma Co. W.A. Auburn Ukiah P.U. Lincoln GEORGETOWN DIVIDE P.U.D. R Stumpy Meadows Reservoir S r a e c h SACRAMENTO RIVER r t a a City of Sacramento W.S.A. m e F Sacramento Co. W.A. e n t Rocklin k o , S F R an R eric Cloverdale LAKE FOLSOM Am City of Roseville W.D. CITY OF ROSEVILLE W.D. El Dorado I.D. Sacramento Suburban W.D. Lake Folsom WEBER RES. JENKINSON LAKE El Dorado I.D. El Dorado I.D. LAKE SONOMA Placerville Marin M.W.D. RIO LINDA WD C North Marin W.D. Citrus Heights EL DORADO I.D. osu Groundwater Cameron Park mn Sonoma Co. W.A. American and Consumes Rivers es Woodland R, N SACRAMENTO BASS LAKE Folsom, Bass and Jenkinson Lake Fk Weber Reservoir SUBURBAN WD El Dorado I.D. North Highlands C YOLO COUNTY F.C.W.C.D. Groundwater os Clear Lake, Cache Creek umn Lake Folsom es R LAKE BERRYESSA Indian Valley Reservoir , M Healdsburg AMERICAN RIVER Fk Solano Co. W.A. Arden-Arcade City of Vacaville City of Sacramento W.S.A. CONSUMES RIVER City of Vallejo El Dorado I.D. SONOMA COUNTY W.A. Calistoga Rancho Cordova Sacramento Co. W.A. El Dorado I.D. Lake Pillsbury, Lake Mendocino CITY OF SACRAMENTO W.S.A Lake Sonoma and the Russian River Davis Sacramento and American Rivers Groundwater S Fk Windsor nes R, Winters Cosum SOUTH PUTAH CANAL Fk , N LAKE HENNESSEY Solano County W.A. TIGER CREEK RESERVOIR ne R St. Helena SACRAMENTO CO W.A. lum City of Napa W.S.A. City of Vacaville P.W Florin Amador W.A. oke City of Vallejo P.W. Groundwater M American and Sacramento Rivers k lark F R R, C Dixon s slaus Santa Rosa ne AMADOR W.A. Stani Elk Grove um Laguna os Mokelumne River MOKELUMNE RIVER C Lake Tabeaud Amador W.A. MILIKEN RESERVOIR Calaveras Co. W.D. k F City of Napa W.S.A. East Bay MUD , S CITY OF VACAVILLE P.W. e R Lake Berryessa via Putah South Canal Ione mn Jackson elu State Water Project via North Bay Aqueduct ok M Rohnert Park Groundwater LAKE TABEAUD Amador W.A. PADREE RESERVOIR CITY OF NAPA W.S.A East Bay MUD CALAVERAS CO. W.D. k Miliken Reservoir and Lake Hennessey Calveras River and New Hogan Reservoir F State Water Project via Galt NORTH BAY AQUEDUCT Stanislaus River and Lake Tulloch Arnold N Sonoma North Bay Aqueduct , STATE WATER PROJECT Mokelumne River R s Solano Co. W.A. u Petaluma la City of Napa W.S.A s SOULAJULE RES. Fairfield i City of Vacaville P.W. n Marin M.W.D. ta slaus R, M Fk City of Vallejo P.W. MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT S Stani R East Bay MUD e LYONS RESERVOIR n m Tuolumne U.D. u l CITY OF VALLEJO P.W. SOLANO COUNTY W.A. e STAFFORD LAKE k Lake Berryessa via Putah South Canal o North Marin W.D. Lake Berryessa via Putah South Canal State Water Project via North Bay Aqueduct State Water Project via North Bay Aqueduct M STANISLAUS RIVER Groundwater NEW HOGAN LAKE Calaveras Co. W.D. Novato CITY OF LODI W.U. Calaveras Co. W.D. oaquin R Groundwater Stockton-East W.D. NORTH MARIN W.D. San J T TUOLUMNE U.D. NICASIO RES. ras R u Lyons Reservoir Lake Pillsbury, Lake Mendecino and Calave o MALLARD RES. l Marin M.W.D. Lake Sonoma via the Russian River CONTRA COSTA CANAL u TUOLUMNE RIVER Contra Costa W.D. Phoenix Lake-Cedar Ridge m Stafford Lake CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT n Alameda Co. W.D. e Contra Costa W.D. HETCH HETCHY RESERVOIR R San Francisco P.U.C. MARTINEZ RES. CALAVERAS RIVER , Alameda Co. W.D. Santa Clara Valley W.D. Contra Costa W.D. N Calaveras Co. W.D. San Francisco P.U.C. BON TEMPE LAKE F MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT Stockton-East W.D. Sonora k Santa Clara Valley W.D. Marin M.W.D. San Rafael STOCKTON-EAST W.D. NEW MELONES LAKE East Bay MUD R Redwood City P.W.S. Tara HPillisnole Pittsburg Stockton-East W.D. KENT LAKE d Calevares River Martinez Antioch l Marin M.W.D. LAKE LAGUNITAS BRIONES RES. Concord O New Melones and Marin M.W.D. East Bay MUD Stockton New Hogan Reservoirs via TUOLUMNE RIVER CONTRA LOMA RES. the Farmington Canal Contra Costa W.D. Modesto I.D. Richmond T ALPINE LAKE TULLOCH RESERVOIR Turlock I.D. uol ne R umn Marin M.W.D. SAN PABLO RES. Calaveras Co. W.D. uolum e R, Mill Valley CONTRA COSTA W.D. T M East Bay MUD Central Valley Project via Contra Costa Canal Fk Walnut Creek Martinez, Contra Loma, Mallard T uo MARIN M.W.D. EAST BAY M.U.D. and Los Vaqueros Reservoirs lu Lagunitas, Pheonix, Alpine, Bon Tempe, m Mokelumne River via Padree Reservoir, ne HETCH HETCHY AQUEDUCT R Feather R. North Fork Kent, Nicasio and Soulajule Reservoirs Mokelumne Aqueduct and Lafayette Aqueduct LAFAYETTE RES. , LOS VAQUEROS RES. Alameda Co. W.D. S Russian River Briones, Chabot, Lafayette, San Pablo and East Bay MUD F Contra Costa W.D. San Francisco P.U.C. k Upper San Leandro Reservoirs MANTECA P.W. Frenchman Lake BETHENY RESERVOIR Groundwater Santa Clara Valley W.D. STATE WATER PROJECT Manteca Redwood City P.W.S. Lake Davis UPPER SAN LEANDRO RES. Zone 7 Alameda Co. East Bay MUD M e r San Ramon c Oakdale e Feather R. Middle Fork d DON PEDRO RESERVOIR Alameda LAKE CHABOT R , Sacramento River Modesto I.D. East Bay MUD Salida Riverbank N Lake Oroville TRACY P.U. Turlock I.D. k F ed R SAN FRANCISCO P.U.C. rc F k e ZONE 7 ALAMEDA CO. Central Valley Project via M Hetch Hetchy Reservoir State Water Project via Bethany Res. M Delta-Mendota Canal Castro Valley MODESTO I.D. , Calveras, San Antonio, Crystal Springs and South Bay Aqueduct Feather River Groundwater R San Andreas, Pilarcitos Reservoirs Tuolumne River and Groundwater n SOUTH BAY AQUEDUCT Don Pedro Reservoir i Waterford u Del Valle Reservoir M STATE WATER PROJECT Groundwater q Colma e a r o Zone 7 Alameda Co. c J Hayward e Santa Clara Valley W.D. Modesto d San Bruno n Livermore LAKE MCCLURE R a SAN ANTONIO RES. S North Bay Aqueduct SAN ANDREAS LAKE Ceres , San Francisco P.U.C. Merced I.D. S San Francisco P.U.C. F k LAKE DEL VALLE MERCED RIVER Zone 7 Alameda Co. ALAMEDA CO. W.D. Merced I.D. PILARCITOS LAKE A Old R San Joaquin River San Mateo State Water Project la San Francisco P.U.C. m Hetch Hetchy Reservoir e TURLOCK I.D. Betheny Reservoir d Alameda Creek Watershed a Tuolumne River and REDWOOD CITY P.W.S. C r ALAMEDA CREEK Don Pedro Rersevoir South Bay Aqueduct e Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Fremont e Alameda Co.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folsom50booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This Booklet Was Printed in Cooperation With
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 1 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM This booklet was printed in cooperation with Folsom50Booklet 2 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Folsom50Booklet 3 5/10/2006, 10:22 AM Dedication I am pleased to offer my congratulations as Folsom Dam celebrates its 50th Anniversary. For half a century, through drought and flood, Folsom Dam has managed American River flows for the benefit of people, farms, industry, and the environment. Since its completion in 1956, it has effectively controlled flooding. Even several months before its final William E. Rinne completion, Folsom Dam prevented flood Acting Commissioner damage when a major tropical storm Bureau of Reclamation triggered rapid snowmelt. The dam impounded so much runoff that Folsom Lake filled in one week rather than the one year anticipated by engineers. It is estimated that this magnificent dam has prevented more than $5 billion in flood damage to downstream agricultural and urban areas, a testament to the foresight of the men and women who envisioned and built it. Today, Folsom Dam provides 500,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation and urban uses annually. It plays an important role in fisheries enhancement and water quality improvement in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The dam also provides clean, renewable electricity. In 2005, it produced more than 690 million kilowatt hours. As a recreational facility, Folsom Lake is one of the most visited recreation areas operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Madera Subbasin
    MADERA SUBBASIN Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) First Annual Report Prepared by Davids Engineering, Inc Luhdorff & Scalmanini ERA Economics April 2020 DRAFT Madera Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act First Annual Report April 2020 Prepared For Madera Subbasin Prepared By Davids Engineering, Inc Luhdorff & Scalmanini ERA Economics Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... iii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary (§356.2.a) .................................................................................................. 2 Groundwater Elevations (§356.2.b.1) ........................................................................................ 6 Groundwater Level Monitoring .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • KEY to ENDSHEET MAP (Continued)
    KEY TO ENDSHEET MAP (continued) RESERVOIRS AND LAKES (AUTHORIZED) 181.Butler Valley Res. 185. Dixie Refuge Res. 189. County Line Res. 182.Knights Valley Res. 186. Abbey Bridge Res. 190. Buchanan Res. 183.Lakeport Res. 187. Marysville Res. 191. Hidden Res. 184.Indian Valley Res. 188. Sugar Pine Res. 192. ButtesRes. RESERVOIRS AND LAKES 51BLE FUTURE) 193.Helena Res. 207. Sites-Funks Res. 221. Owen Mountain Res. 194.Schneiders Bar Res. 208. Ranchería Res. 222. Yokohl Res. 195.Eltapom Res. 209. Newville-Paskenta Res. 223. Hungry Hollow Res. 196. New Rugh Res. 210. Tehama Res. 224. Kellogg Res. 197.Anderson Ford Res. 211. Dutch Gulch Res. 225. Los Banos Res. 198.Dinsmore Res. 212. Allen Camp Res. 226. Jack Res. 199. English Ridge Res. 213. Millville Res. 227. Santa Rita Res. 200.Dos Rios Res. 214. Tuscan Buttes Res. 228. Sunflower Res. 201.Yellowjacket Res. 215. Aukum Res. 229. Lompoc Res. 202.Cahto Res. 216. Nashville Res. 230. Cold Springs Res. 203.Panther Res. 217. Irish Hill Res. 231. Topatopa Res. 204.Walker Res. 218. Cooperstown Res. 232. Fallbrook Res. 205.Blue Ridge Res. 219. Figarden Res. 233. De Luz Res. 206.Oat Res. 220. Little Dry Creek Res. AQUEDUCTS AND TUNNELS (EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Clear Creek Tunnel 12. South Bay Aqueduct 23. Los Angeles Aqueduct 1. Whiskeytown-Keswick 13. Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct 24. South Coast Conduit 2.Tunnel 14. Delta Mendota Canal 25. Colorado River Aqueduct 3. Bella Vista Conduit 15. California Aqueduct 26. San Diego Aqueduct 4.Muletown Conduit 16. Pleasant Valley Canal 27. Coachella Canal 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California
    Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model.
    [Show full text]
  • System Reoperation Study
    System Reoperation Study Phase III Report: Assessment of Reoperation Strategies California Department of Water Resources August 2017 System Reoperation Study Phase III Report This page is intentionally left blank. August 2017 | 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.1 Study Authorization ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 -2 1.3 Planning Principles .....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.4 Related Studies and Programs...................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.5 Uncertainties in Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5.1 Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • 3A.12 Parks and Recreation - Land
    3A.12 PARKS AND RECREATION - LAND The two local roadway connections from the Folsom Heights property off-site into El Dorado Hills would not generate direct increases in population that could result in additional demand for parkland facilities in El Dorado County. Therefore, the “Affected Environment” does not contain a discussion of conditions in El Dorado County related to parks and recreation. 3A.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT Folsom Lake Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA), located approximately 5 miles north of the SPA, serves the greater Sacramento area for recreation in the form of camping, hiking, biking, boating, and other outdoor recreation activities. The lake also hosts bass fishing tournaments that frequently draw fishermen from throughout the state. California State Parks manages the Folsom Lake SRA, which includes Folsom Lake and the surrounding facilities. The lake features approximately 75 miles of shoreline and 80 miles of trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, nature studies, camping, and picnicking. There are seven major recreation areas with facilities located around the lake. The Folsom Lake SRA, including Folsom Lake, is one of the most heavily used recreational facilities in the California State Park system, with 2 to 3 million visitor days per year. Approximately 75% of the annual visitations to the Folsom Lake SRA occur during the spring and summer, and many (85%) of the Folsom Lake SRA activities are water dependent. The Lake Natoma sub-unit of the Folsom Lake SRA is located adjacent to the City of Folsom, between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Dam, upstream from the Sacramento County-operated portion of the American River Parkway.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The
    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______
    René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ March 22, 2013 Sent to: [email protected] and [email protected] Penelope Shibley, District Planner cc: Ara Marderosian Kern River Ranger District Georgette Theotig P.O. Box 9, 105 Whitney Road Kernville, CA 93238 Subject: Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA Comments for Sequoia ForestKeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club Ms. Shibley, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA. Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC) are generally supportive of efforts to close or restore areas damaged by OHVs to avert erosion, to deter illegal uses, to protect natural resources, and to reduce user conflict with non-motorized uses. Purpose and Scope of the Project The Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project would implement the closure and restoration of non-system routes within four recreation sites, relocate and restore campsites located within a recreation site (Evans Flat), and reroute portions of two OHV trails; one mile of the Woodward Peak Trail (Trail #32E53) and two miles of the Kern Canyon Trail (Trail #31E75). Three of the four recreation sites (Black Gulch North, Black Gulch South and China Garden) and one of the OHV trails (Kern Canyon Trail #31E75) are located in the Lower Kern Canyon. The fourth recreation site and the second OHV trail (Woodward Peak Trail #32E53) are located within the Greenhorn Mountains near Evans Flat Campground.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento and Feather Rivers and Their Tributaries, Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass
    Section 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY Stakeholders Cooperate to ReduceCalifornia Diazinon in Runoff from Dormant Season Spray Widespread use of the organophosphate (OP) pesticides diazinon Waterbodies Improved and chlorpyrifos in California’s Central Valley resulted in aquatic toxicity in the Sacramento and Feather rivers and their tributaries, Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass. As a result, in 1994 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CV-RWQCB) added a 16-mile segment of the Sacramento River, a 42-mile segment of the Feather River, the 1.7-mile-long Sacramento Slough, and the 19-mile-long Sutter Bypass to the CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters. In 2001, the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP) developed and implemented a water quality management strategy for the two rivers, which included installing on-site best management practices (BMPs). Diazinon concentrations decreased, prompting CV-RWQCB to remove Sacramento Slough and Sutter Bypass from the CWA section 303(d) list in 2006. The state has recommended the removal of the Sacramento River and Feather River segments (58 river miles total) from the 2010 CWA section 303(d) list for diazinon impairments. UV162 Figure 1. Problem Map showing The Sacramento River is California’s longest river, Orchards locations of flowing from Mt. Shasta to the confluence with the Sacramento San Joaquin River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin and Feather UV45 Delta. The Feather River is the primary tributary to h rivers g l o u C S and their the Sacramento River (Figure 1). The Sutter Bypass o Colusa k r l e tributaries, u c i v is a floodwater bypass that diverts excess water a R s J a b Sutter from the Sacramento River between two large a Sutter u Y S 30 u UV B S Co.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District
    Environmental Assessment Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District EA-12-069 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. EA-12-069 Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Relevant Legal and Statutory Authorities........................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Warren Act .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Reclamation Project Act ......................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Central Valley Project Improvement Act ..............................................................
    [Show full text]