FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION UPDATE KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Prepared for: KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 2016 Fugro Job No. 04.62130123
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
5855 Capistrano Avenue, Suite C Atascadero, California 93422 Tel: (805) 468-6060 January 29, 2016 Fax: (805) 468-6059 Project No.04.62130123 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Post Office Box 1247 Visalia, CA 93279 Attention: Mr. Larry Dotson, Senior Engineer Subject: Water Resources Investigation Update, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, Final Report Dear Mr. Dotson: Fugro is pleased to submit this Final Report of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (District), which updates the earlier Water Resources Investigation from the base period of 1981 to 1999 through the study period of 1981 to 2012. It has been a pleasure and a challenge to incorporate the updated data from the original investigation through 2012, which we know is of utmost importance to the District and its constituents as a valuable planning tool. We will remain available at your convenience to discuss this report or to answer any questions. Sincerely, FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
Timothy A. Nicely, P.G., CHg. Senior Hydrogeologist (Currently with GSI Water Solutions, Inc.)
Paul A. Sorensen, P.G., CHg
Principal Hydrogeologist
Copies Submitted: (1) Recipient, Adobe PDF file
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... ix ORGANIZATION/BOARD OF DIRECTORS ...... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION, DATA SUMMARY AND STUDY PERIOD DEFINITION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ...... 1 1.3 Description of the District ...... 2 1.3.1 General Features ...... 2 1.3.2 Changes Since 1999 ...... 2 1.3.3 Delineation of Hydrologic Units ...... 3 1.4 Basic Data ...... 6 1.4.1 Data Management and Format ...... 6 1.4.2 Water Level Data ...... 8 1.4.3 Precipitation Data ...... 8 1.4.4 Local Surface Water Data ...... 9 1.4.5 Imported Surface Water Data ...... 9 1.4.6 Artificial Recharge ...... 9 1.4.7 Municipal and Community Water Demand ...... 13 1.4.8 Wastewater Data ...... 14 1.5 Hydrologic Study Period ...... 16 1.5.1 Introduction ...... 16 1.5.2 Data Review ...... 16 1.5.3 Hydrologic Study Period Characteristics ...... 17 1.6 Limitations ...... 18 2.0 GEOHYDROLOGY ...... 18 2.1 Background ...... 18 2.2 Purpose and Scope ...... 18 2.3 Availability of Data ...... 19 2.4 Water Level Fluctuations ...... 19 2.5 Historical Variations ...... 20 2.5.1 Hydrologic Unit Boundaries ...... 20 2.5.2 Hydrologic Unit No. I ...... 20 2.5.3 Hydrologic Unit No. II ...... 20 2.5.4 Hydrologic Unit No. III ...... 20 2.5.5 Hydrologic Unit No. IV ...... 21 2.5.6 Hydrologic Unit No. V ...... 21 2.5.7 Hydrologic Unit No. VI ...... 21 2.6 Study Period Water Level Conditions ...... 21 2.7 Groundwater Storage Calculations ...... 25 2.8 Subsurface Flow ...... 30
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX iv Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.0 SURFACE WATER ...... 34 3.1 Introduction...... 34 3.2 Change in Calculation Methods ...... 34 3.3 Updated Tables ...... 34 3.4 Water Requirements ...... 34 3.5 Kaweah River Water ...... 35 3.6 St. Johns River System ...... 37 3.7 Lower Kaweah River System ...... 37 3.8 Distributaries and Canal Systems ...... 37 3.9 Central Valley Project (CVP) Water ...... 37 3.10 Tulare Irrigation District Main Canal System ...... 39 3.11 Kings River Water ...... 39 3.12 Conveyance Loss Calculations ...... 40 3.12.1 Background ...... 40 3.12.2 Natural Channels ...... 40 3.12.3 Riparian Diversions ...... 42 3.12.4 Headgate Diversions ...... 44 3.12.5 Constructed Channels ...... 45 3.13 Artificial Recharge ...... 48 3.13.1 General Characteristics ...... 48 3.13.2 Record Data ...... 48 3.13.3 Calculations ...... 48 3.14 Crop Delivery ...... 51 3.15 Surface Water Outflow (Spills) ...... 53 4.0 WATER BALANCE AND SAFE YIELD ...... 55 4.1 Introduction...... 55 4.2 Hydrologic Budget ...... 55 4.2.1 General Statement ...... 55 4.2.2 Components of Inflow ...... 55 4.2.3 Components of Outflow ...... 64 4.3 Groundwater in Storage ...... 88 4.4 Water Balance ...... 88 4.4.1 General Statement ...... 88 4.4.2 Safe Yield ...... 97 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 100 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 101
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX v Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
CONTENTS - CONTINUED
TABLES Page 1. District Hydrologic Units ...... 4 2. Hydrologic Unit Entitlement Holders ...... 5 3. Summary of GIS Data ...... 7 4. Key Precipitation Recording Stations ...... 8 5. Recharge Basin Inventory ...... 11 6. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities ...... 15 7. Summary of Precipitation Data ...... 16 8. Runoff Stations Used for Study Period Analysis ...... 17 9. Summary of Water Level Conditions ...... 23 10. Estimated Annual Change of Groundwater in Storage ...... 26 11. Estimated Total Groundwater in Storage, Selected Years ...... 29 12. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Flow Calculations ...... 31 13. Hydrologic Unit Subsurface Inflow and Outflow Volumes ...... 33 14. Annual Runoff of Kaweah River near Three Rivers for Period 1904 through 2012 ... 36 15. Summary of Kaweah River Water Diversion into Friant-Kern Canal ...... 38 16. District Imported Water ...... 39 17. Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems ..... 41 18. Summary of Riparian Diversions, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems ...... 43 19. Summary of Headgate Diversions ...... 44 20. Summary of Ditch System Conveyance Losses ...... 46 21. Summary of All Delivered Water Conveyance Losses ...... 47 22. Summary of Recharge Basin Inflow ...... 50 23. Summary of Surface Water Crop Delivery Data ...... 52 24. Summary of Spills (in acre-feet) ...... 54 25. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Inflow Volumes ...... 57 26. Summary of Annual Volumes of Deep Percolation of Rainfall ...... 59 27. Summary of Percolation of Irrigation Return Water ...... 61 28. Summary of Wastewater Return Flows ...... 63 29. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Outflow Calculations ...... 65 30. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, District ...... 67 31. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit I ...... 68 32. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit II ...... 69 33. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit III ...... 70 34. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit IV ...... 71 35. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit V ...... 72 36. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit VI ...... 73 37. Summary of Urban Groundwater Pumpage ...... 75 38. Summary of Small Water System Groundwater Demand ...... 77 39. Summary of Rural Domestic Water Demand ...... 78 40. Summary of Dairy Cow Population and Water Use Estimates ...... 79 41 Summary of Dairy Water Demand ...... 81 42. Summary of Groundwater Pumpage for Irrigated Agriculture ...... 83 43. Summary of Estimated Total Groundwater Pumpage ...... 85 44. Summary of Phreatophyte Extractions ...... 87
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX vi Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
45. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Entire District ..... 90 46. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit I 91 47. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit II 92 48. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit III 93 49. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit IV 94 50. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit V 95 51. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Hydrologic Unit VI 96 52 Summary of Comparative Change in Storage ...... 97 53. Practical Rate of Withdrawal Using the Inventory and Specific Yield Methods ...... 99
PLATES Plate Study Area Map ...... 1 Precipitation Stations Location Map ...... 2 Location of Recharge Basins ...... 3 Small Water Systems Location Map ...... 4 Location of Dairies ...... 5 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Composite Data ...... 6 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Visalia Station ...... 7 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Runoff Kaweah River at Three Rivers ...... 8 Comparison of Composite Precipitation and Kaweah River at Three Rivers Runoff ...... 9 Kaweah River Runoff versus Average Annual Composite Precipitation ...... 10 Hydrographs for Selected Wells, Hydrologic Unit Nos. I through VI ...... 11-16 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1952 ...... 17 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1981 ...... 18 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1999 ...... 19 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 2012 ...... 20 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 1999 ...... 21 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 2012 ...... 22 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1981 to 1999 ...... 23 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1981 to 2012 ...... 24 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1992 to 2012 ...... 25 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1999 to 2012 ...... 26 Estimated Change of Groundwater in Storage Entire District ...... 27 Hydrologic Unit No. 1 ...... 28 Hydrologic Unit No. 2 ...... 29 Hydrologic Unit No. 3 ...... 30 Hydrologic Unit No. 4 ...... 31 Hydrologic Unit No. 5 ...... 32 Hydrologic Unit No. 6 ...... 33 Typical Map of Subsurface Flow Calculations ...... 34 Hydrologic Budget Summary Entire District ...... 35 Hydrologic Unit No. 1 ...... 36
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX vii Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
PLATES – CONTINUED Hydrologic Unit No. 2 ...... 37 Hydrologic Unit No. 3 ...... 38 Hydrologic Unit No. 4 ...... 39 Hydrologic Unit No. 5 ...... 40 Hydrologic Unit No. 6 ...... 41 Schematic Diagram of Average Annual Volumes of Inflow and Outflow ...... 42 Practical Rate of Withdrawal Entire District ...... 43 Hydrologic Unit No. 1 ...... 44 Hydrologic Unit No. 2 ...... 45 Hydrologic Unit No. 3 ...... 46 Hydrologic Unit No. 4 ...... 47 Hydrologic Unit No. 5 ...... 48 Hydrologic Unit No. 6 ...... 49
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX viii Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AEG Association of Engineering Geologists B&E Bookman & Edmonston BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management Cal Water California Water Services Company CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CIMIS California Irrigation Management and Information System CVP Federal Central Valley Project District Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District DOGGR Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Research DWR State Department of Water Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute GIS Geographic Information System KHD Kings County Health Department LDC Legacy Data Center MS Microsoft NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region SCE Southern California Edison SSE Soils Suitability Extension SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database SWP State Water Project TEHD Tulare County Environmental Health Department TID Tulare Irrigation District TRC Technical Review Committee TRMA Tulare County Resources Management Agency-Solid Waste Division USGS United States Geological Survey VPWD City of Visalia Public Works Department WRI Water Resources Investigation
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX ix Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
ORGANIZATION
KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Visalia, California
Board of Directors Division 1 – Chris Tantau Division 2 – Mike Shannon Division 3 – Jeff Ritchie Division 4 – Don Mills Division 5 – Stan Gomes
Division 6 – Mark Watte Division 7 – Ron Clark
Mark Larsen General Manager D. Zackary Smith Legal Counsel
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX x Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENERAL This Report of Water Resources Investigation (WRI) of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District presents the results of efforts to investigate and quantify the water resources of the District for the study period of 1981 to 2012. The WRI is an updated technical investigation intended to provide the District, public water agencies, overlying landowners and water users a better understanding of the District by answering questions related to the quantity of groundwater in the District, the hydraulic movement of groundwater through the District, sources and volumes of natural recharge, and trends in water levels. Although this investigation does not address specific planning or water management issues, it provides a valuable tool that the District needs to continue its water resource planning efforts. The District, with a total area of 340,000 acres, has reached a high degree of development, with about 240,000 acres (2012) devoted to a variety of irrigated crops and with approximately 40,000 acres of urbanized area largely in and around the cities of Tulare and Visalia. As of 2012, an average of about 918,500 acre-feet (af) of water per year are delivered for irrigation, municipal and industrial and related uses. Use of water by irrigated agriculture comprises more than 93 percent of the total, or 852,100 acre-feet per year (afy). Irrigation requirements are met from both surface and groundwater sources, while municipal and industrial supplies are obtained solely from groundwater. Usable groundwater is found in water bearing deposits throughout the District in complex aquifer systems. In the easterly part of the District, these systems are largely unconfined or semiconfined. Confined groundwater is found in aquifer systems underlying the westerly portion of the District. Groundwater storage in the unconfined and semiconfined aquifers provides the cyclical regulation of the District’s water supplies, and it is estimated that about 1.8 million af of groundwater storage capacity are being utilized in this function. The most significant subsurface feature in the District affecting the occurrence and movement of groundwater is the Corcoran Clay, a relatively impervious stratum, the eastern edge of which follows generally a north-south line about 2 to 3 miles east of U.S. Highway 99. The Corcoran Clay dips to the west and usable groundwater is found both above and below this stratum. The areas between the easterly edge of the Corcoran Clay and the Rocky Hill fault have been designated as Hydrologic Units II, III, and IV, and groundwater in these units is found in unconfined alluvium and semiconfined continental deposits underlying the alluvium. Groundwater moves generally in a southwesterly direction along the principal axis of the District. Outflow of groundwater from the District occurs to the west from Hydrologic Unit VI. Outflow also occurs from Unit IV to the south. Inflow of groundwater to the District occurs both from the north and from the south into Unit VI in response to a pumping depression in aquifers above the Corcoran Clay. A water budget was calculated for the study period of 1981 to 2012 by assessing the components of inflow and outflow of water within the District, and calculating the change in groundwater storage. The water budget was performed by calculating components of water inflow
ES-1 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) and outflow for each year of the study period for the entire District and for each of the six hydrologic units, and comparing the totals to the annual change in groundwater in storage, as determined by the specific yield method. The hydrologic budget is simply a statement of the balance of total water gains and losses from the District. In very simple terms, the hydrologic budget is summarized by the following equation: Inflow = Outflow (±) Change in Storage where Inflow equals: • Percolation of precipitation, • Streambed percolation and delivered water conveyance losses, • Subsurface inflow, • Percolation of applied irrigation return, • Percolation of wastewater, and • Artificial recharge. And Outflow equals: • Groundwater pumpage, • Subsurface outflow, • Extraction by phreatophytes, and • Exported water. Using the inventory method described above, the sum of all the components of outflow from the entire District exceeded the sum of all the components of inflow by an estimated 60,900 afy, for an accumulated storage depletion of about 1,947,500 af over the study period of 1981 to 2012. Previously, the usable storage was given as approximately 2,500,000 af, which represented the difference between the historic high and low water levels at that time (ending in 1999). Since that time, water levels have declined further reaching a maximum deficit of 1,947,500 af over the 32-year study period. Notably, this average annual overdraft is valid for the study period of 1981 to 2012, which does not represent a balanced base period. The current study period includes significantly more dry years than wet years than did the original WRI, and so overemphasizes the estimated overdraft. Water supply surpluses have occurred in the early 1980s (1982 and 1983), 1990s (1993, 1995 to 1998), 2000s (2005 and 2006) and early 2010s (2010 and 2011). During these periods, seasonal surpluses of greater than 700,000 afy occurred. However, deficiencies were apparent during the late 1980s, between most of 1999 and 2009, then again in 2012. The periods of water supply surplus and deficiency are generally consistent with the seasonal and cyclic pattern of precipitation and surface water supply that occurred during the period. For the District as a whole, irrigation water return flow (deep percolation of irrigation water) was the greatest component of inflow (37 percent), followed by streambed percolation and conveyance loss at about 31 percent and percolation of precipitation at 12 percent. The safe or perennial yield of the District is estimated in this Report. It is defined as the volume of groundwater that can be pumped year after year without producing an undesirable result. Any withdrawal in excess of safe yield is considered overdraft. The “undesired results” are
ES-2 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) recognized to include not only the depletion of groundwater reserves, but also deterioration in water quality, unreasonable and uneconomic pumping lifts, creation of conflicts in water rights, land subsidence, and depletion of streamflow by induced infiltration. It should be recognized that the concepts of safe yield and overdraft imply conditions of water supply and use over a long-term period. Given the importance of the conjunctive use of both surface water and groundwater in the District, short-term water supply differences are satisfied by groundwater pumpage, which in any given year, often exceeds the safe yield of the District and individual hydrologic units. During the study period of 1981 to 2012, the safe yield was approximately 570,000 afy as calculated by the specific yield method. Under the current conditions of development and water supply, the District as a whole is in a severe overdraft. The magnitude of the overdraft is in the range of about 60,900 to 75,100 afy (as calculated by the specific yield method versus the inventory method), and occurs predominantly in the west side of the District. To the extent that groundwater is exported out of the District from Hydrologic Unit No. VI, this overdraft would increase. The present overdraft in the District is compared to earlier work of Bookman-Edmonston Engineering (B&E, 1972). The overdraft is manifested as a progressive lowering of water levels and such declining water levels are most evident in Hydrologic Unit No. VI. Generally, the average decline in water levels in this area have been about 4 feet per year during the dry period between 1999 and 2012, but this varies widely depending on location, seasonal imbalances in water supply (i.e., wet versus dry cycles within the study period), and where pumping (well fields) is concentrated. The rate of decline in this area is similar to what was observed by B&E (1972), but was not as severe as predicted which was expected to increase to about 10 feet per year, on average. The magnitude of the overdraft by B&E (1972) was considerably greater under future (ultimate) conditions of development, and was estimated at about 110,000 afy. Of this amount, 104,000 afy was predicted to occur in Hydrologic Unit No. VI alone.
ES-3 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
1.0 INTRODUCTION, DATA SUMMARY AND STUDY PERIOD DEFINITION 1.1 BACKGROUND The water resources of the District have been the focus of numerous studies and reports over the last 60 years. Many of the earliest reports were prepared with emphasis on supplemental water requirements for the District related to surface water flows and diversions. A study which evaluated the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in the District was conducted by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering (B-E) in the early 1970s (B-E, 1972). A Water Resources Investigation (WRI) of the surface water and groundwater resources of the District was also conducted by Fugro in the early 2000s and represents the most comprehensive study to date (Fugro, 2003). The project team for the WRI was Fugro West, Inc., Keller/Wegley Consulting Engineers, Inc., Peter Canessa, P.E., and District staff (Larry Dotson, P.E.). The base period of the original WRI was 1981 to 1999. Interim reports were prepared for each task and the major findings of the tasks were documented in a final report submitted to the District in December 2003 and modified during 2007 (Fugro, 2007). The purpose of the WRI was to prepare a comprehensive review of the hydrogeologic conditions of the groundwater basin. The WRI for the base period between 1981 and 1999 concluded that the safe yield of the District was 575,000 acre-feet per year (afy) under the existing conditions of the base period for that study (1981 to 1999). Average total inflow during that period was estimated to be 615,700 afy. Average annual groundwater pumping in the District was approximately 611,000 afy. Groundwater basin overdraft is manifested as a progressive decline of groundwater levels on the west side of the District. Fugro estimated that the volume of the basin overdraft was 21,700 to 36,000 afy during the base period from 1981 to 1999 (Fugro, 2007). 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of the present work was to update the WRI by extending beyond the end of the base period through calendar year 2012. The entire period considered for this report is between calendar years 1981 and 2012, which is referred to as the “study period.” The effort involved to update the WRI was divided into the following tasks: • Task 1 involved the collection, compilation, and review of available data from calendar year 2000 to 2012, and updating/revision of some data from 1981 to 1999; • Task 2 involved an analysis of groundwater level conditions and storage changes in the District from 2000 to 2012; • Task 3 involved the updated estimation of a hydrologic balance for the District using the inventory method from 2000 to 2012 (calendar year basis); and • Task 4 involved the estimation of an updated basin safe yield and the preparation of this final report documenting the findings of the WRI update. The purpose of Task 1 was to collect, compile, and review the available data from 2000 to 2012 (and to some extent for 1981 to 1999) to be used in subsequent tasks to update the quantification of water supply and demand in the District. The data collected in this task forms the foundation for all ensuing efforts. Data considered for collection and evaluation in Task 1 included: • Artificial recharge,
1 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
• Water level data, • Precipitation data, • Municipal and community water demand, • Local surface water data, • Rural water demand, • Imported surface water data, and • Wastewater data. Other data related to land use, agricultural water demand, irrigation water percolation, and rainfall percolation for 2000 to 2012 were compiled and evaluated as part of a study by Davids Engineering (2013), results of which are discussed and incorporated in the hydrologic balance in Section 3. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT 1.3.1 General Features The District was formed in 1927 under provisions of the Water Conservation Act of 1927 for the purpose of conserving and storing water of the Kaweah River and of conserving and protecting the underground waters of the Kaweah Delta. The District is located in the south- central portion of the San Joaquin Valley of California and, as shown on Plate 1 – Study Area Map, lies both in Tulare and in Kings County. The total area of the District is about 340,000 acres, with approximately 255,000 acres located in the westerly portion of Tulare County and the balance in the northeasterly corner of Kings County. Additional description of the District study area is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 1.3.2 Changes Since 1999 Although agricultural land use in the District has for many years been at or near ultimate development, there have been some changes in the District since 1999 related to agricultural practices and ongoing urbanization and growth within the cities of Visalia and Tulare, resulting in changes in the use and deliveries of surface and groundwater. The District’s Annual Groundwater Management Plan reports are published near the end of each year and present a summary of some of the changes that have occurred. Specifically, the Plan reports present the state of the groundwater monitoring program, resource protection including the development of well ordinances to protect groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, stakeholder involvement, and planning efforts. Noticeable changes in land use have accelerated since approximately 2005 with the growth of urban areas and shifting of agricultural lands to multiple cropping and conversion to permanent crops. These land use changes require greater amounts of consumptive use and may correlate to the lowering of groundwater levels and overdraft on the west side of the District. The enlargement of Lake Kaweah, completed in 2004, has increased available storage for flood protection and agricultural water management. The gains accomplished by the project in retaining more surface water within the District have not realized its maximum benefit to the groundwater supply due to land changes that require higher water demands. The nine precipitation stations from which data were used in the prior Fugro WRI were active through water year 2012, with the exception of the precipitation station in Porterville, which was discontinued in 2004.
2 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The trend of deliveries of imported water over the last 12 years is generally downward, associated with availability of local surface water (Kaweah River) sources. A tabulation of imported water data was provided by District staff in an electronic format similar to the prior WRI. On the west side of the District, in Hydrologic Unit VI, groundwater pumpage has increased related to the recent intensification of agriculture in the Tulare Lakebed area. Recently, the two wet years 2005 and 2010 within the current dry period have each correlated increased surface water deliveries and associated rises in groundwater levels. Considerable urbanization has occurred in the District since 1999 in the urban areas of Tulare County, principally the cities of Visalia and Tulare. Specifically, the cities of Visalia and Tulare have expanded towards each other and generally to the west. To a lesser degree, Farmersville and Exeter have expanded slightly. The implications of the urbanization were evaluated as part of the updated WRI as it affects groundwater use and disposal. The total number of dairy cows in the District peaked in 2010, when cow populations had risen by 50 percent during the prior 10 years and 125 percent in the prior 20 years. Correspondingly, water use associated with dairy operations has increased. The impacts of these changes on groundwater levels, along with crop water analyses for silage feed were accounted for in this WRI update. We understand that there have been no significant lining of canals, ditches, or other distributaries and/or changes to riparian rights in the District since 1999. Since 2000, the District continues to support various resource management programs including: a water enhancement program with the City of Visalia (2001), well ordinances to help protect groundwater quality (2007), and an educational program on well construction, maintenance, and destruction methods (2007). The District also continues to be involved with updates to the County of Tulare General Plan, and has developed a numerical groundwater flow model for the District (Fugro, 2005) for application to overall ground and surface water management strategies. The numerical groundwater flow model was expanded to cover a larger area generally eastward to include the city of Lindsay and surrounding area in 2012. 1.3.3 Delineation of Hydrologic Units 1.3.3.1 Boundaries As in previous studies of the District’s water resources, the District has been divided into six analytical areas designated “hydrologic units.” The boundaries of each are specifically shown on Plate 1 and other plates of this report and summarized in Table 1 – District Hydrologic Units.
3 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 1. District Hydrologic Units
Hydrologic Unit General Geographic Designation Area in Acres
I Eastern 16,250 II St. Johns 49,503 III Visalia 35,457 IV Outside Creek 73,818 V Tulare 81,679 VI Western 83,334 Total: 340,051 Accurate: June 9, 2014
For the most part, the delineation of the six hydrologic unit boundaries are coincident with the service areas of the entitlement holders, a summary of which is provided on Table 2 – Hydrologic Unit Entitlement Holders. The total acreage shown in Table 2, 356,714 acres, is greater than the actual District area of 340,000 acres due to overlap of entitlement holder areas. No changes in the hydrologic unit boundaries or entitlement holder service areas have occurred since 2000. Detailed descriptions of each Hydrologic Unit are provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007).
4 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 2. Hydrologic Unit Entitlement Holders
Hydrologic Service Area Data Unit No. Entitlement Holder Area (acres)
I Exeter Irrigation District 565 (Eastern) Hamilton Ditch Canal 348 Ivanhoe Irrigation District 190 Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District 1,043 Longs Canal Area 948 Sweeney Ditch Area 509 Tulare Irrigation Company 371 Unincorporated 11,430 Wutchumna Water Company 930 Unit I Total: 16,334 II Alta Irrigation District 2,045 (St. Johns) Goshen Ditch Canal 5,553 Mathews Ditch Canal 1,824 Modoc Ditch Canal 6,245 St. Johns Water District 13,300 Unincorporated 27,025 Uphill Ditch Canal 1,812 Wutchumna Water Company 319 Unit II Total: 58,123 III Evans Ditch Canal 3,975 (Visalia) Fleming Ditch Canal 1,635 Modoc Ditch Canal 214 Oakes Ditch Canal 790 Persian Ditch Canal 6,237 Tulare Irrigation Company 4,447 Unincorporated 19,177 Watson Ditch Canal 3,308 Unit III Total: 39,783 IV Consolidated Peoples Ditch Canal 15,635 (Outside Creek) Elk Bayou Ditch Canal 7,467 Exeter Irrigation District 800 Farmers Ditch Canal 12,329 Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District 111 Oakes Ditch Canal 309 Tulare Irrigation District 420 Tulare Irrigation Company 1,529 Unincorporated 36,004 Unit IV Total: 74,604 V El Bayou Ditch Canal 1,825 (Tulare) Evans Ditch Canal 377 Tulare Irrigation District 69,732 Tulare Irrigation Company 1,527 Unincorporated 10,953 Unit V Total: 84,414 VI Alta Irrigation District 510 (Western) Corcoran Irrigation District 10,220 Kings County Water District 24,821 Lakeside Irrigation Water District 32,147 Melga Water District 3,298 Salyer Water District 3,678 Unincorporated 8,782 Unit VI Total: 83,456 Total Acres 356,714 Accurate: June 9, 2014
5 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
1.4 BASIC DATA 1.4.1 Data Management and Format The initial efforts of this study concentrated on the collection, compilation, and review of available data. As mentioned previously, the kinds of data collected and evaluated include: • Artificial recharge, • Water level data, • Precipitation Data, • Municipal and community water demand, • Local surface water data, • Rural water demand, • Imported surface water data, and • Wastewater data. Much of the data listed above were available and compiled in electronic tabular form. These electronic data sets were collected from various sources, including: Department of Water Resources (DWR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tulare County, Kings County, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Water Service, and each of the communities within the District. Groundwater level data obtained from the DWR, and most sources of data, such as stream flow and precipitation data were in a spreadsheet (MS Excel) format. Existing databases were updated and expanded as new data were collected. Additional data for calendar years 2000 to 2012 related to land use, consumptive use, irrigation recharge, and precipitation recharge were collected by Davids Engineering (2013). To manage the types of data listed above, geospatial data from numerous sources were compiled for inclusion in a GIS database. All geographic data were re-projected as necessary to a common system. The coordinate system chosen for this project was State plane, California Zone IV, NAD83, feet. This coordinate system facilitates a simplified exchange of data. As needed, data were converted from native formats (AutoCAD, Excel, text, coverage) to ArcGIS shape files. Table 3 – Summary of GIS Data, presents the data that was included in the database for production of maps, tabulation and calculation throughout the investigation. The extents of the urban areas were updated for the WRI Update to reflect urbanization which has occurred during the past decade, principally in Visalia and Tulare. The locations of precipitation stations and associated data were acquired from California DWR’s Data Exchange Center (CDEC) and converted to GIS data. Additional precipitation data were compiled as GIS data by the USGS and distributed by the California Geospatial Information Library.
6 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 3. Summary of GIS Data
Updated Theme Source Scale 2012
County Boundary USGS 1:100,000 No Land Use* DWR / TID 1:24,000 No District Boundary KDWCD Unknown No Urban Areas ESRI Varies Yes Roads ESRI Varies Yes Water Features (arc) USGS 1:100,000 No Water Features (poly) USGS 1:100,000 No Soils (STATSGO) NRCS 1:250,000 No Soil Survey Geographic database NRCS 1:24,000 No (SSURGO) Precipitation NOAA Unknown Yes Precipitation Stations Fugro 1:1,000,000 No Well Sites CA DWR Unknown Yes Wildcat Sites Fugro Unknown No Aerial Imagery CA DWR/Fugro N/A No Groundwater Basins CA DWR 1:250,000 No Cal Water Watersheds CA DWR 1:24,000 No Hydrologic Units Fugro 1:220,000 No Public Land Survey (sec) CA DWR 1:100,000 No Public Land Survey (t/r) Fugro 1:100,000 No Elevation USGS/Fugro 1:24,000 No Topographic Map USGS 1:100,000 No Topographic Map USGS 1:250,000 No Bovine Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Poultry Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Goat Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Swine Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Tulare County Dairy Operations Unknown Yes and RWQCB Kings County Dairy Operations N/A Yes and RWQCB Land use data available by county for several years NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TIGER: United States Census Bureau TIGER file NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service UPDATED June 9, 2014
7 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
1.4.2 Water Level Data The sources and compilation of water level data are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Adequate spatial distribution of Spring-period groundwater measurements from 2000 to 2012 in the District were generated by combining water level databases from DWR and the District. An adequate spatial distribution of Fall-period groundwater measurements within the District was available through 2012 and were based on both District and DWR records. Spring-period water level maps were constructed for each year from 2000 to 2012 and used in the specific yield method to estimate annual groundwater storage changes in each hydrologic unit and in the entire District. The DWR and District databases are the primary sources of information for water levels in the basin and were used to generate hydrographs at select locations from the 1940’s to 2012. Water level contour maps have been obtained from DWR for most years from 1981 to 2012, as available as well as several prior periods including 1952, the earliest available period in this format. The contour maps were used to generate maps displaying changes in water levels over particular periods within the 1981 to 2012 study period (e.g., from 1992 to 2012). A complete analysis of groundwater level and storage changes over the study period is provided in Section 2 of this report. 1.4.3 Precipitation Data Precipitation data were obtained by download from the CDEC website database. Monthly precipitation totals were obtained for eight gauging stations located in Tulare and Kings Counties. Information describing each of the eight stations is presented in Table 4 – Key Precipitation Recording Stations, and six of the eight station locations are shown approximately on Plate 2 – Precipitation Stations Location Map.
Table 4. Key Precipitation Recording Stations
Year Elevation Average Station Station Township/Range/ End of Years of Record (feet, 1981-2012 No. Name Section Record Record Began MSL)
43747 Hanford 1 S T18S/R21E-S31 1931 2012 76 242 8.60 42012 Corcoran Irrig. Dist. T21S/R22E-S15 1945 2012 62 200 7.16 49367 Visalia T18S/R25E-S30 1905 2012 130 325 10.46 44957 Lindsay T20S/R27E-S9 1931 2012 76 420 11.94 44890 Lemon Cove T18S/R27E-S3 1931 2012 46 513 14.50 48917 Three Rivers Edison T17S/R29E-S8 1948-1951 23.50 2012 59 1,140 PH 1 1972 40343 Ash Mountain T17S/R29E-S32 1931 2012 76 5,602 25.73 45026 Lodgepole T15S/R30E-S21 1969 2012 38 6,735 44.12 Updated June 19, 2014
Each of the eight precipitation stations contain measurement records dating back to at latest 1969 (Table 4). Monthly precipitation data was compiled from the CDEC for each station from 2000 to 2012. The annual precipitation totals from the six of the eight stations were also used for a cumulative departure analysis to provide context for the representativeness of the
8 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) period from 1981 to 2012 as the study period for the updated WRI. However, it should be noted that the current 1981 to 2012 study period is intended to provide an up-to-date Water Resources Inventory for the District and is not meant to represent an ideal study period. As shown on Plate 2, there are six stations in and surrounding the study area with significant periods of record. The two other stations are located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of the District. A review of the precipitation data from 2000 to 2012 for the eight stations indicates that the overall dataset is adequate for the purposes of the updated WRI. Although only the Visalia station is within the boundaries of the District, the remaining precipitation stations are sufficiently dispersed geographically to evaluate precipitation patterns, spatially and temporally, over the Basin area. 1.4.4 Local Surface Water Data Surface water impacting the District generated on a local basis includes the Kaweah River, Dry Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Mehrten Creek, Yokohl Creek, and Lewis Creek. Sources of data for each of these rivers and creeks include the Kaweah and St. Johns River Association, the Consolidated Peoples Ditch Company, USACE and the USGS. The Kaweah and St. Johns River Association collect data on a daily basis for the Kaweah River, Dry Creek, and Yokohl Creek. This information is tabulated on a daily basis and since the late 1990s has been tabulated in an electronic database. Annual reports are published by the Association, which are continually in the process of being updated. District staff compiled the data, which was used to calculate various surface water delivery data for the hydrologic budget analysis. 1.4.5 Imported Surface Water Data Supplemental sources of water supply have been imported to the District since its inception. Deliveries to lands within the current boundaries of the District started in the late 1800s and were made available from the Kings River. An additional source of supplemental supply to lands located within the District in the early 1950s was made available from the CVP, taking the form of both long-term and short-term contract supplies. With the advent of the termination of short-term contracting procedures, supplemental supplies, in addition to the long-term CVP supplies, have been made available through the vehicle of temporary contracts. Groundwater use in the District is directly affected by the availability and delivery of surface water to lands within the service area of the State Water Project (SWP). Supplies made available from the Kings River impact the north, northwestern, and westerly areas of the District, and portions of the Kings Basin and Tulare Lake Basin, which overlie the District boundaries, as presented on Plate 1. Additional descriptions of imported surface water data sources were provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Adequate data sources were available to break down deliveries of imported water by hydrologic unit for each year. Tabulation of imported water from both contract and supplemental sources was accomplished in a format consistent with that utilized for the prior WRI. The compilation and breakdown of this information is provided in Section 3. 1.4.6 Artificial Recharge For many decades the District has operated groundwater recharge basins for purposes of augmenting its water supply. Information on the history of development, operation, size, location,
9 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) approximate diversions, maintenance, and other features of each recharge basin were obtained from the District and described in the original WRI (Fugro, 2007). A summary of the characteristics of each recharge basin is presented in Table 5 – Recharge Basin Inventory (2012) and a map of their locations is provided on Plate 3 – Locations of Recharge Basins.
10 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 5. Recharge Basin Inventory (2012)
Approximate Location Hydraulic Date of Capacity Rate of No. Name (Township-Range- Supply Acreage Unit No. Purchase (af) Percolation Section) (af per day)
99 Peoples I 18-26-14 Lower Kaweah River 1999 N/A N/A N/A 105 Hannah Ranch I 18-27-07 Lower Kaweah River 2001 N/A N/A N/A 107 Curtis I 18-27-06 Lower Kaweah River 2001 N/A N/A N/A 5 Willow School II 18-24-14 Modoc Ditch 1958 50 200 25 22 Shannon-Modoc (CPC) II 18-24-13 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1959 10 50 4 28 Doe-Goshen II 18-24-09 Goshen Ditch Lease: 1962 20 80 10 30 Harrell II 17-24-34 Harrell No. 1 Lease: 1963 50 200 40 9 Goshen II 18-24-18 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1955 40 160 10 26 Doe-Ritchie II 18-24-21 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1961 20 80 10 43 Oakes III 19-25-25 Lower Kaweah River 1997 23 36 23 4 Packwood III 18-23-03 South Mill Creek 1940 160 800 35 13 Nelson Pit III 19-24-09 Evans Ditch 1950 34 340 14 31 Hammer IV 19-25-02 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Lease: 1965 3 6 1 32 Bill Clark IV 19-25-11 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Lease 2 5 1 44 Hutcheson West IV 18-25-36 TID Canal 1999 N/A N/A N/A 45 Hutcheson East IV 18-25-36 Cameron Creek 1999 N/A N/A N/A 108 Paregien IV 18-26-32 Deep Creek 2001 N/A N/A N/A 1 Art Shannon IV 19-25-23 Farmers Ditch 1969 22 180 20 7 Gary Shannon IV 19-25-32 Farmers Ditch 1969 5 30 4 21 Gordon Shannon IV 19-25-34 Farmers Ditch 1962 47 95 6 24 Anderson IV 20-25-17 Farmers Ditch 1960 147 600 20 27 Ellis IV 20-25-16 Farmers Ditch Lease: 1962 3 30 4
11 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 5. Recharge Basin Inventory (2012) – Continued
Approximate Location Hydraulic Date of Capacity Rate of No. Name (Township-Range- Supply Acreage Unit No. Purchase (af) Percolation Section) (af per day)
29 Nunes IV 20-25-03 Farmers Ditch 1963 40 250 30 95 Sunset IV 20-25-01 Inside Creek 1973 103 320 60 106 Elk Bayou IV 20-24-36 Elk Bayou Creek Lease: 2001 6 22 3 16 Creamline V 19-25-20 TID Canal 1972 153 535 85 3 Colpien V 19-23-22 Tulare Canal 1940 160 640 60 6 Machado V 19-23-35 Packwood Creek 1942 166 665 80 11 Tagus V 19-24-15 Packwood Creek 1949 80 800 150 14 Abercrombie V 20-24-23 Tulare Canal 1953 20 80 5 2 Enterprise V 19-24-29 Tulare Canal 1940 20 100 8 8 Corcoran Hwy. V 20-23-10 Packwood Creek 1945 120 480 40 17 Franks V 20-23-06 Tulare Canal 1957 40 160 6 18 Guinn V 20-23-30 Tulare Canal 1957 168 675 25 19 Franks V 20-23-06 Tulare Canal 1958 130 520 16 20 Wilbur V 20-23-34 Tulare Canal 1959 20 90 10 25 Doris V 21-23-06 Cameron Creek 1962 15 60 7 10 Lakeside VI 19-22-10 Lakeside Ditch 1946 187 800 150 23 Green VI 19-22-21 Lakeside Ditch 1960 4 15 1 15 Howe VI 20-22-07 Lakeside Ditch 1954 53 210 15
Total Basin Area: 2,133 9,499 983
Other Basins 1 Lakeside VI 18-22-35 Lakeside Ditch 320 1,100 60 2 Lakeside VI 20-21-01 Lakeside Ditch 64 180 30 1-3 Corcoran 1,2,3 VI 20-22-21,28,35 Cross Creek 2,400 9,000 200
12 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The District presently operates about 40 recharge basins with a combined area of about 2,100 acres. Recharge basins in the District serve to supplement natural replacement to the groundwater reservoir. Although the source of supply to each recharge basin is variable from year to year, the approximate quantities of artificial recharge were tabulated for each year from 2000 to 2012 for each hydrologic unit. Tabulation and accounting of inflows was a function of the accuracy of data relating to the number of days per year of wetted area in each basin and the hydraulic conductivity or percolation capacity of the basin, typically expressed in units of gallons per day per square foot. The results of the calculations and tabulations are presented in Section 3. Additional discussion of artificial recharge is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 1.4.7 Municipal and Community Water Demand Water demand for municipal and community water systems in the District was available directly from the cities of Tulare, Farmersville, Exeter, Ivanhoe Public Utility District, Corcoran, and the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which services the City of Visalia. Although the City of Exeter lies partially within the District, pumpage from City wells are from outside of the District boundaries. Similarly, the City of Corcoran lies entirely outside of the District and does not produce water from within District boundaries. A portion of the Ivanhoe Public Utility District lies within the District and was included in this analysis. Data pertaining to small community water systems within the District were obtained from the Tulare and Kings County Environmental Health Departments. Most municipal and community consumptive water demand within the District is met through groundwater pumping; thus, the groundwater production data obtained from each purveyor was an important component of the hydrologic budget. Monthly production records were obtained directly from each of the municipal water systems; however, the duration of recorded production data varied with each water system. The most extensive period of record obtained was that of the City of Farmersville, which extended from 1957 to the present. Each of the five municipal water systems pump groundwater located predominantly within the service limits of each respective system. As previously mentioned, the City of Exeter and the Ivanhoe Public Utility District lie partially within the District. The Kings and Tulare County Environmental Health Departments’ lists contain approxi- mately 90 small community water systems within the District. Production data for these systems are generally lacking. The only production data available from these systems are estimates based on permit application information and the number of connections within the system. Although these systems are reportedly required to monitor production and submit regular reports to the Kings and Tulare Environmental Health Department, no records are available. The locations of the 90 small community water systems are shown on Plate 4 – Small Water Systems Location Map. The volume of groundwater pumped by the small community water systems in the District is relatively small, so any data gaps present do not introduce significant errors in the overall hydrogeologic budget Rural Water Demand Rural water demand is the water used by small to large animal farms and residential dwellings in unincorporated parts of the District not served by municipal or small community water
13 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) systems. These users include dairies and non-agricultural ranchette properties scattered throughout the District. Additional discussion of rural water demand is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). A significant portion of the rural water demand is expected to be from the animal farms and dairies located throughout the District. The County and Regional Water Quality Control Board databases show that there are approximately 187 dairies and other animal farms within the District that vary in size and acreage. Plate 6 – Location of Dairies, presents the locations of the dairies located within the District. Calculating water demand for these facilities was accomplished by assessing a water duty factor for each facility based on usage per animal, and for facility operations (i.e., wash down water). Care was taken to ensure that any water used on site is not accounted for in both the facility use and the associated silage irrigation use. Calculation of water demand for the remaining rural needs was based on population estimates and the total number of dwelling units within the District. The number of dwelling units for each hydrologic unit was multiplied by a water duty factor, which accounted for typical interior household use as well as a widely variable exterior water use. Groundwater demand related to the golf courses was evaluated based on land use data and turf consumption use minus estimated return flow figures. For the previous report, operators were contacted to estimate facility water use, the methodology for which was adopted for this update. The resulting demand values were added to the rural demand in Section 3. 1.4.8 Wastewater Data The lead oversight agency responsible for overseeing and regulation and discharge of wastewaters of various origins within the District is the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Central Valley Region (Fresno). The RWQCB was contacted and provided information on the numbers and locations of treated wastewater generation in the District study area. Of particular interest to the subject study was the number of wastewater treatment facilities currently operating within the District. Upon discussion with RWQCB staff, available data sources were identified, and the data downloaded and reviewed. The disposition of municipal wastewater discharged within the District was considered as part of this update and will be discussed later. For 2012, the RWQCB data indicated that a total of 24 facilities within the boundaries of the District were discharging wastewater under RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. The facilities listed range from city treatment facilities, a winery, small industrial, agricultural processing facilities and a slaughterhouse. In addition, nine of these listed facilities reportedly had ongoing active groundwater monitoring programs. Table 6, Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, summarizes the facilities present within the District in 2012.
14 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 6. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Groundwater Monitoring Facility Name Geographic Area Program
CEMEX Lemon Cove WDR American Air Co. Inc. Visalia WDR Coelho Meat Company Tulare WDR Del Monte Food Hanford WDR Exeter Dehydrator Inc Exeter WDR Exeter WWTF Exeter WDR Farmersville WWTF Farmersville WDR Golden State Citrus Packing Woodlake WDR Hanford WWTF Hanford WDR Ivanhoe WWTF Ivanhoe WDR Lemon Cove WWTF Lemon Cove WDR Vita-Pakt Lindsay WDR Lindsay WWTF Lindsay WDR Lobue Brothers Inc Exeter WDR Nichols Pistachio Hanford WDR Sun Pacific Shippers, l.p. Exeter/Woodlake WDR Tule River Cooperative Dryer Woodlake WDR The Wine Group Tulare WDR Tulare WWTF Tulare WDR Sequoia Field WWTF Visalia WDR Linnell Farm Labor Center Farmersville WDR Ventura Coastal Corporation Visalia WDR Vita-Pakt Citrus Product Company Lindsay WDR Woodlake WTF Woodlake WDR Clarklind Farms Tulare Reclamation Requirements Woodlake Sentinel Butte Recycling Woodlake Reclamation Requirements Courtright Lake Lemon Cove Enrollee Lemon Cove/Sequoia Campground Lemon Cove Enrollee Haury Farms Citrus Packing Visalia Enrollee Rush Creek OWTS Exeter Enrollee Smilodon Oil Company Tulare Enrollee Sierra Shadows WWTF Lindsay Enrollee US Army Corps Of Engineers Lake Lemon Cove Enrollee Kaweah Visalia Biosolids (Visalia WWTF) Visalia Enrollee Stores East LP Hanford Enrollee WDR: Waste Discharge Requirements
15 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
1.5 HYDROLOGIC STUDY PERIOD 1.5.1 Introduction A hydrologic base period analysis was not included in this WRI Update. Rather, it was determined from the outset to incorporate data for the 2000 to 2012 period to bring the original WRI up to date with an overall study period of 1981 to 2012. However, the components of a hydrologic study period analysis are presented in this section to provide context for how the 1981 to 1999 base period and 2000 to 2012 study periods fit into the longer-term climatic cycles of wet and dry years. The previous report provided detailed discussion of the various aspects of base period selection (Fugro, 2007). 1.5.2 Data Review Precipitation records for 15 stations in and adjacent the District were reviewed, six of which are shown on Table 7 – Summary of Precipitation Data. Of the 15 precipitation stations, six of these stations were selected as best representing the historical record of precipitation in the area, based both on geographic distribution and period of record. The Ash Mountain and Lodgepole precipitation station are considered to be too far to the east and at an appreciably high elevation to be considered representative of precipitation within the District. The precipitation gauge at Porterville, which was included in the previous report was excluded because it was discontinued in 2004. Precipitation records were obtained from the California DWR’s Data Exchange Center. Graphs showing the cumulative departure from mean precipitation for the six precipitation stations are presented as Plate 6 – Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Composite Data.
Table 7. Summary of Precipitation Data
Average for Range for Average Average Average Township/ Station Elevation Start of Period of Period of Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Range/ Latitude Longitude Name (feet, MSL) Period* Record Record 1981 to 1999 1975 to 2012 1981 to 2012 Section (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
T18S/R21 Hanford 1S 242 36 19’ -119 38’ 1931 8.26 2.45-15.57 8.85 8.56 8.60 E-S31
Corcoran T21S/R22 200 36 06’ -119 35’ 1945 6.89 1.41-13.92 7.63 7.22 7.16 Irrig. Dist. E-S15 T18S/R25 Visalia 325 36 2’ -119 18’ 1905 9.98 4.10-22.75 11.22 10.40 10.46 E-S30 T20S/R27 Lindsay 420 36 12’ -119 03’ 1931 11.82 4.03-23.33 12.69 11.96 11.94 E-S9 T18S/R27 Lemon Cove 513 36 23’ -119 02’ 1931 14.15 5.99-25.67 15.08 14.34 14.50 E-S3
(1948- Three Rivers T17S/R29 1,140 36 28’ -118 52’ 1951) 22.83 11.15-50.87 26.14 23.05 23.50 Edison PH 1 E-S8 1972 Updated June 9, 2014
Mean precipitation and cumulative departure from mean precipitation for the six representative precipitation stations were analyzed using data from calendar years 1975 through 2012. Where precipitation data gaps existed in the historical record, estimates were used, using linear regression analysis on data between precipitation stations.
16 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The Visalia station has the longest continuous period of record in the District and is appropriate to choose as the reference record (refer to Plate 7 – Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Visalia Station). A reference record is needed to establish a reference period over which the cumulative departures for all the stations are calculated, without which there is no way to correlate cumulative departure data between stations. Kaweah River runoff records for the period of 1904 through 1989 were obtained from District staff, calculated as the summation of runoff data from gauges at Kaweah River at Three Rivers and South Fork of Three Rivers. Runoff records for the period of 1990 through 2012 were obtained from United States Army Corps of Engineers records of inflow to Lake Kaweah. Runoff records at the Dry Creek gauging station and at the Kaweah River below McKay Point were similarly reviewed and are shown on Table 8 – Runoff Stations Used for Study Period Analysis. As presented on Plate 8 – Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Runoff Kaweah River at Three Rivers, variations in Kaweah River runoff exhibit similar trends to climactic variations exhibited in the precipitation data.
Table 8. Runoff Stations Used for Study Period Analysis
Average for Elev. Township/ Range for Period of Station Period of Period of (feet, Range/ Latitude Longitude Record, Name Record Record, NGVD29) Section acre-feet acre-feet
Kaweah River at Three Rivers + 1904- 833 T17S/R28E-S13 36°26.636'N 118°54.263'W 431,900 104,000 - 1,385,000 South Fork of Present Three Rivers
Dry Creek Near 1962- 589 T17S/R27E-S15 36°27.025'N 119°1.707'W 17,706 797 – 86,195 Lemon Cove Present Kaweah River 1962- 455 T18S/R27E-S4 36°23.387'N 119°2.893'W 406,945 56,067 - 1,287,161 Below McKay Point Present Kaweah updated June 9, 2014; Dry Creek Near Lemon Cove and Kaweah River Below McKay Point updated June 11, 2014.
Based on the cumulative departure from both mean precipitation and runoff, an appropriate reference period begins with water year 1975 and runs through 2012. A comparison of the cumulative departure curves for precipitation and Kaweah River runoff between 1975 and 2012 is presented on Plate 9 - Comparison of Composite Precipitation and Kaweah River at Three Rivers Runoff. An analysis of the statistical relationship between the two data sets is presented as Plate 10 - Kaweah River Runoff Versus Average Annual Composite Precipitation. The average composite precipitation and Kaweah River runoff for the reference period approximated the long-term average (within approximately 5 percent). 1.5.3 Hydrologic Study Period Characteristics The average annual precipitation for Visalia during the 1981 to 2012 study period (10.4 inches) was five percent above the 9.98 inches annual average since 1905. The 1981 to 1999 base period was 12 percent above the long-term average, whereas the 2000 to 2012 period was 6 percent below the long-term average.
17 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Compared to the composite precipitation data between 1975 and 2012, precipitation averages during 1981 to 1999 were six percent higher. The average precipitation during 2000 to 2012 was eight percent below the long-term average. Compared to the longer-term Visalia data, the composite data generally show average to slightly above average precipitation (wetter) for the 1981 to 2012 study period, and particularly so for the 1981 to 1999 base period. Although not a true “base period,” addition of the years 2000 to 2012 to the original WRI base period of 1981 to 1999 creates a reasonably representative hydrologic period because: • the average precipitation for the longer study period is closer to the period of record average (Table 7); and • the additional years between 2000 and 2012 incorporate recent cultural and developmental conditions 1.6 LIMITATIONS Although there exist a high level of knowledge and understanding of the components of water supply and use within the District, it should be recognized that the methods, procedures, and assumptions utilized in this type of analysis performed do not provide precise answers. The data can, however, be relied upon to provide reasonably accurate values to establish a sound basis for future planning and decisions. There are a few limitations and deficient data sets, which are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007), which generally apply to the current study.
2.0 GEOHYDROLOGY 2.1 BACKGROUND In cooperation with the DWR, the District measures, and tabulates, water level data for approximately 320 wells (2012). Records for some wells extend back to the 1920s with most records for wells included in the District's groundwater monitoring program extending back to the 1950s. Combined, the wells used for water level conditions included as many as 646 wells in and surrounding the District. The quality of these data is considered excellent. From these data, changes in groundwater in storage have been estimated. This report presents the findings of these storage changes, descriptive analyses of water level conditions and trends within the District and each hydrologic unit for the study period, and presents estimates of volumes of subsurface flow occurring both within the District and into and out of the District. These data will be used as part of the hydrologic budget for the District (Section 4). 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of Section 2 of this report is to provide groundwater level and potentiometric head contour maps for several years. This Section also presents contour maps depicting differences in groundwater elevation for a number of years. In addition, this report presents trends in groundwater elevations as a series of hydrographs for key wells. The water level data, contour maps, and previously determined specific yield values were used to estimate the annual changes of groundwater in storage for each of the six hydrologic units and for the District as a whole. Additionally, current storage conditions were compared to prior periods. Also included in this Section is analysis of subsurface inflow and outflow across District boundaries and hydrologic units for subsequent use in the water balance. The study area is presented in Plate 1.
18 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The District benefits from a long-term water level measurement program of key wells in the District from which the DWR has manually created "Spring, Unconfined Aquifer System" contour maps for most years of the study period. Total volumes of groundwater in storage were estimated from these maps for each year of the study period (defined as from 1981 through 2012), the results of which are provided in this report. 2.3 AVAILABILITY OF DATA Water level data from the DWR database and District records were used to generate hydrographs for 87 water wells within the District. The locations of wells with hydrographs are presented on Plates 11 through 16 - Hydrographs of Selected Wells. The wells included on these plates were selected during the previous report based on 1) frequency of water level measurement, 2) duration of record, 3) geographic distribution within the District, and, to a lesser degree, 4) well design information. Most wells within the District's water level measurement program provide excellent records of both spring and fall water level conditions and many contain measurements that extend back to the 1950s. Some 220 water level hydrograph records were reviewed and about 87 wells selected that provided a good geographic distribution of variations and trends. Additional discussion about water level data being representative of confined or unconfined aquifer systems (or some combination thereof) is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 2.4 WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS Water level conditions in the District are presented in a series of contour maps of equal groundwater elevation for a single year prior to the study period; Spring of 1952 (refer to Plate 17); and 3 years during the study period: 1981, 1999 and 2012 (Plates 18 through 20, respectively). Groundwater contour maps for several other years are presented in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). The contour data derive principally from DWR data, supplemented with District- provided data, edited and amended in the extreme east and west portions of the District to account for conditions not considered by the DWR data. Generally, the DWR data are contoured with emphasis on entire San Joaquin Valley and tend to overlook smaller pumping depressions which, on the scale of this investigation, are deemed significant and important. The general pattern of groundwater movement in the District reflects recharge entering the District from the surface water (stream) systems of the Kaweah, the Tule, and, to a lesser extent, the Kings River. The pattern of flow from northeast to southwest across the District is characteristic, regardless of hydrologic condition. Significant alterations of this pattern are apparent at times as pumping depressions occur between Visalia and Hanford, northeast of City of Corcoran, and, most significantly, in the westernmost portion of the District, northwest of the City of Corcoran. The magnitude and configuration of the pumping depressions are variable, and over the 1981 to 2012 study period clearly reflect the magnitude of increases in groundwater extractions from between 1987 to 1994, and again between 2001 and the end of the study period in 2012. During the study period there is a characteristic pattern to the water level hydrographs in the District. For the most part, water levels in the District from about 1982 to 1986 reflect a general rise, followed by sharp declines from about 1987 to 1994, followed by a general rise through 1999. Since 2000, there has been a general decline in water levels to the end of the study period. In general, the lowest groundwater levels since 2000 and, in many cases, the entire period of record occurred in the 2009 to 2010 period at the end of 3 dry years during an overall
19 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) relatively dry 10-year period. Since that low groundwater level condition, water levels recovered somewhat through 2011, followed by a period of decline that continued into the end of the study period. Plates 11 through 16 reflect these patterns and present water level fluctuations in typical wells within each of the hydrologic units and aquifer systems in the District. These hydrographs show annual and cyclical fluctuations in groundwater levels, reflecting climatic conditions and the magnitude of replenishment and extractions of groundwater in the District. 2.5 HISTORICAL VARIATIONS 2.5.1 Hydrologic Unit Boundaries The District is divided into six hydrologic units for the purposes of quantitative analyses of conditions of water supply and use in the District. The District has assigned hydrologic unit boundaries within the District related to the distribution of surface water in the District as presented in this report on all plates. 2.5.2 Hydrologic Unit No. I The water well hydrographs for Hydrologic Unit No. I (refer to Plate 11) are representative of fluctuations in the unconfined water surface in the alluvial deposits of the Kaweah River fan deposits. For the most part, the water level variations reflect stability and consistency of replenishment (e.g., Well No. T17S/R27E-05J1). Water level variations are seasonally small (often within a range of 20 feet or less) for at least the last 70 years, constrained by the relatively shallow bedrock contact. For most of Hydrologic Unit No. I, groundwater levels are within 50 feet of ground surface. This unit has limited storage capacity and a shallow depth to the base of permeable sediments. Where groundwater fluctuation has been more exaggerated (such as well 18S/26E-09H1) trends in groundwater levels since 2000 have followed seasonal hydrologic trends, rising following wet years. 2.5.3 Hydrologic Unit No. II The water well hydrographs for Hydrologic Unit No. II show a more pronounced cyclical variation, suggesting semiconfined to confined conditions (refer to Plate 12). During the study period, reduced water supply/replenishment or recharge is evident in most hydrographs during the mid to late 1970s. The drought of the late 1980s to about 1994 is clearly evident in the rainfall records, as is the similar drought between about 2000 and 2010. These cycles of drought and surplus are for the most part mimicked in all hydrographs. The magnitude of water level variations in some hydrographs is as much as 100 feet and appear to have reached historic lows in 2009 (e.g., Well No., T18S/R24E-13H2). For those wells that have records that extend back to the 1940s, there is evidence of water level declines, and cumulative depletion of groundwater in storage (e.g., Well Nos. T18S/R23E-34A1 and T18S/R23E-15A1). 2.5.4 Hydrologic Unit No. III Water level trends and variations in Hydrologic Unit No. III are shown on Plate 13 and are similar to those observed in Hydrologic Unit No. II. Water level variations likely reflect semiconfined aquifers with water levels being seasonally variable by about 20 feet or so. Long- term water level declines are evident in Well No. T18S/R24E-31C1, which declined to historic lows in 2008. Generally, groundwater levels have declined since 2000, interrupted by 2 wet years (2005 and 2010) and associated recharge.
20 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
2.5.5 Hydrologic Unit No. IV Water level variations and trends for Hydrologic Unit No. IV are shown on Plate 14. The geographic extent of this unit extends from near the apex of the Kaweah fan (unconfined aquifer system) to southwest of the City of Tulare where confined aquifer conditions exist. In the Kaweah fan area, seasonal water level variations are minor. South of the City of Tulare, a pumping depression is apparent (e.g., Well No. T21S/R24E-1L1) with significant (100 feet) declines in water levels in the confined aquifers since the early 1990s. Long-term water levels in the southwest part of Hydrologic Unit No. IV (Well No. T20S/R24E-33C1) are, however, relatively stable. Replenishment of water from the Tule River system is strongly evident in wells southeast of (outside) the District. Seasonal cyclical variations in the water levels and general declines since the late 1980s are apparent everywhere. Outside of the northwestern portion of Unit IV, groundwater fluctuations are muted. Groundwater level fluctuations since 2000 within this Unit are generally on the order of 50 to 80 feet. 2.5.6 Hydrologic Unit No. V Historical water level variations for Hydrologic Unit No. V are presented on Plate 15. All hydrographs presented show pronounced cyclical seasonal and wet-dry period responses characteristic of confined aquifer conditions. Well No. T21S/R23E-5R1 northeast of the City of Corcoran is typical. Of note are high water level conditions in the mid-1980s that are equal or higher than conditions in the 1940s (c.f., Well Nos. T20S/R23E-26R1 and T20S/R24E-30J2) suggesting a long-term balance and replenishment to meet the seasonal groundwater pumpage demands. The long-term declines since the late 1980s evident in Unit IV, are evident in each hydrograph on Plate 15. The magnitude of the decline approaches 100 feet in some wells. Groundwater level fluctuations since 2000 mimic those in Unit IV, represented by regional groundwater declines punctuated by 2 years of rise associated with increased availability of surface water. 2.5.7 Hydrologic Unit No. VI Water level conditions and trends in Hydrologic Unit No. VI, as presented on Plate 16, are similar to Hydrologic Unit No. V. Since about 1960, there are pronounced cyclical variations and an overall decline in the water levels, particularly on the western edge. An extreme example of the decline is evident in Well No. 20S/21E-36P1, which has declined by as much as 240 feet since the mid-1980s. Some notable anomalies exist, however; such as Well No. T20S/R22E- 7M1, which shows a significant rise in water level through 2001, when the dataset ends (likely a shallow well). Groundwater level fluctuations since 2000 represent regional groundwater declines punctuated by 2 years of rise associated with increased availability of surface water. 2.6 STUDY PERIOD WATER LEVEL CONDITIONS Two time periods are being considered as part of this WRI Update, the first and longer of which is referred to as the “Study Period” between 1981 through 2012. The second period is a subset of the longer period, between 2000 and 2012, which represents the period since issuance of the prior WRI. Water level variations over the entire (longer) study period responded to the cyclical nature of water supply and deficiency related to surface water supplies and deliveries from the Kaweah River system. District-wide high water levels were present during the mid-1980s; and District-wide (locally historic) low water levels occurred in about 1995. A second similar cycle of
21 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) surplus and deficit occurred between 2000, a period of relatively high water levels, and 2009, a period characterized by near-record or record low water levels. In general, a characteristic groundwater flow from the northeast to southwest occurred throughout the study period. Areas of pumpage depressions are persistent north of Corcoran, west of Visalia, and northwest of Exeter. An overall discussion of annual water level conditions over the study period is provided in Table 9 - Summary of Water Level Conditions.
22 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 9. Summary of Water Level Conditions
Percentage of Average Calendar Precipitation Comment Year Calendar Year 1981-2012
Southwest direction of groundwater flow across District. Recharge from Kaweah 1952 system prominently displayed, lesser so from Kings River system north of Hydrologic Unit No. VI and Tule River southeast of Hydrologic Unit No. IV. 1971 Southwest direction of groundwater flow prevails across the District. Prominent pumping troughs (3) north of Corcoran, between Corcoran and Tulare, west of Visalia. Small pumping trough northwest of Ivanhoe. Recharge 1981 107 from Kaweah system evident with general southwest direction of groundwater flow across District. Water level conditions similar to 1981, but growth of pumping trough between 1982 124 Hanford and Corcoran evident. Overall declines in water levels District wide. District-wide recovery in water levels. Pumping trough north and east of 1983 173 Corcoran separates. Continuation of water level rise throughout District. Pumping depressions still 1984 63 present in Hydrologic Unit Nos. V and VI, but water levels as much as 30 feet higher than in 1981. Same pattern of groundwater flow and recharge sources. Water levels stable to slightly decreasing. Expansion of pumping depression 1985 80 west of Visalia. Same general pattern of groundwater movement and water levels as existed in 1986 104 1985. Generally stable to slight increase in water levels District wide. 250-foot 1987 106 elevation contour reaches U.S. Highway 99. Beginning of seven consecutive years of deficient water supply to the District. 1988 88 Same general pattern of groundwater movement southwest across District. 1989 47 Water levels falling throughout entire District. Significant pumping troughs emerging in Units VI and VI, and District-wide 1990 54 declining water levels. 250-foot elevation contour records to 3 miles east of U.S. Highway 99. Continuation of declining water levels District wide. Pumping trough north of Corcoran reaches elevation of +110 feet. Pumping troughs west of Visalia and 1991 108 north of Ivanhoe. Recharge contours from Kaweah system much less prominent. 1992 96 Water levels stable to declining. Expanse of pumping trough north of Corcoran. Pumping trough north of Corcoran falls below +100 feet and continues to 1993 118 expand. Pumping trough south of City of Tulare develops. Widespread falling water levels. Water levels District wide at or near historic low levels to date (above 2009 1994 90 levels) Water level increases and recharge evident in east side of District. Widespread 1995 160 pumping trough still apparent north of Corcoran.
23 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 9. Summary of Water Level Conditions - Continued
Percentage of Average Calendar Precipitation Comment Year Calendar Year 1981-2012
1996 155 Rising water levels District wide. Pumping trough still apparent in Units V and VI. Conditions similar to 1996. Recharge from Kaweah System apparent in 1997 93 groundwater elevation contours. Pumping troughs and depressed water levels apparent in Units V and VI. Water 1998 191 levels stable to recovering. Pumping troughs regressing in Units V and VI. Rising water levels with District- 1999 81 wide conditions similar to 1981. Water levels declined 10 feet, on average District-wide. Pumping trough in 2000 122 southwest corner of Unit VI has receded to elevation of +50 feet. Otherwise, conditions similar to 1999. Similar to 2000 conditions, although southwest pumping trough has receded to 2001 146 elevation of +20 feet. Water levels declined 15 feet, on average District-wide. Pumping trough has 2002 61 recede to elevation of -20 feet. Volume of groundwater in storage is similar to 1992 conditions. Conditions similar to 2002. Pumping trough deepens to elevation of -70 feet, 2003 80 although slightly less extensive. Similar, but slightly lower, water level conditions to 2003. Pumping trough rises 2004 80 slightly to elevation of -30 feet. Wet year preceded by four dry years. Volume of groundwater in storage is lowest 2005 100 throughout period of record since 1952. Water levels rise 15 feet on average throughout District, and are entirely above 2006 142 +50 feet in southwest portion of Unit VI. Dry year preceded by two wet years. Water levels decline an average of 5 feet 2007 48 District-wide. Pumping trough declines to sea level. Second very dry year in a row. Water level declines continue to record low levels. Southwest pumping trough, or series of pumping troughs, decline to elevation -90 2008 55 feet. Total groundwater in storage declines to lowest volume throughout period of record. Third dry year in a row. Southwest pumping trough in Unit VI remains and 2009 63 expands westward (record low water levels) Wet year. 200 percent snow year preceded by three dry years. Pumping 2010 153 depressions lessen somewhat, although still at depressed levels. Dry year. Nonetheless, water levels rise by as much as 20 feet due to high runoff 2011 54 from the prior high snowfall year. Driest year since 1959. Recharge from 2010 still evident in eastern portion of 2012 56 District, but pumping depression remains in Unit VI
Variations of water levels in the District between 1952 and the end of the previous base period in 1999 can be seen on Plate 21 – Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 1999. The year 1952 was originally chosen for comparison in that a District-wide DWR water level contour map existed for that year. The period is somewhat neutral with respect to the extremes of wet or dry periods and indicates water level declines only along the western edge of Hyrologic
24 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Unit No. VI. Some areas in the District have experienced significant rises in water levels (in areas as much as 40 to 60 feet), such as in the eastern portion of Hydrologic Unit No. IV. Long-term variations of water levels in the District can be seen on Plate 22 - Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 2012. The 1952 comparison is, however, an appropriate period to consider with respect to the hydrologic cycle. Inspection of Plate 22 indicates significant water level decline along the west side of Hydrologic Unit No. VI (City of Corcoran to the City of Hanford) as well as general declines throughout the District. Water level rises during the study period were only evident in the western portions of Hydrologic Unit No. IV and portions of Hydrologic Unit No. I. Water level conditions in the District for the original WRI base period and the WRI Update study period are presented as Plate 23 – Contours of Equal Differences in Water Levels, 1981 to 1999 and Plate 24 - Contours of Equal Differences in Water Levels, 1981 to 2012. Plate 24 indicates that water level declines prevailed over much of the District between 1981 and 2012. Water level declines average 68 feet over the period District-wide, but reached a maximum of greater than 280 feet in the extreme southwest portion of Unit VI. The average annual water level decline within Hydrologic Unit VI was 105 feet during the period. Water levels within Hydrologic Unit I were largely unchanged throughout the period. Areas with water level rise during the period are of limited extent on Plate 24. The period is somewhat "neutral" with respect to the cumulative change in annual precipitation at the start and end of the period (refer to 1981 and 2012 on Plate 6). The differences between Plates 23 and 24 are quite dramatic in terms of considerable declines in water levels for the longer period as compared to the original WRI base period. Water level declines during another period, between 1992 and 2012 were considered, and are presented on Plate 25 - Contours of Equal Differences in Water Levels, 1992 to 2012. This period starts at the end of a major drought in 1992 and continues to 2012. On either end of this period, water levels were relatively similar, with the exception of Unit VI, which exhibited an expansion of the pumping trough north of Corcoran. The start and end of the period are considered to be similar in that each is adjacent the end of a several year period of dry conditions. Total groundwater in storage in 2012 was approximately 805,000 acre-feet less than during 1992. Water level declines during the shorter and more recent period, between 1999 and 2012 are presented on Plate 26 - Contours of Equal Differences in Water Levels, 1999 to 2012. During this shorter period, water levels declined by an average of 56 feet District-wide, which accounts for 82 percent of the decline of the longer study period between 1981 and 2012. In Unit I, water levels declined by an average of 11 feet between 1999-2012, whereas water level declines in Unit VI averaged 81 feet during the period reflecting greater reliance on groundwater. Groundwater storage depletion in 2012 for the District as a whole (compared to 1981) was on the order of 1.8 million acre-feet. In 2012, the most significant declines were apparent northwest of the City of Corcoran. 2.7 GROUNDWATER STORAGE CALCULATIONS Seasonal variations in the volumes of groundwater in storage in the District and each hydrologic unit were calculated for each year of the study period using the groundwater elevation contour maps, a selection of which are presented as Plates 17 through 20 - Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevations, and estimated specific yield values of the near-surface sediments. Groundwater elevation contours maps for several other years were presented in the previous report (Fugro 2007).
25 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Calculation of the total volume of groundwater in storage in the District considered a saturated sediment thickness extending from the water surface elevation to the base of permeable sediments. Such calculations are considered a gross estimate given the variations of specific yield contained in the various aquifers and aquitards, and the variable nature of the elevation of the base of permeable sediment within the approximate 340,000 acres of the District. The changes in storage for the 60-year period from 1952 to 2012 were used to evaluate conditions of water supply surplus and deficiency, and conditions of long-term overdraft. The changes in the estimated volumes of groundwater in storage were also used for comparison to the annual storage changes using the inventory method as part of the hydrologic budget (Section 4 of this WRI Update). Discussion of background information and the specific methods applied in this study for groundwater storage calculations are provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Notably, some of the values between 1998 and 2000 were re-calculated in a subsequent report, the values for which are presented here (Fugro 2008-2009). The resulting annual storage changes from 1982 to 2012 (32 years) for the entire District and for each hydrologic unit are presented in Table 10 - Estimated Annual Change of Groundwater in Storage.
Table 10. Estimated Annual Change of Groundwater in Storage (Specific Yield Method, values in acre-feet)
Annual Change in Storage Calendar Entire Year I II III IV V VI District
1981 (172,412) (2,684) (9,994) (17,872) (37,401) (43,916) (60,545) 1982 486,797 9,600 40,327 47,137 96,146 157,591 135,996 1983 329,135 3,935 30,963 13,472 40,757 107,601 132,407 1984 (87,006) (13,196) (7,988) 265 (21,308) (23,632) (21,147) 1985 (118,171) 5,614 (11,808) (11,649) (26,941) (34,032) (39,355) 1986 209,644 (6,245) 13,044 27,552 31,166 86,383 57,743 1987 (279,294) (4,251) (31,981) (27,622) (54,745) (114,134) (46,561) 1988 (246,515) (5,556) (23,187) (28,430) (64,371) (80,478) (44,493) 1989 (425,999) (6,600) (44,018) (26,648) (70,615) (123,513) (154,605) 1990 (528,146) (11,095) (54,520) (51,264) (112,009) (160,290) (138,969) 1991 (222,630) 9,241 (13,136) 6,229 (35,609) (80,573) (108,782) 1992 (285,765) (6,192) (26,409) (40,900) (47,433) (84,007) (80,824) 1993 (37,731) (12,736) 16,625 11,264 44,936 59,526 (157,346) 1994 132,115 20,522 (18,141) (5,976) (16,959) (66,326) 218,996 1995 288,434 2,104 63,967 22,977 52,284 94,556 52,546 1996 100,698 10,721 10,012 (9,183) 57,853 7,972 23,323 1997 (20,027) (1,815) (3,137) 18,156 23,597 66,033 (122,861) 1998 436,864 6,773 46,658 47,028 96,685 108,054 131,666
26 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 10. Estimated Annual Change of Groundwater in Storage (Specific Yield Method, values in acre-feet) -Continued
Annual Change in Storage Year Entire Ending I II III IV V VI District
1999 (324,881) (2,291) (39,544) (32,904) (61,819) (11,705) (176,619) 2000 (4,209) 1,981 (5,353) (1,960) 7,937 (22,101) 15,288 2001 (318,322) (10,184) (9,013) (8,233) (72,222) (74,157) (144,512) 2002 (464,043) 2,597 (43,496) (33,774) (57,005) (78,116) (254,249) 2003 (120,447) (6,275) (26,497) (15,993) (23,931) (41,908) (5,842) 2004 (127,193) (29) (29,723) (42,348) (82,795) (62,901) 90,603 2005 548,418 6,266 62,356 62,495 77,750 86,695 252,856 2006 (217,022) (12,903) (5,982) (10,721) (29,797) 29,630 (187,249) 2007 (488,033) 2,069 (59,502) (37,458) (127,237) (149,229) (116,676) 2008 (400,497) (5,770) (44,524) (29,375) (89,448) (118,767) (112,613) 2009 39,889 6,705 6,416 5,879 42,741 -23,823 1,970 2010 400,204 8,886 73,038 22,169 60,458 102,271 133,382 2011 56,641 2,367 33,180 25,771 44,572 65,669 (114,917) 2012 (542,702) (13,222) (75,801) (34,980) (83,495) (182,460) (152,744)
Total: (2,402,205) (21,663) (187,168) (156,896) (438,258) (604,087) (994,133) 13 Year (125,947) (1,347) (9,608) (7,579) (25,575) (36,092) (45,746) Average: 32 Year (75,069) (677) (5,849) (4,903) (13,696) (18,878) (31,067) Average: Year is defined as Spring of each year, based on DWR annual water level contour maps. The 32-year average is between 1981 through 2012. The 13-year average is between year ending 2000 through 2012. Updated March 31, 2015.
As indicated in Table 10, using the specific yield method, there was a net water supply deficiency of about 2,403,000 acre-feet (af) over the 32-year study period, or approximately 75,100 afy. Of this water supply deficiency, a total of 1,637,300 af occurred during the period between 2000 and 2012, which is 68 percent of the deficiency for the 32-year study period. Between 2000 and 2012, the groundwater in storage declined at an average rate of 126,000 afy. Most of the water supply deficiency during the 32-year study period, some 994,100 af, occurred in Hydrologic Unit No. VI, which, between 2000 and 2012, had a deficiency of 594,700 af. For the most part, Hydrologic Unit Nos. II through V showed a relatively slight deficit of about 4,900 to 18,900 afy during the 32-year period, or 7,600 to 36,100 afy between 2000 and 2012. Hydrologic Unit No. I showed a slight water supply deficit over the study period. GIS was utilized to calculate the volume of water within saturated material between the contoured water level surfaces extending to the base of the fresh water surface for several years between 1952 and 2012 using average saturated sediment specific yield values of 6, 8, and 10 percent. This volume is commonly referred to as the total volume of groundwater in storage.
27 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
These volumes are used to compare changes in the total amount of groundwater in storage for those respective years. The calculated annual total groundwater in storage for ten specific years and the changes in storage values for the study period are presented in Table 11 - Estimated Total Groundwater in Storage, Selected Years.
28 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 11. Estimated Total Groundwater in Storage, Selected Years (in acre-feet)
Total Groundwater in Storage Specific Year Yield Entire I II III IV V VI District
1952 17,048,154 469,070 1,927,361 1,508,871 3,098,639 4,445,917 5,598,297 1971 16,753,196 472,353 1,867,082 1,474,167 3,115,848 4,437,702 5,386,043 1981 17,016,747 473,214 1,881,016 1,491,498 3,181,823 4,502,980 5,486,216 1995 16,292,613 462,203 1,780,298 1,424,475 3,020,105 4,280,456 5,325,076 1999 16,788,413 473,027 1,866,577 1,476,323 3,161,054 4,438,768 5,372,665 6% 2000 16,619,838 474,218 1,843,685 1,452,175 3,121,361 4,436,871 5,291,530 2005 16,005,322 467,392 1,760,914 1,385,286 2,984,380 4,276,556 5,130,793 2007 16,211,335 463,852 1,802,324 1,419,249 3,013,594 4,344,936 5,167,382 2008 15,914,556 464,016 1,759,473 1,395,704 2,940,326 4,260,051 5,094,986 2012 15,933,509 471,465 1,803,472 1,386,299 2,990,220 4,316,539 4,965,513 1952 22,730,874 625,427 2,569,815 2,011,828 4,131,519 5,927,889 7,464,395 1971 22,337,592 629,805 2,489,442 1,965,556 4,154,464 5,916,936 7,181,390 1981 22,688,995 630,952 2,508,021 1,988,664 4,242,431 6,003,973 7,314,955 1995 21,723,484 616,271 2,373,730 1,899,301 4,026,807 5,707,275 7,100,101 1999 22,384,553 630,702 2,488,769 1,968,431 4,214,739 5,918,357 7,163,554 8% 2000 22,159,785 632,290 2,458,246 1,936,233 4,161,815 5,915,827 7,055,373 2005 21,340,432 623,190 2,347,886 1,847,048 3,979,174 5,702,075 6,841,058 2007 21,615,115 618,469 2,403,098 1,892,332 4,018,126 5,793,247 6,889,842 2008 21,219,409 618,687 2,345,964 1,860,939 3,920,435 5,680,068 6,793,315 2012 21,244,679 628,620 2,404,629 1,848,399 3,986,960 5,755,385 6,620,684 1952 28,413,592 781,783 3,212,269 2,514,785 5,164,399 7,409,862 9,330,494 1971 27,921,991 787,256 3,111,803 2,456,945 5,193,080 7,396,170 8,976,737 1981 28,361,245 788,690 3,135,026 2,485,829 5,303,039 7,504,966 9,143,693 1995 27,154,354 770,338 2,967,163 2,374,126 5,033,509 7,134,093 8,875,127 1999 27,980,691 788,378 3,110,961 2,460,539 5,268,424 7,397,946 8,954,443 10% 2000 27,699,732 790,363 3,072,808 2,420,292 5,202,268 7,394,784 8,819,217 2005 26,675,539 778,987 2,934,857 2,308,810 4,973,967 7,127,594 8,551,322 2007 27,018,894 773,086 3,003,873 2,365,415 5,022,657 7,241,560 8,612,303 2008 26,524,263 773,359 2,932,455 2,326,174 4,900,544 7,100,085 8,491,644 2012 26,555,851 785,775 3,005,786 2,310,499 4,983,701 7,194,232 8,275,855
Graphical depictions of the estimated annual storage changes are presented together with cumulative changes in storage on Plates 27 through 33 - Estimated Change of Groundwater in Storage. It should be noted that for the approximate 340,000 acre District, the study period deficit of approximately 2,403,300 af (specific yield method) represents an average drop in water level of about 68 feet. For Hydrologic Unit Nos. I through V, where the range of deficiency is from about
29 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
670 to 18,900 afy, the average water level declines are from 12 to up to 73 feet (Hydrologic Unit V). Most of the water level declines have occurred in Hydrologic Unit No. VI, which exhibited an average of 105 feet of decline over the 32-year study period. The magnitude of the historical water level variations (and changes) in the District is, in some cases, quite pronounced, as can be seen on the hydrographs presented on Plates 11 through 16. Using an average District-wide specific yield value of 8 percent for all sediments to the base of permeable sediments, there was approximately 1,444,000 af less groundwater in storage in the District in 2102 compared to 1981, or an approximate 6 percent decrease in total groundwater in storage over the study period. If an "average" specific yield value of 10 percent is used, the storage depletion is on the order of 1,805,000 af, and is closer to the data provided in Table 10. The magnitude and distribution of the change in storage is reflected in changes in water levels for the study period as shown on Plate 24 - Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1981 to 2012. The greatest change in water levels for this comparative period was in Unit VI, where declines in water levels on the order of 280 feet have locally occurred. The reduction in the amount of groundwater in storage in the District overall, for the study period, is viewed as an indication of marked overdraft. However, as indicated on Plate 24, not all areas of the District experienced the same magnitude of declines in water levels or changes in storage as were evident in Unit VI. Comparison of storage conditions in 1952 and 2012 (Plate 22) and 1981 to 2012 (Plate 24) gives an indication of the magnitude of groundwater storage changes from relatively high District-wide water level conditions to District-wide low water level conditions and, in the former example, over an approximate 60-year period. Based on inspection of long-term hydrograph records throughout the District, District-wide historical low water levels were evident during the mid-1990s, then again in the late 2010s. For the 1952 to 2012 and 1981 to 2012 periods, the storage change for the entire District is approximately 1,500,000 af (using an average specific yield of 8 percent). The former period did not have the benefit of regulation of surface flow from the Kaweah River and other sources for the early portion of the period. The inherent uncertainties in the water level contours and interpretation of the water level data are discussed in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 2.8 SUBSURFACE FLOW Background discussion of groundwater flow and subsurface flow calculations, and a description of the methods applied in this study are provided inthe previous report (Fugro, 2007). A typical map showing the subsurface reaches and magnitudes of flow (in afy) for the Spring 1999 water level data are shown on Plate 34 - Typical Map of Subsurface Flow Calculations. A summary of the subsurface flow estimates both from the District and for each hydrogeologic unit during the study period is presented on Table 12 - Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Flow Calculations. Note that some of the values of inflow into Hydrologic Unit II from the boundary, and therefore also at the District boundary as a whole, for the base period of 1981 to 1999 were re- calculated in an unpublished subsequent report, the values for which are presented here (Fugro, 2008-2009).
30 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 12. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Flow Calculations (in 1,000s of acre-feet)
Avg. Avg. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 81-12 00-12
Entire District Boundary
Inflow 73.6 64.5 61.8 87.0 47.1 45.1 54.3 35.9 36.8 53.5 59.9 62.9 48.1 36.6 59.8 71.5 68.6 49.2 39.5 57.8 45.1 37.0 36.1 61.8 91.3 101.1 60.7 125.8 28.9 46.2 38.8 29.9 56.8 58.5
Outflow 46.2 32.2 48.9 38.7 16.1 24.8 8.8 12.5 23.0 11.9 18.1 9.3 13.8 13.3 12.4 35.1 50.7 24.9 32.4 20.1 29.6 39.3 61.2 63.8 32.3 5.6 29.4 19.1 72.8 58.3 73.4 101.6 33.7 49.8
Net Inflow 27.4 32.3 12.9 48.3 31.0 20.3 45.5 23.4 13.8 41.6 41.8 53.6 34.3 23.3 47.4 36.4 17.9 24.3 7.1 37.7 15.5 (2.3) (25.1) (2.0) 59.0 95.5 31.3 106.7 (43.9) (12.1) (34.6) (71.7) 23.1 8.7 Hydrologic Unit I
From Boundary 10.7 6.2 13.5 8.3 8.4 2.8 14.9 18.6 5.3 18.2 9.6 13.6 5.6 6.0 12.4 26.3 18.6 16.1 15.7 20.3 2.4 20.4 10.0 4.1 18.3 13.8 9.2 5.2 (5.5) (4.8) (5.5) (6.4) 9.8 6.3
To Unit II 5.4 5.4 4.6 4.4 6.2 6.6 5.2 5.7 3.9 4.5 6.0 5.7 6.4 6.0 13.3 3.8 11.6 8.2 7.2 8.4 7.6 9.7 9.8 8.2 10.0 9.1 8.3 16.2 13.9 16.7 17.6 16.5 8.5 11.7
To Unit III 2.3 2.8 2.7 1.7 1.4 2.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 4.5 5.2 4.7 3.4 3.7 3.5 4.4 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.5 3.6 2.8 3.1 3.9 4.1 4.6 3.7 3.3 3.7
To Unit IV 7.4 14.0 7.6 5.7 3.1 9.5 13.6 7.0 7.1 9.8 12.9 16.1 14.0 15.9 10.6 5.5 13.3 10.5 5.7 3.3 7.5 4.9 7.4 8.8 7.4 7.6 6.8 17.8 15.0 13.7 12.1 9.5 9.7 9.4 Hydrologic Unit II
From Boundary 0.1 (1.3) (0.3) (3.1) 0.4 (7.2) (1.0) (1.2) 4.5 0.8 4.2 2.8 2.8 7.2 8.6 1.5 0.8 3.4 0.6 7.1 5.3 6.1 6.4 6.1 14.8 5.7 1.4 7.9 (2.4) 18.9 7.9 1.4 5.0 6.7
To Unit III 5.6 7.2 7.1 12.7 3.2 7.0 0.7 2.6 6.4 3.0 5.4 (2.3) 2.3 0.9 (1.4) 8.0 14.9 4.7 3.6 10.3 6.2 6.3 5.8 8.5 9.2 2.3 11.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 2.4 14.9 6.0 7.7
To Unit VI 0.4 7.2 2.2 1.4 1.2 4.3 3.1 2.0 1.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 5.8 0.2 1.8 3.7 0.6 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.2 2.6 1.4 0.1 3.4 (0.8) (1.0) 1.1 1.7 2.8 11.1 2.1 1.9 Hydrologic Unit III
To Unit V (2.4) 0.8 (5.2) (8.4) (4.6) (3.9) (4.1) 3.7 5.0 4.3 7.9 10.5 3.5 7.1 5.9 0.1 0.4 (1.9) (0.8) (3.4) (4.4) 2.3 0.9 2.5 (3.8) 1.4 (0.2) 10.5 7.4 9.6 7.7 5.0 1.7 2.7
To Unit VI 1.6 8.6 4.5 5.2 2.4 0.7 2.4 4.6 (1.0) 5.0 (0.4) 2.7 4.7 3.1 4.7 8.5 5.7 5.0 5.5 6.7 2.7 6.3 1.7 3.3 5.1 4.9 18.6 0.4 7.6 9.4 11.8 12.5 5.1 7.0 Hydrologic Unit IV
From Boundary (20.3) (5.7) (20.8) 28.3 16.9 10.2 23.6 0.1 (11.9) 2.4 (3.3) 23.9 13.8 7.2 (4.3) (11.0) (18.8) 14.1 (3.1) 15.8 15.3 9.1 3.2 28.8 49.3 36.3 (10.4) 16.3 (25.9) 3.6 (36.7) (40.0) 3.3 5.0
To Unit III 8.4 10.7 8.5 10.9 6.2 6.9 6.3 4.4 6.6 7.7 4.0 3.3 5.9 3.6 4.0 5.5 15.3 10.9 6.9 11.2 8.0 6.6 6.6 11.2 7.2 8.4 9.0 1.8 8.9 13.5 8.9 11.0 7.8 8.6
To Unit V 20.4 16.3 13.3 5.5 10.8 2.4 11.4 15.0 6.5 6.2 10.8 13.7 13.5 18.8 16.2 7.4 5.6 17.4 23.3 14.3 21.1 11.4 8.7 13.5 6.3 (9.7) (21.2) (44.4) (43.8) (16.7) (9.8) (23.3) 4.4 (7.2) Hydrologic Unit V
From Boundary 8.9 6.2 5.9 1.1 0.4 1.0 (2.5) 0.8 5.8 3.7 4.5 6.5 0.9 1.1 10.1 5.3 0.6 (3.0) 3.2 3.6 (1.1) (3.5) (13.3) (13.4) (0.5) 12.1 19.1 55.0 (1.1) (19.2) (20.3) (19.6) 1.8 (0.2)
To Unit VI 13.9 12.4 23.1 11.1 17.8 15.4 15.2 5.1 5.8 4.6 4.6 2.6 8.1 13.5 8.9 5.3 5.4 13.8 13.3 20.6 9.7 13.8 16.5 25.1 5.6 19.9 35.4 5.8 7.0 10.6 4.5 7.6 11.9 14.0 Hydrologic Unit VI
From Boundary 28.0 27.0 14.7 13.6 4.9 13.6 10.5 5.1 10.1 16.5 26.9 6.8 11.2 1.8 20.6 14.3 16.7 (6.3) (9.2) (9.2) (6.4) (34.5) (31.4) (27.6) (23.0) 27.6 12.0 22.3 (9.0) (10.6) 20.0 (7.1) 4.7 (5.9)
31 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The data in Table 12 indicate that for the entire District there was an average annual net inflow across (into) District perimeter boundaries of between 23,100 (1981 to 2012) and 8,700 afy (2000 to 2012). Inflow into Hydrologic Unit No. I (1981 to 2012) was about 9,800 afy, and 13,300 afy into the other Units. Seasonal outflows occurred from Hydrologic Unit No. IV (southeast of the District) during periods of maximum storage or periods of District-wide replenishment during the early 1980s, late 1990s and late 2000s. Inflows across the District boundaries over the entire 32- year study period averaged about 56,800 afy, while outflows averaged about 33,700 afy. During the shorter period between 2000 and 2012, the inflows into the District averaged 58,500 afy, while outflows averaged 49,800 afy. During 2012, net outflow from the District reached a high of 71,700 afy. Net inflow and outflow volumes for each unit for each year of the study period are presented on Table 13 - Hydrologic Unit Subsurface Inflow and Outflow Volumes. The volumes of annual subsurface inflow and outflow fall within the same general magnitudes. The average outflow from Unit I is approximately 11,800 afy and from Unit V is approximately 4,000 afy over the study period. There was a net inflow into each of the other Hydrologic Units of between 900 afy (Unit IV) and 23,700 afy in Unit VI.
32 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 13. Hydrologic Unit Subsurface Inflow and Outflow Volumes (in 1,000s of acre-feet)
Unit No. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Avg.
Inflow 13.2 11.9 13.5 11.7 8.8 11.4 18.0 18.9 15.3 20.5 17.2 22.4 12.7 8.6 15.7 26.8 18.9 16.5 15.7 20.3 9.2 20.7 19.6 9.8 20.9 15.6 11.9 13.9 15.2 10.7 10.4 11.5 15.2
I Outflow 17.7 27.8 14.8 15.3 11.1 27.1 25.0 15.4 23.3 18.7 28.8 35.1 32.7 29.2 30.6 13.5 28.8 23.5 14.9 14.7 25.2 18.5 31.0 26.5 24.4 22.0 20.5 45.9 53.6 49.9 50.2 47.7 27.0
Net (4.5) (15.9) (1.3) (3.6) (2.3) (15.7) (7.0) 3.5 (8.0) 1.8 (11.6) (12.7) (20.0) (20.6) (14.9) 13.3 (9.9) (7.0) 0.8 5.6 (16.0) 2.2 (11.4) (16.7) (3.5) (6.4) (8.6) (32.0) (38.4) (39.2) (39.8) (36.2) (11.8)
Inflow 9.5 7.7 7.3 7.7 10.4 6.6 7.4 9.6 9.5 9.3 10.4 11.4 10.6 13.2 23.3 6.3 14.3 13.1 10.9 16.1 16.1 16.9 17.1 14.3 24.8 14.8 10.8 26.0 18.9 35.6 25.6 17.9 14.2
II Outflow 10.0 18.0 12.3 20.6 8.2 18.6 7.0 9.8 8.9 7.5 6.1 2.0 9.6 1.1 1.8 12.8 17.5 8.7 7.3 11.2 10.6 8.6 9.3 9.9 9.3 5.8 12.1 8.5 13.9 4.1 17.6 20.3 10.3
Net (0.5) (10.3) (5.0) (12.9) 2.2 (12.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.6 1.8 4.3 9.4 1.0 12.1 21.5 (6.5) (3.2) 4.4 3.6 4.9 5.5 8.3 7.8 4.4 15.5 9.0 (1.3) 17.5 5.0 31.5 8.0 (2.4) 3.9
Inflow 18.7 20.7 23.5 33.7 15.3 20.4 14.1 9.4 16.4 12.9 12.1 7.8 13.4 9.2 7.4 17.1 33.8 21.9 13.3 27.9 21.8 16.6 16.6 23.4 24.6 14.3 23.7 12.5 20.4 19.9 28.3 24.0 18.6
III Outflow 1.6 9.3 4.5 5.2 2.4 0.7 2.4 8.3 5.0 9.2 7.9 15.5 8.2 10.2 12.0 8.6 6.1 5.0 5.5 6.7 2.7 8.6 2.6 5.8 5.1 6.3 18.6 11.0 15.1 19.0 19.5 17.5 8.3
Net 17.1 11.4 19.0 28.5 12.9 19.7 11.7 1.1 11.4 3.7 4.2 (7.7) 5.2 (1.0) (4.6) 8.5 27.7 16.9 7.8 21.2 19.1 8.0 14.0 17.6 19.5 8.0 5.1 1.5 5.3 0.9 8.8 6.5 10.3
Inflow 26.7 33.6 38.2 74.1 36.2 39.3 39.9 14.2 7.9 21.1 21.7 40.0 34.9 26.9 15.9 31.8 44.5 40.5 20.1 27.8 24.6 15.9 14.9 44.2 70.5 72.5 42.0 82.6 62.6 39.1 24.0 37.6 36.4
IV Outflow 68.4 52.2 73.2 56.5 33.2 29.0 20.4 26.5 25.9 22.8 26.9 17.0 26.5 26.0 29.8 50.2 71.0 44.2 47.7 34.1 30.9 19.9 19.7 31.3 27.4 27.4 33.4 5.9 38.6 18.6 47.6 55.9 35.6
Net (41.7) (18.6) (35.0) 17.6 3.0 10.3 19.5 (12.3) (18.0) (1.7) (5.2) 23.0 8.4 0.9 (13.9) (18.4) (26.5) (3.7) (27.6) (6.3) (6.3) (4.0) (4.8) 12.9 43.1 45.1 8.6 76.7 24.0 20.5 (23.6) (18.3) 0.9
Inflow 29.3 25.5 24.8 22.5 15.5 15.4 14.1 19.5 18.1 17.5 25.2 30.6 20.1 31.5 32.6 17.0 9.8 22.2 29.8 28.7 26.3 15.5 9.8 19.2 21.8 28.7 23.1 65.8 7.4 9.6 9.8 5.0 21.6
V Outflow 16.3 14.6 33.9 35.3 26.7 31.3 24.4 5.1 6.7 7.8 6.5 2.6 10.2 17.9 9.3 9.6 8.5 23.4 17.4 34.9 20.4 19.2 29.9 41.8 25.3 44.8 60.8 50.4 51.9 46.6 36.7 50.4 25.6
Net 13.0 10.9 (9.1) (12.8) (11.2) (15.9) (10.3) 14.4 11.4 9.7 18.7 28.0 9.9 13.6 23.3 7.4 1.3 (1.2) 12.4 (6.2) 5.9 (3.7) (20.1) (22.6) (3.5) (16.1) (37.7) 15.4 (44.5) (37.0) (26.9) (45.4) (4.0)
Inflow 43.9 55.1 44.5 31.3 26.3 34.9 31.1 16.8 17.3 26.5 32.0 13.6 30.0 21.8 36.0 32.4 28.4 22.0 22.0 31.3 22.3 21.2 22.7 43.5 15.5 55.8 72.0 34.2 20.5 29.6 39.6 43.2 31.8
VI Outflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.0 11.9 12.7 15.1 34.5 33.2 41.3 27.7 0.0 6.8 6.7 15.9 18.5 0.5 19.2 8.0
Net 43.9 55.1 44.5 31.3 26.2 34.1 31.1 16.8 16.3 26.5 31.6 13.6 29.7 18.5 36.0 31.9 28.4 15.0 10.1 18.6 7.2 (13.3) (10.5) 2.2 (12.2) 55.8 65.2 27.5 4.6 11.1 39.1 24.0 23.7
Inflow 73.6 64.5 61.8 87.0 47.1 45.1 54.3 35.9 36.8 53.5 59.9 62.9 48.1 36.6 59.8 71.5 68.6 49.2 39.5 57.8 45.1 37.0 36.1 61.8 91.3 101.1 60.7 125.8 28.9 46.2 38.8 29.9 56.8 Entire District Outflow 46.2 32.2 48.9 38.7 16.1 24.8 8.8 12.5 23.0 11.9 18.1 9.3 13.8 13.3 12.4 35.1 50.7 24.9 32.4 20.1 29.6 39.3 61.2 63.8 32.3 5.6 29.4 19.1 72.8 58.3 73.4 101.6 33.7 Boundary Net 27.4 32.3 12.9 48.3 31.0 20.3 45.5 23.4 13.8 41.6 41.8 53.6 34.3 23.3 47.4 36.4 17.9 24.3 7.1 37.7 15.5 (2.3) (25.1) (2.0) 59.0 95.5 31.3 106.7 (43.9) (12.1) (34.6) (71.7) 23.0
33 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.0 SURFACE WATER 3.1 INTRODUCTION Presented in this section is the tabulation and analysis of the availability, conveyance, and delivery of surface water in the District (both locally derived and imported sources), as well as a rationale to apportion the delivery of such surface water to the entitlement holders within each of the six hydrologic units during each year of the study period. Also evaluated is accounting for the conveyance losses of such deliveries in the reaches and segments of the rivers, canals, and ditches and the compilation and tabulation of artificial recharge activities ("sinking basins") in the District. The latter two items form components of inflow in the water balance equation. A detailed description of local and imported surface water sources and methods of analysis are provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). This section provides a series of tables, which are essentially updated versions of those provided in the original WRI (Fugro, 2007). The reader is referred to the original WRI report for details of data sources and calculations that form the basis for the results presented in the following tables. 3.2 CHANGE IN CALCULATION METHODS The District made changes in calculation methods to estimate percolation in recharge basins more accurately. The calculation method estimates the total basin inflow volumes based on an estimation of the number of wetted days of each basin and the known infiltration rate during those days. The estimated number of wetted days involves factors based on long term averages for the study period. Since the study period for the WRI Update is between 1981 and 2012 compared to the previous 1981 to 1999 base period, the long-term averages have changed and resulted in slight changes to the associated factors involved in the calculations. The net effect of these changes is to increase artificial recharge by an average of 4,300 afy over the 1981 to 1999 base period increasing from 65,700 to 70,000 afy (six percent). Similar changes in calculation methods were made to spills, which resulted in modified values for delivered surface water, irrigated agriculture, and total net extraction. The net effect of these changes for the 1981 to 1999 base period is minor, decreasing water delivered for irrigated agriculture and increasing total net extraction by an average of approximately 4,000 afy. Similarly, changes to streamflow and ditch conveyance losses resulted in only a 300 afy average annual change during the 1981 to 2012 study period compared to the original WRI. 3.3 UPDATED TABLES Subsequent sections provide a series of updated tables related to natural surface water flows, imported water, riparian diversions, conveyance losses, and recharge basin percolation. Each table presented in this section provides an update for the 2000 to 2012 study period for a corresponding table in the original WRI (Fugro, 2007). An explanation of the source data and methods of analysis for each table were provided in the original WRI report. As mentioned above, one major change for this WRI update is that all data have been converted from a Water Year to Calendar Year format. 3.4 WATER REQUIREMENTS The Water Requirements for the District for irrigated agriculture, municipal/industrial use, and consumptive use are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). A detailed description of
34 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) land use classification, consumptive use, and gross required irrigation demand in the District is provided in the previous Fugro report for the 1981 to 1999 period and by Davids Engineering (2013) for the 2000 to 2012 period. On average, for the 1981 to 2012 study period, it is estimated that about 251,700 af of Kaweah River system water was diverted for irrigation use after consideration of seepage losses associated with the deliveries. Imported water, or surface water distinct from the Kaweah River system (both CVP and Kings River water), averaged some 101,000 afy. The balance of the gross irrigation demand, or some 600,400 afy, was extracted from the groundwater reservoir. Conveyance loss related to the delivery of surface water is significant, and the estimated annual quantity of such a loss is provided in this section. 3.5 KAWEAH RIVER WATER The Kaweah River rises in the Sierra Nevada at an elevation of over 12,000 feet and drains a watershed area of about 630 square miles above the foothill line. Terminus Reservoir, located about 3-1/2 miles east of the easterly District boundary, has a tributary drainage area of about 560 square miles, which produces about 95 percent of the total runoff of the watershed. More detailed description of the Kaweah River system is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). During the period of record from 1901 through 2012, the average annual runoff was 433,300 af, ranging from a minimum of 104,100 af in 1977 to a maximum of 1,360,000 af in 1983. Records of the annual runoff of Kaweah River near Three Rivers during the period are provided in Table 14 - Annual Runoff of Kaweah River near Three Rivers for Period 1901 through 2012. The average annual runoff for the 1981 to 2012 study period is 106 percent of the long-term average since 1901.
35 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 14. Annual Runoff of Kaweah River near Three Rivers for Period 1901 through 2012
Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar Flow (af) Flow (af) Flow (af) Flow (af) Year Year Year Year
1901 720,800 1931 131,314 1961 111,274 1991 260,185 1902 342,000 1932 501,524 1962 406,518 1992 153,256 1903 393,100 1933 291,363 1963 513,165 1993 545,947 1904 410,740 1934 129,146 1964 251,639 1994 197,227
1905 310,460 1935 354,086 1965 472,607 1995 868,827 1906 1,119,470 1936 496,476 1966 433,773 1996 601,192 1907 599,040 1937 731,323 1967 829,006 1997 691,759
1908 246,490 1938 824,578 1968 216,274 1998 936,574 1909 849,856 1939 231,536 1969 1,277,982 1999 242,199 1910 359,371 1940 539,007 1970 356,117 2000 376,658 1911 546,141 1941 631,755 1971 289,182 2001 280,959
1912 199,929 1942 485,026 1972 170,301 2002 338,114 1913 229,811 1943 662,650 1973 629,573 2003 378,990 1914 482,311 1944 327,435 1974 472,688 2004 241,650
1915 371,084 1945 578,661 1975 391,900 2005 627,032
1916 794,433 1946 357,857 1976 133,316 2006 696,677
1917 435,186 1947 220,532 1977 104,084 2007 159,584 1918 245,350 1948 257,417 1978 835,406 2008 340,170 1919 245,900 1949 222,343 1979 413,254 2009 341,392
1920 358,800 1950 449,296 1980 883,976 2010 629,824
1921 342,329 1951 300,688 1981 259,402 2011 798,995 1922 476,112 1952 811,567 1982 913,232 2012 244,127 1923 343,633 1953 294,804 1983 1,357,789
1924 112,412 1954 309,214 1984 426,230 1925 318,254 1955 452,853 1985 330,899 1926 240,174 1956 545,572 1986 797,707 1927 477,794 1957 305,926 1987 179,310
1928 184,909 1958 629,434 1988 180,950 1929 214,607 1959 146,906 1989 210,668
1930 220,426 1960 188,176 1990 136,058
Maximum 1901-2012: 1,357,789 (1983) Maximum 1981-2012: 1,357,789 (1983) Minimum 1901-2012: 104,084 (1977) Minimum 1981-2012: 136,058 (1990)
Average 1901-2012: 433,348 Average 1981-2012: 460,737 (106% Long Term)
36 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.6 ST. JOHNS RIVER SYSTEM A description of the St. Johns River system is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). It is estimated that on the average about 149,000 af of water per year was diverted from the St. Johns River during the 1981 to 2012 study period. 3.7 LOWER KAWEAH RIVER SYSTEM A description of the Lower Kaweah River system is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). On the average, an estimated 190,000 af of water per year was diverted from the Lower Kaweah River during the 1981 to 2012 study period. 3.8 DISTRIBUTARIES AND CANAL SYSTEMS Distributaries of the St. Johns and Lower Kaweah rivers and canal systems are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 3.9 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT (CVP) WATER The use of imported CVP water within the District is described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). CVP water is delivered into the District through the Friant-Kern Canal. The canal is also utilized by Delta Lands Reclamation District No. 770 during periods when the Tulare Lakebed interests are facilitating the reduction or avoidance of damaging flows from the Kaweah River. Table 15 -Summary of Kaweah River Water Diversion into Friant-Kern Canal provides a summary of Kaweah water that was pumped into the canal and delivered to lands outside of the District.
37 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 15. Summary of Kaweah River Water Diversion into Friant-Kern Canal (values in acre-feet)
Lower Kaweah St. John Total Calendar Year River River Pumping Pumping Pumping
1981 0 0 0 1982 7,438 25,212 32,650 1983 0 145,079 145,079 1984 0 0 0 1985 0 0 0 1986 0 93,853 93,853 1987 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 1990 0 0 0 1991 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 1997 0 50,907 50,907 1998 0 106,498 106,498 1999 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 2006 0 19,407 19,407 2007 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0
Maximum 7,438 145,079 145,079 Minimum 0 0 0 Average 232 13,780 14,012
38 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
As indicated in Table 16 – District Imported Water, water purchased through the CVP by the District over the study period was relatively small, some 5,725 afy on average, largely due to substantially deficient runoff and unavailability of such supplemental surface water in all but the wettest periods. Tulare Irrigation District accepted delivery of an average of 79,100 afy of CVP water during the 32-year study period from 1981 to 2012. 3.10 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAIN CANAL SYSTEM The TID Main Intake Canal is described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). It is estimated that, on the average, about 101,200 afy of Kaweah River water are diverted by the TID. 3.11 KINGS RIVER WATER Kings River water is described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Volumes of Kings River water imported (and used for irrigation) in the District over the study period are relatively small, as shown in Table 16.
Table 16. District Imported Water
+
1 Kings CVP ID Ivanhoe CVP City of Visalia CVP KDWCD CVP Kings County WD CVP Lakeside IWD CVP Tulare ID CVP Total CVP Lakeside Kings CIC Kings Kings Total CVP Total Calendar Calendar Year ID Exeter
1981 1,073 0 198 0 8,001 0 57,164 66,436 11,117 3,836 14,953 81,389
1982 1,572 0 0 0 2,358 1,182 241,801 246,913 3,217 5,463 8,680 255,593
1983 1,626 0 0 0 0 0 75,372 76,998 0 1,463 1,463 78,461
1984 1,842 0 0 0 0 0 102,157 103,999 42,685 6,439 49,124 153,123
1985 1,187 0 0 11,445 0 12,301 69,177 94,110 3,205 4,133 7,338 101,448
1986 1,731 0 0 0 0 0 164,236 165,967 18,068 4,147 22,215 188,182
1987 881 0 0 0 0 18,310 12,361 31,552 2,430 2,386 4,816 36,368
1988 842 0 0 0 0 19,480 79,579 99,901 1,996 1,485 3,481 103,382
1989 1,059 0 0 0 0 13,395 26,218 40,672 1,000 1,409 2,409 43,081
1990 783 0 0 0 0 0 0 783 0 2,288 2,288 3,071
1991 1,009 0 0 0 0 0 21,826 22,835 0 2,050 2,050 24,885
1992 928 0 0 0 0 0 17,633 18,561 1,226 955 2,181 20,742
1993 2,364 0 0 0 0 7,803 137,888 148,055 7,093 6,088 13,181 161,236
1994 882 0 0 0 0 0 27,777 28,659 1,392 1,347 2,739 31,398
1995 1,603 0 0 16,124 0 0 103,836 121,563 16,053 4,819 20,872 142,435
1996 1,684 0 0 8,457 0 0 115,078 125,219 31,083 6,100 37,183 162,402
1997 1,547 0 0 16,999 0 0 84,336 102,882 20,733 4,008 24,741 127,623
1998 1,155 0 0 7,067 0 0 72,437 80,659 18,062 2,883 20,945 101,604
1999 1,350 0 0 399 0 3,767 110,410 115,926 15,963 2,112 18,075 134,001
2000 1,410 0 0 11,064 0 0 114,185 126,659 6,798 3,171 9,969 136,628
39 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 16. District Imported Water
+
1 Kings CVP ID Ivanhoe CVP City of Visalia CVP KDWCD CVP Kings County WD CVP Lakeside IWD CVP Tulare ID CVP Total CVP Lakeside Kings CIC Kings Kings Total CVP Total Calendar Year ID Exeter
2001 1,258 0 0 0 0 0 24,911 26,169 2,704 1,714 4,418 30,587 2002 1,158 0 0 0 0 0 40,023 41,181 2,341 3,721 6,062 47,243 2003 1,147 2,180 0 0 0 0 86,736 90,063 11,732 3,464 15,196 105,259 2004 1,057 0 0 0 0 0 34,375 35,432 5,562 3,442 9,004 44,435 2005 1,589 0 0 17,445 0 8,255 213,817 241,106 8,948 4,185 13,133 254,238 2006 1,305 0 0 12,316 0 0 131,298 144,919 15,723 6,015 21,738 166,658 2007 615 0 0 0 0 0 18,841 19,456 9,037 2,456 11,493 30,949 2008 986 0 0 0 0 0 29,098 30,084 0 2,538 2,538 32,622 2009 896 0 0 0 0 0 76,453 77,349 2,624 3,892 6,516 83,865 2010 1,138 0 0 34,839 0 0 104,318 140,295 3,223 5,634 8,857 149,152 2011 1,178 0 773 47,033 0 0 127,043 176,027 2,041 8,950 10,991 187,018 2012 834 0 0 0 0 0 12,084 12,918 2,688 2,887 5,575 18,492 Maximum 2,364 2,180 773 47,033 8,001 19,480 241,801 246,913 42,685 8,950 49,124 255,593 Minimum 615 0 0 0 0 0 0 783 0 955 1,463 3,071 Average 1,240 68 30 5,725 324 2,640 79,140 89,167 8,398 3,609 12,007 101,174 1. For portion of EID located within KDWCD
Note: Exeter Irrigation District and Corcoran Irrigation Company water use calculated based upon acreage within KDWCD
3.12 CONVEYANCE LOSS CALCULATIONS 3.12.1 Background Background information on conveyance loss calculations is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). As mentioned earlier in this section, some changes were made by the District in how conveyance losses were calculated. The overall results are summarized in Table 17 – Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River System. The net effect of the change is very minor; total conveyance losses on Lower Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers changed by less than 1 percent during the 1981 and 1999 base period. During the 1981 to 2012 study period, conveyance losses decreased slightly from 79,500 afy (1981 to 1999) to 77,800 afy (1981 to 2012). 3.12.2 Natural Channels The method of analysis for natural channels conveyance loss is described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007), supplemented by modifications described in this report. One of the significant components for the calculation of natural channel losses is the adjustment required when excess flows are pumped into the Friant-Kern Canal during operations to reduce flows to the Tulare Lake Bed. When such pumping occurs, those amounts are deducted from natural channel flow. Additionally, the surface water pumped into the Friant-Kern Canal is not attributed to the delivery to
40 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) lands within the District to the benefit of either agricultural supply or groundwater recharge. The accounting for this surface water diversion outside of the District is summarized in Table 15 - Summary of Kaweah River Water Diversions into the Friant-Kern Canal.
Table 17. Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems (in acre-feet)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 12,052 22,300 4,173 7,505 0 9,491 55,521
1982 23,682 75,511 11,050 15,409 0 28,481 154,133
1983 24,308 83,161 9,383 13,197 0 36,895 166,944
1984 14,393 42,251 6,273 8,996 0 24,314 96,227
1985 13,823 29,324 5,850 8,631 0 9,263 66,891
1986 22,610 64,591 7,909 11,643 0 15,278 122,031
1987 11,534 14,967 3,603 5,642 0 5,061 40,807
1988 7,944 13,655 3,663 5,448 0 2,926 33,636
1989 8,066 15,885 3,531 5,579 0 3,090 36,151
1990 9,079 9,361 3,385 5,196 0 4,214 31,235
1991 13,430 22,562 4,074 6,596 0 3,838 50,500
1992 12,616 12,188 4,197 6,440 0 2,684 38,125
1993 19,339 39,010 8,890 13,301 0 14,596 95,136
1994 15,592 17,862 6,520 8,956 0 3,335 52,265
1995 23,703 63,212 8,876 12,419 0 22,494 130,704
1996 14,023 33,256 7,921 11,654 0 16,100 82,954
1997 19,166 46,753 7,055 11,112 0 14,640 98,726
1998 18,988 62,645 6,441 9,331 0 20,642 118,047
1999 9,588 20,390 3,870 5,516 0 7,958 47,322
2000 13,933 36,381 4,834 7,531 0 9,777 72,456
2001 12,096 14,600 3,714 5,658 0 3,389 39,457
41 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 17. Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems (in acre-feet) - Continued
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
2002 14,409 26,683 5,890 8,485 0 9,223 64,690
2003 14,006 29,353 4,877 6,927 0 8,139 63,302
2004 11,256 20,237 5,210 7,351 0 7,396 51,450
2005 20,143 62,863 7,779 11,036 0 18,983 120,804
2006 15,647 49,421 6,415 9,228 0 22,698 103,409
2007 9,435 11,579 4,284 6,053 0 4,671 36,022
2008 11,875 31,216 5,551 8,073 0 5,835 62,550
2009 12,132 31,083 4,479 6,545 0 7,880 62,119
2010 19,137 47,946 9,158 13,724 0 17,401 107,366
2011 22,377 61,918 11,777 16,634 0 32,100 144,806
2012 13,667 13,876 3,946 6,325 0 7,078 44,892
Maximum 24,308 83,161 11,777 16,634 0 36,895 166,944
Minimum 7,944 9,361 3,385 5,196 0 2,684 31,235
Average 15,127 35,189 6,081 8,942 0 12,496 77,834
Lower Kaweah No. 2 (59%) No. 4 (39%) No. 2 (41%) River Loss No. 5 (100%) No. 3 (100%) Reach No. 6 (100%) No. 4 (61%)
No. 1 (100%) No. 2 (11%) No. 7 (46%) No. 2 (89%) No. 3 (100%) No. 8 (100%) St. Johns River No. 4 (100%) Highline Canal Loss Reach No. 5 (100%) Losses No. 6 (100%) No. 7 (54%)
3.12.3 Riparian Diversions Quantification of surface water diverted on a monthly basis by riparian users is described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). These data are summarized in Table 18- Summary of Riparian Diversions, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems. As indicated, over the 1981 to 2012 study period "average" diversions for riparian use were on the order of 5,300 afy. Most riparian diversions occurred in Hydrologic Unit No. 2.
42 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 18. Summary of Riparian Diversions, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems (in acre-feet)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 435 1,763 282 302 0 192 2,974 1982 744 8,430 633 517 0 1,834 12,158 1983 751 8,570 642 522 0 1,953 12,438 1984 435 3,847 357 302 0 972 5,913 1985 474 2,898 399 329 0 406 4,506 1986 737 5,769 561 512 0 1,155 8,734 1987 285 624 240 198 0 100 1,447 1988 274 623 225 190 0 82 1,394 1989 302 1,706 255 210 0 178 2,651 1990 218 298 177 151 0 0 844 1991 281 1,955 234 195 0 397 3,062 1992 190 583 162 132 0 91 1,158 1993 625 4,554 525 434 0 949 7,087 1994 228 1,049 195 158 0 82 1,712 1995 723 6,033 618 502 0 1,219 9,095 1996 550 4,985 465 383 0 1,077 7,460 1997 590 3,864 360 410 0 858 6,082 1998 751 7,077 642 522 0 1,542 10,534 1999 355 2,055 294 246 0 425 3,375 2000 478 4,369 363 332 0 848 6,390 2001 324 1,887 246 225 0 374 3,056 2002 407 2,435 345 283 0 392 3,862 2003 362 2,388 297 252 0 538 3,837 2004 274 1,340 231 191 0 228 2,264 2005 600 5,835 504 417 0 1,136 8,492 2006 653 6,180 558 453 0 1,328 9,172 2007 249 1,399 207 173 0 0 2,028 2008 301 3,083 258 210 0 429 4,281 2009 348 2,767 294 241 0 448 4,098 2010 509 4,778 372 354 0 954 6,967 2011 748 6,444 639 519 0 1,173 9,523 2012 333 2,226 273 232 0 274 3,338
Maximum 751 8,570 642 522 0 1,953 12,438 Minimum 190 298 162 132 0 0 844 Average 454 3,494 370 316 0 676 5,310
43 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.12.4 Headgate Diversions Data collection and calculation of headgate diversions and spills are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). The resultant delivery volumes are provided on Table 19 - Summary of Headgate Diversions. As indicated in Table 19, there was an average of about 518,700 afy of surface water directed at headgates within the District over the study period. This volume includes both local and imported water sources. Most of the CVP deliveries were to Hydrologic Unit No. V, which receives virtually all of the CVP water (79,000 afy of 89,000 afy total over the study period).
Table 19. Summary of Headgate Diversions (in acre-feet)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar Year Entire District Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 9,495 26,955 21,941 75,859 85,116 110,383 329,749
1982 11,965 90,183 61,572 290,382 362,494 327,414 1,144,010
1983 8,193 85,869 63,357 306,831 366,024 275,829 1,106,103
1984 9,223 51,055 36,481 140,442 191,931 218,358 647,490
1985 8,553 43,449 24,345 107,743 114,275 121,521 419,886
1986 7,500 66,212 45,911 205,190 315,048 169,322 809,183
1987 7,825 19,746 16,735 54,323 17,910 70,360 186,899
1988 6,931 21,520 18,399 61,627 90,941 51,030 250,448
1989 8,068 28,641 16,501 64,493 50,099 46,853 214,655
1990 8,302 14,207 13,373 34,168 586 42,141 112,777
1991 7,895 29,583 14,833 77,424 68,017 50,697 248,449
1992 6,967 16,236 9,987 43,694 29,473 27,456 133,813
1993 9,453 60,773 29,439 176,566 253,172 197,047 726,450
1994 7,646 23,647 13,394 53,011 49,632 35,821 183,151
1995 16,265 89,215 43,576 247,369 271,461 288,781 956,667
1996 11,074 56,081 27,865 181,336 250,303 240,196 766,855
1997 11,044 56,136 29,207 212,705 223,103 179,640 711,835
1998 13,470 92,094 50,671 243,077 295,307 221,512 916,131
1999 9,531 32,749 21,204 95,444 130,441 99,870 389,239
2000 9,092 45,607 18,962 122,615 166,095 123,912 486,283
2001 7,776 26,916 12,989 79,769 67,170 53,761 248,381
2002 6,896 36,910 22,860 86,864 93,824 115,484 362,838
2003 6,181 36,913 18,228 119,879 142,571 118,931 442,703
2004 6,133 24,664 13,796 67,467 66,310 87,058 265,428
2005 7,002 75,505 31,440 206,621 284,380 211,181 816,129
2006 6,921 65,002 32,720 211,264 261,748 309,998 887,653
2007 4,863 17,462 12,943 31,854 43,236 56,089 166,447
44 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 19. Summary of Headgate Diversions (in acre-feet) - Continued
Calendar Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Unit No. Hydrologic Hydrologic Unit Entire District Year No. 1 Unit No. II No. III IV Unit No. V No. VI
2008 7,050 39,888 18,619 103,904 78,084 70,361 317,906
2009 5,845 37,514 17,231 103,715 133,750 94,420 392,475
2010 7,058 69,197 24,735 171,529 239,094 183,791 695,404
2011 10,300 81,600 41,166 258,578 310,054 314,088 1,015,786
2012 10,253 25,954 17,305 62,155 46,319 84,224 246,210
Maximum 16,265 92,094 63,357 306,831 366,024 327,414 1,144,010
Minimum 4,863 14,207 9,987 31,854 586 27,456 112,777
Average 8,587 46,484 26,306 134,309 159,312 143,673 518,670
TIC (5%) Yokohl Creek "Hamilton, Crocker Cut Mathews Fleming Peoples (90%), Hanna, Longs, Lakeside Uphill Oaks Deep Creek TIC (90%) Ketchum, Modoc Packwood Creek Exeter ID (5.3%) CIC (100%) Diversions Packwood Packwood Canal St. Johns (10%) TID-Main Creek (90%) CIC-Kings Fisher Ranch Goshen Evans Canal (10%) (100%) TID-Main Exeter ID (3.7%)" Harrell Ranch Persian Crocker Cut (10%) Watson TIC (5%) Canal (90%)
Notes: 1. CVP water is included in all headgate diversions. 2. Lakeside (Total) includes Kaweah, Kings and CVP water.
3.12.5 Constructed Channels Estimation of seepage losses that occur in constructed channels was described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). A summary of the estimated annual quantities of conveyance losses within each hydrologic unit related to the channel systems is tabulated in Table 20 - Summary of Ditch Systems Conveyance Losses. Average losses in the constructed channels (ditches) were 122,700 afy over the 1981 to 2012 study period. These data are, in turn, combined with the conveyance losses related to the Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River systems as Table 21 - Summary of All Delivered Water Conveyance Losses. As indicated, average annual losses within the District are estimated at about 200,500 afy and ranged from a low of about 49,000 af in 1990 to a high of about 435,000 af in 1983. Plates 35 through 41 – Hydrologic Budget Summary, graphically present the components of deep percolation for the streambeds (Lower Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers and constructed channels), and artificial release basins for the entire District and each of the six hydrologic units for each year of the study period.
45 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 20. Summary of Ditch System Conveyance Losses (in acre-feet)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 0 4,250 6,444 30,955 22,697 6,599 70,945 1982 261 12,714 21,376 117,999 96,665 25,518 274,533 1983 0 13,358 23,490 109,065 97,606 24,664 268,183 1984 0 7,662 12,318 58,282 51,182 17,225 146,669 1985 40 5,972 7,435 44,114 30,473 8,856 96,890 1986 0 9,793 18,409 85,767 84,012 16,156 214,137 1987 17 2,947 4,762 18,866 4,775 4,914 36,281 1988 9 3,336 5,187 26,364 24,251 4,372 63,519 1989 32 4,395 4,887 24,618 13,360 3,913 51,205 1990 10 2,078 3,720 10,485 157 1,264 17,714 1991 35 4,216 4,432 30,648 18,138 3,938 61,407 1992 16 2,409 2,788 15,916 7,859 1,144 30,132 1993 69 7,870 9,315 78,603 67,513 15,710 179,080 1994 16 3,355 3,785 20,851 13,235 1,772 43,014 1995 208 11,716 14,667 100,146 72,389 22,910 222,036 1996 165 8,060 9,925 77,017 66,748 18,050 179,965 1997 67 7,510 9,926 83,340 59,494 15,169 175,506 1998 458 12,140 17,384 92,143 78,749 20,521 221,395 1999 37 4,789 7,187 38,284 34,784 6,912 91,993 2000 57 5,699 5,755 51,016 44,292 10,790 117,609 2001 35 3,645 3,683 31,452 17,912 4,619 61,346 2002 49 4,951 6,898 35,222 25,020 7,052 79,192 2003 58 5,056 5,271 50,832 38,020 9,877 109,114 2004 31 3,153 3,911 26,997 17,683 4,849 56,624 2005 149 9,100 11,329 89,266 75,835 17,235 202,914 2006 176 8,334 10,743 88,574 69,800 20,101 197,728 2007 11 2,693 3,615 13,136 11,529 2,984 33,968 2008 74 5,411 5,439 40,182 20,822 4,917 76,845 2009 55 5,247 5,110 44,259 35,666 5,561 95,898 2010 111 8,324 7,817 73,724 63,758 12,395 166,129 2011 35 10,024 14,295 107,229 82,682 21,724 235,989 2012 25 3,446 4,833 23,958 12,352 4,351 48,965
Maximum 458 13,358 23,490 117,999 97,606 25,518 274,533 Minimum 0 2,078 2,788 10,485 157 1,144 17,714 Average 72 6,364 8,629 54,353 42,483 10,814 122,716 TIC (5%), Peoples (31%) Crocker Cut Mathews (11%) Fleming (26%), Deep Creek (24%) Systems Ketchum (10%) Uphill (22%) Oakes (29%) (41%) TIC (24%) Lakeside (15%) with Packwood Canal Modoc (15%) Packwood Creek (10%) TID (10%) Packwood CIC (3%) Losses (10%) St. Johns (25%) Evans (28%) Crocker Cut Creek (24%) CIC: Kings (10%) Goshen (25%) Persian (28%) (10%) TID (24%) Watson (28%) TIC (5%) Hamilton Systems Hanna without Longs Harrell Ranch Exeter ID Losses Fisher Exeter ID
46 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 21. Summary of All Delivered Water Conveyance Losses (in acre-feet)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar Year Entire District Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 12,052 26,550 10,617 38,460 22,697 16,090 126,466 1982 23,938 88,189 32,426 133,408 96,665 53,987 428,613 1983 24,302 96,465 32,873 122,262 97,606 61,535 435,043 1984 14,390 49,902 18,591 67,278 51,182 41,532 242,875 1985 13,863 35,296 13,285 52,745 30,473 18,119 163,781 1986 22,609 74,377 26,318 97,410 84,012 31,433 336,159 1987 11,551 17,914 8,365 24,508 4,775 9,975 77,088 1988 7,953 16,991 8,850 31,812 24,251 7,298 97,155 1989 8,098 20,280 8,418 30,197 13,360 7,003 87,356 1990 9,089 11,439 7,105 15,681 157 5,478 48,949 1991 13,465 26,778 8,506 37,244 18,138 7,776 111,907 1992 12,632 14,597 6,985 22,356 7,859 3,828 68,257 1993 19,408 46,880 18,205 91,904 67,513 30,306 274,216 1994 15,608 21,217 10,305 29,807 13,235 5,107 95,279 1995 23,910 74,916 23,543 112,565 72,389 45,402 352,725 1996 14,188 41,316 17,846 88,671 66,748 34,150 262,919 1997 19,228 54,248 16,981 94,452 59,494 29,804 274,207 1998 19,439 74,759 23,820 101,468 78,749 41,151 339,386 1999 9,625 25,179 11,057 43,800 34,784 14,870 139,315 2000 13,990 42,080 10,589 58,547 44,292 20,567 190,065 2001 12,131 18,245 7,397 37,110 17,912 8,008 100,803 2002 14,458 31,634 12,788 43,707 25,020 16,275 143,882 2003 14,064 34,409 10,148 57,759 38,020 18,016 172,416 2004 11,287 23,390 9,121 34,348 17,683 12,245 108,074 2005 20,292 71,963 19,108 100,302 75,835 36,218 323,718 2006 16,453 60,725 17,158 97,802 69,800 44,021 305,959 2007 9,446 14,272 7,899 19,189 11,529 7,655 69,990 2008 11,949 36,627 10,990 48,255 20,822 10,752 139,395 2009 12,187 36,330 9,589 50,804 35,666 13,441 158,017 2010 19,248 56,270 16,975 87,448 63,758 29,796 273,495 2011 22,412 71,942 26,072 123,863 82,682 53,824 380,795 2012 13,692 17,322 8,779 30,283 12,352 11,429 93,857
Maximum 24,308 96,519 32,873 133,408 97,606 61,559 435,127 Minimum 7,953 11,439 6,985 15,681 157 3,828 48,949
Average 15,199 41,553 14,710 63,295 42,483 23,310 200,550
Note: Values represent natural river system and ditch system (constructed channel) conveyance losses.
47 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.13 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 3.13.1 General Characteristics Since the 1930s, the District has operated groundwater recharge ("sinking") basins for purposes of conserving available water supply and flood control within the District. Information on the history of the development, operation, size, location, approximate diversions, maintenance, and other features of each recharge basin are available from the District in various forms. A summary of the characteristics of each recharge basin is provided in Table 5- Recharge Basin Inventory. A map of the location of each recharge basin is provided on Plate 3, and related information provided in Table 5. As indicated, the District presently operates about 38 recharge basins with a combined surface area of about 2,133 acres. Recharge basins in the District serve to supplement natural replacement to the groundwater reservoir from channel loss contributions. Although the source of supply for each recharge basin is variable from year to year, the approximate quantities of artificial recharge can be estimated for each year of the study period for each hydrologic unit. Tabulation and accounting of inflows depends on the accuracy of data relating to the number of days per year of wetted area in each basin and the hydraulic conductivity or percolation capacity of the basin, typically expressed in units of gallons per day per square foot or in acre-feet per day per acre. 3.13.2 Record Data Prior to the completion of Terminus Dam, the District compiled available data into a basin list including percolation rates. The data were integrated into the United States Army Corps of Engineers' "Reservoir Regulation Manual" for Terminus Dam. Prior to the dam's construction, the District used the basins during periods of excess water flows in the Kaweah River system to help minimize the effects of potential flooding to downstream parties, while simultaneously taking advantage of the opportunity to recharge groundwater. During the District's history, available inflow records to the recharge basins have been limited and such records do not adequately exist for the entire study period. The approach for estimating inflow from a recharge basin was therefore based on approximating the number of days any one basin might have received water. The data utilized for estimating recharge basin inflow are listed as follows: • Individual daily diversions in cfs (1981 to 2012) • Individual monthly diversions in af (1981 to 2012). • Anticipated irrigation demand derived from the calculation of gross required irrigation demand. • Recharge basin percolation rates from the U.S.A.C.E., Terminus Dam, "Reservoir Regulation Manual." The application of the noted data is detailed in the following section, which gives a description of the methodology used in estimating inflow from the recharge basins within the District. 3.13.3 Calculations The basic methodology applied in estimating recharge basin inflow was described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). This methodology was modified by the District for the WRI Update.
48 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The updated method involves estimation of estimated “recharge basin day” factors, which are calculated as: Recharge Factor = (NDKR – NDAID) / (1 – NDAID) Where: • NDKR is the Normal Distribution of Kaweah River at McKay Point + Upstream Diversions; and • NDAID is the Normal Distribution of Average Irrigation Demand. For each basin within the District, this recharge factor is multiplied by the number of days when water was diverted into the respective ditch conveyance system during each month of the study period, and the percolation rate for that basin. The results of the analyses are tabulated in Table 22 - Summary of Recharge Basin Inflow. Average annual inflow into the recharge basins is on the order of 54,700 afy and ranged from a high of about 305,700 af in 1983 to a low of 60 af in 1990.
49 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 22. Summary of Recharge Basin Inflow
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire District Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 0 201 15 469 3,702 483 4,870 1982 0 16,935 4,404 25,124 84,559 59,996 191,018 1983 0 26,861 7,461 38,474 141,834 91,040 305,670 1984 0 5,288 2,395 8,660 32,989 18,653 67,985 1985 0 1,626 629 4,722 14,312 3,867 25,156 1986 0 10,282 4,354 16,192 51,443 25,592 107,863 1987 0 95 57 560 2,038 419 3,169 1988 0 138 73 1,220 2,503 446 4,380 1989 0 34 6 51 173 71 335 1990 0 0 0 38 22 0 60 1991 0 111 47 329 367 290 1,144 1992 0 116 81 663 247 130 1,237 1993 0 4,816 1,691 8,149 27,741 12,687 55,084 1994 0 83 27 821 0 88 1,019 1995 0 13,868 5,898 20,168 68,156 47,297 155,387 1996 0 8,123 3,417 14,130 45,160 23,503 94,333 1997 0 7,921 3,786 13,493 41,966 28,008 95,174 1998 0 17,047 7,361 26,693 91,264 63,193 205,558 1999 0 833 210 1,491 4,857 3,319 10,710 2000 0 1,508 331 2,485 8,572 5,892 18,788 2001 0 169 53 795 2,461 1,295 4,773 2002 0 1,729 356 2,809 11,836 6,806 23,536 2003 0 2,116 668 3,421 10,966 5,053 22,224 2004 0 167 44 283 2,006 631 3,131 2005 0 4,425 827 5,971 22,971 14,322 48,516 2006 0 7,864 3,362 11,166 40,714 33,639 96,745 2007 0 106 18 247 1,106 436 1,913 2008 0 486 152 862 4,189 1,205 6,894 2009 0 907 73 569 5,866 1,268 8,683 2010 0 6,354 1,100 7,926 31,592 12,843 59,815 2011 0 11,098 3,457 17,062 54,951 35,741 122,309 2012 0 30 0 140 2,078 0 2,248
Maximum 0 26,861 7,461 38,474 141,834 91,040 305,670 Minimum 0 0 0 38 0 0 60 Average 0 4,729 1,636 7,349 25,395 15,569 54,679
50 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.14 CROP DELIVERY Delivery of surface water to meet agricultural crop demands in the District is derived from the headgate diversions (Table 19) less the ditch system conveyance losses (Table 20), less the spills (discussed later in Table 24), less surface water artificially recharged (Table 22), plus the riparian diversions (Table 18). The fundamental equation used in the calculation is as follows: = − − − + SWC HGDIV CLDITCH AR S RD
where: SWC = Surface Water Crop Delivery
HGDIV = Headgate Diversions CLDITCH = Conveyance Loss Constructed Channel AR = Artificial Recharge S = Spills (surface water outflow)
RD = Riparian Diversion Annual volumes of surface water delivered to farms are summarized in Table 23 - Summary of Surface Water Crop Delivery Data. As indicated, the average annual amount of surface water delivered to meet crop demand was about 251,700 afy over the study period. The deliveries show an obvious correlation to the availability of surface water and ranged from about 56,000 afy (1990) to 491,400 afy (2011).
51 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 23. Summary of Surface Water Crop Delivery Data (in acre-feet)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Calendar Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 9,930 24,267 15,764 44,737 57,975 25,008 177,681 1982 12,448 68,964 36,425 117,547 148,023 71,926 455,333 1983 8,944 54,220 33,048 63,192 29,406 47,777 236,587 1984 9,658 41,952 22,125 68,258 95,738 62,606 300,337 1985 8,987 38,749 16,680 59,236 69,123 35,345 228,120 1986 8,237 51,906 23,709 85,577 154,375 56,811 380,615 1987 8,093 17,328 12,156 35,095 11,097 20,682 104,451 1988 7,196 18,669 13,364 34,233 64,187 20,421 158,070 1989 8,338 25,918 11,863 40,034 36,566 18,497 141,216 1990 8,510 12,427 9,830 23,796 407 1,024 55,994 1991 8,141 27,211 10,588 46,642 49,512 17,969 160,063 1992 7,141 14,294 7,280 27,247 21,367 2,831 80,160 1993 10,009 52,641 18,958 90,248 157,918 61,220 390,994 1994 7,858 21,258 9,777 31,497 36,397 5,667 112,454 1995 16,780 69,664 23,629 116,057 128,639 70,561 425,330 1996 11,459 44,883 14,988 90,336 138,395 60,482 360,543 1997 11,567 44,569 15,855 90,689 107,114 50,026 319,820 1998 13,763 69,984 26,568 103,963 119,363 51,129 384,770 1999 9,849 29,182 14,101 54,110 90,370 26,761 224,373 2000 9,513 42,769 13,239 66,669 113,108 46,847 292,145 2001 8,065 24,989 9,499 47,747 46,789 21,073 158,162 2002 7,254 32,665 15,951 49,116 56,478 22,894 184,358 2003 6,485 32,129 12,586 65,348 92,367 41,801 250,716 2004 6,376 22,684 10,072 40,378 45,515 17,109 142,134 2005 7,453 67,815 19,788 111,601 183,402 69,463 459,522 2006 7,398 54,984 19,173 102,038 144,038 61,267 388,898 2007 5,101 16,062 9,517 18,644 30,448 9,883 89,655 2008 7,277 37,074 13,286 63,070 52,915 20,242 193,864 2009 6,138 34,127 12,342 59,128 90,835 19,821 222,391 2010 7,456 59,297 16,190 86,938 141,980 40,650 352,511 2011 11,013 66,922 24,053 126,267 169,644 93,479 491,378 2012 10,561 24,704 12,745 38,289 31,689 14,869 132,857
Maximum 16,780 69,984 36,425 126,267 183,402 93,479 491,378 Minimum 5,101 12,427 7,280 18,644 407 1,024 55,994 Average 8,969 38,885 16,411 65,554 84,849 37,067 251,734
Notes: 1) CVP water is included in all headgate diversion. 2) Lakeside (Total) includes Kaweah, Kings, and CVP water.
52 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
3.15 SURFACE WATER OUTFLOW (SPILLS) In years of significant surface water availability within the District (i.e., 1983, 1995, 1997, 2006 and 2011), the quantity of surface water can exceed the crop demands and recharge capacity of the conveyance systems and basins. In such years, surface water flows out of the District in the form of "spills." Three spill locations are recognized in the District at points on Elk Bayou to the Tule River, from TID to the Tule River, and from Cross Creek to (ultimately) the Tulare Lake bed. Quantification of these spills at these points is straightforward in that these spill points are gauged. Table 24 - Summary of Spills, tabulates the volumes of spill from the District at the designated points for each year of the study period. In many years, no spill occurs. As indicated, the average volume of spill was about 94,900 afy over the study period, most of which is concentrated in 1982, 1983, 1995, 2006 and 2011.
53 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 24. Summary of Spills (in acre-feet)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar Year Entire District Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 0 0 0 0 742 78,485 79,227 1982 0 0 0 30,229 33,247 171,808 235,284 1983 0 0 0 96,622 97,178 114,301 308,101 1984 0 0 0 5,544 12,022 120,846 138,412 1985 0 0 0 0 367 73,859 74,226 1986 0 0 0 18,166 25,218 71,918 115,302 1987 0 0 0 0 0 44,445 44,445 1988 0 0 0 0 0 25,873 25,873 1989 0 0 0 0 0 24,550 24,550 1990 0 0 0 0 0 39,853 39,853 1991 0 0 0 0 0 28,897 28,897 1992 0 0 0 0 0 23,442 23,442 1993 0 0 0 0 0 108,379 108,379 1994 0 0 0 0 0 28,376 28,376 1995 0 0 0 11,500 2,277 149,232 163,009 1996 0 0 0 236 0 139,238 139,474 1997 0 0 0 25,593 14,529 87,295 127,417 1998 0 0 0 20,800 5,931 88,211 114,942 1999 0 0 0 1,805 430 63,303 65,538 2000 0 0 0 2,777 123 61,231 64,131 2001 0 0 0 0 8 27,148 27,156 2002 0 0 0 0 490 79,124 79,614 2003 0 0 0 530 1,218 62,738 64,486 2004 0 0 0 0 1,106 64,697 65,803 2005 0 0 0 200 2,172 111,297 113,669 2006 0 0 0 9,939 7,196 196,319 213,454 2007 0 0 0 0 153 42,786 42,939 2008 0 0 0 0 158 44,426 44,584 2009 0 0 0 0 1,383 68,218 69,601 2010 0 0 0 3,295 1,764 118,857 123,916 2011 0 0 0 8,539 2,777 164,317 175,633 2012 0 0 0 0 200 65,278 65,478
Maximum 0 0 0 96,622 97,178 196,319 308,101 Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 23,442 23,442 Average 0 0 0 7,368 6,584 80,898 94,850
Outflow from Elk Bayou Spill TID Spill CIC Hydrologic Unit to to to Tule River Tule River Tulare Lakebed
54 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.0 WATER BALANCE AND SAFE YIELD 4.1 INTRODUCTION Presented in Section 4 is analysis and tabulation of the components of water supply, use, and disposal over the 1981 to 2012 study period and estimates of the annual water supply surplus or deficiency for each hydrologic unit and for the District as a whole. Given the availability of data and uncertainties in accuracy in calculating the magnitude of each of these components, the annual totals were in turn compared to the annual changes of groundwater in storage in the District, as determined by the specific yield method that was documented in Section 2. 4.2 HYDROLOGIC BUDGET 4.2.1 General Statement A hydrologic budget is simply a quantitative statement of the balance of the total water gains and losses from a basin or defined area for a given period of time. The major components of the budget or balance evaluated for the District can be expressed by the following relationship.
P + SI + Sb I + PR + W + AR = GP + Sbo + EP + EL + EW ± ΔS Where: P = Percolation of Precipitation
SI = Streambed Percolation and Surface Water Delivery Conveyance losses Sb I = Subsurface Inflow PR = Percolation of Applied Irrigation Water (Irrigation Return Water) W = Percolation of Wastewater AR = Artificial Recharge GP = Gross Groundwater Pumpage
Sbo = Subsurface Outflow EP = Extraction by Phreatophytes EL = Evaporative Losses EW = Exported Water ΔS = Change of Groundwater in Storage The hydrogeologic study period for the study encompasses the years from 1981 through 2012 (32 years). Selection of this study period was largely based on bringing the original WRI base period from 1981 to 1999 up to date. In any water balance study, there are assumptions in estimating the seasonal volumes of recharge (inflow) or discharge (outflow). The assumptions used in calculating the magnitude of the seasonal amounts of recharge and discharge are explicitly stated in this report or provided in referenced previous reports. For all of the inflow and outflow components, the period used was a calendar year, between January 1 and December 31 of each year. 4.2.2 Components of Inflow 4.2.2.1 Subsurface Inflow Subsurface groundwater inflow occurs across the District boundaries and hydrologic units in accordance with the hydraulic gradient and permeability of the materials. The methodology used and the annual estimation of such volumes of inflow is provided in Section 2 and the previous report (Fugro, 2007). The water level elevation contour maps (Plates 17 to 20) show the general
55 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) direction of movement of groundwater within the District and where subsurface inflow (and outflow) occurs both to and from the District. A discussion of the general flow patterns over the study period was provided in Section 2. A typical map showing the subsurface reaches and magnitudes of flow (in afy) for the Spring 1999 water level data is shown on Plate 34 - Typical Map of Subsurface Flow Calculations. Similar maps were prepared for each year of the study period and a routine prepared in Geographic Information System (GIS) to solve the standard D'Arcy equation for each reach calculated. A summary of the subsurface inflow estimates to the District and for each hydrologic unit during the 32-year study period is presented on Table 25 - Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Inflow Volumes. The data in Table 25 indicate that for the entire District, over the study period, there was an average annual net inflow across (into) District perimeter boundaries of about 23,000 af. Inflow was about 15,000 afy into Hydrologic Unit Nos. I and II and between 18,500 to 36,500 afy into Units III, IV, V, and VI. Table 25 also presents net inflow volumes for each unit for each year of the study period. Average annual inflows for the entire District averaged 56,800 and varied from about 28,900 af (2009) to 125,800 af the year before (2008).
56 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 25. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Inflow Volumes (in acre-feet per year)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar District District District Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Year Inflow Outflow Net No. I No. II No. III No. IV No. V No. VI
1981 13,240 9,532 18,704 26,698 29,341 43,891 73,596 46,214 27,382
1982 11,850 7,658 20,691 33,573 25,477 55,124 64,523 32,159 32,364 1983 13,453 7,314 23,451 38,230 24,776 44,521 61,820 48,858 12,962 1984 11,734 7,741 33,691 74,114 22,467 31,327 86,961 38,720 48,241 1985 8,786 10,386 15,306 36,234 15,525 26,319 47,110 16,120 30,990 1986 11,388 6,576 20,392 39,331 15,364 34,943 45,126 24,753 20,373 1987 18,025 7,441 14,121 39,882 14,126 31,141 54,288 8,776 45,512 1988 18,893 9,633 9,425 14,179 19,546 16,752 35,884 12,509 23,375 1989 15,278 9,504 16,378 7,923 18,143 17,287 36,796 23,012 13,784 1990 20,531 9,260 12,881 21,065 17,471 26,544 53,527 11,891 41,636 1991 17,233 10,388 12,056 21,697 25,183 31,992 59,906 18,111 41,795 1992 22,389 11,410 7,766 40,046 30,643 13,596 62,895 9,334 53,561 1993 12,736 10,641 13,425 34,899 20,110 30,041 48,130 13,806 34,324 1994 8,611 13,205 9,159 26,858 31,474 21,846 36,643 13,321 23,322 1995 15,660 23,327 7,418 15,864 32,611 35,988 59,813 12,445 47,368 1996 26,792 6,347 17,096 31,846 17,014 32,408 71,533 35,147 36,386 1997 18,902 14,327 33,801 44,494 9,797 28,419 68,574 50,716 17,858 1998 16,511 13,063 21,858 40,488 22,239 21,960 49,156 24,890 24,266 1999 15,702 10,935 13,324 20,118 29,782 21,989 39,534 32,363 7,171 2000 20,274 16,066 27,898 27,786 28,724 31,308 57,776 20,134 37,642 2001 9,218 16,083 21,791 24,611 26,285 22,328 45,087 29,622 15,465 2002 20,685 16,891 16,580 15,914 15,546 21,216 36,972 39,332 (2,360) 2003 19,608 17,081 16,642 14,947 9,777 22,660 36,082 61,173 (25,091) 2004 9,837 14,280 23,427 44,214 19,242 43,483 61,755 63,822 (2,067) 2005 20,868 24,817 24,646 70,527 21,752 15,479 91,288 32,334 58,954 2006 15,641 14,750 14,295 72,530 28,661 55,831 101,102 5,622 95,480 2007 11,885 10,836 23,675 42,012 23,086 71,983 60,742 29,360 31,382 2008 13,933 25,992 12,486 82,608 65,807 34,207 125,783 19,092 106,691 2009 15,245 18,948 20,369 62,567 7,420 20,518 28,872 72,806 (43,934) 2010 10,668 35,566 19,913 39,098 9,603 29,629 46,155 58,284 (12,129) 2011 10,372 25,593 28,290 24,024 9,822 39,556 38,834 73,380 (34,546) 2012 11,549 17,937 24,008 37,575 5,005 43,241 29,927 101,612 (71,685)
Maximum 26,792 35,566 33,801 82,608 65,807 71,983 125,783 101,612 106,691 Minimum 8,611 6,347 7,418 7,923 5,005 13,596 28,872 5,622 (71,685) Average 15,234 14,173 18,593 36,436 21,619 31,798 56,756 33,741 23,015
57 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.2.2 Percolation of Precipitation The estimation of percolation of precipitation for 1981 to 1999 was described in detail in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). The District retained Davids Engineering to provide precipitation percolation estimates for 2000 to 2012 using satellite imagery. The methodology and results used to develop estimates for 2000 to 2012 are described in Davids Engineering (2013). Based on the data and methods described in Fugro (2007) and Davids Engineering (2013), percolation of rainfall in the District over the study period averaged about 78,500 afy and ranged from a high of about 275,000 afy in 1998 (a so-called "El Niño" event) to a low of about 22,300 afy in 1984. Volumes calculated for each hydrologic unit for each year of the study period are presented in Table 26 - Summary of Annual Volumes of Deep Percolation of Rainfall. Percolation of rainfall was (in a gross sense) about the same in Hydrologic Unit Nos. IV, V, and VI, which are the largest hydrologic units in the District. Normalized on a per-acre basis over the entire District, percolation of rainfall averaged about 0.23 afy, or about 2.8 inches per year. "Average" rainfall in the District over the study period was 10.4 inches as measured at the Visalia gauging station.
58 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 26. Summary of Annual Volumes of Deep Percolation of Rainfall (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Year Unit No. 1 Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI Entire District
1981 3,870 9,472 5,949 15,401 13,081 12,289 60,062
1982 5,302 12,347 7,143 19,087 16,837 15,805 76,521 1983 8,875 25,175 14,981 35,716 32,971 31,805 149,523 1984 2,505 2,780 1,150 5,279 4,018 6,545 22,277 1985 4,969 10,620 5,316 14,096 11,093 9,828 55,922 1986 8,095 20,915 11,945 29,187 22,197 20,744 113,083 1987 4,691 14,727 8,526 18,285 15,764 15,860 77,853 1988 2,338 7,419 4,017 10,851 10,867 11,356 46,848 1989 2,639 9,003 4,884 13,208 13,250 10,765 53,749 1990 4,246 10,467 5,564 14,995 13,944 14,625 63,841 1991 5,502 12,856 7,377 22,136 18,250 17,291 83,412 1992 3,604 8,147 4,792 14,774 13,497 13,802 58,616 1993 8,222 22,620 12,756 32,961 29,454 28,688 134,701 1994 4,118 9,802 4,993 12,792 13,613 15,725 61,043 1995 13,447 29,480 15,418 43,517 36,312 33,991 172,165 1996 7,592 17,867 9,460 25,632 20,657 21,697 102,905 1997 7,257 14,264 7,838 21,387 17,090 15,776 83,612 1998 21,072 46,371 23,078 69,961 60,200 54,330 275,012 1999 10,684 21,255 11,619 37,415 27,929 27,996 136,898 2000 2,465 10,546 5,864 15,935 18,914 20,041 73,765 2001 1,417 6,471 3,618 9,481 11,260 12,805 45,052 2002 1,124 5,414 3,164 8,092 9,767 10,418 37,979 2003 934 4,842 2,682 7,074 8,564 8,834 32,930 2004 1,110 5,278 2,891 7,609 9,173 10,155 36,216 2005 2,286 10,115 5,665 14,739 17,257 18,438 68,500 2006 3,006 12,573 7,114 18,844 22,559 24,114 88,210 2007 656 3,340 1,799 4,995 5,971 6,306 23,067 2008 974 4,410 2,556 6,380 7,902 8,750 30,972 2009 864 4,314 2,519 6,222 7,864 8,530 30,313 2010 3,954 14,945 8,494 22,266 26,683 28,425 104,767 2011 1,756 8,064 4,226 11,863 14,467 16,725 57,101 2012 1,576 7,648 3,934 11,053 13,580 15,761 53,552
Maximum 21,072 46,371 23,078 69,961 60,200 54,330 275,012 Minimum 656 2,780 1,150 4,995 4,018 6,306 22,277 Average 4,723 12,611 6,917 18,789 17,656 17,757 78,452
59 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Although a direct comparison over several years between the two differing methods cannot be made due to differences in climatic conditions, wherein the 1981 to 1999 base period was considerably wetter than 2000 to 2012, it is apparent that the Davids Engineering methodology provides for less rainfall percolation than the previous methodology. The average percolation for 1981 to 1999 was 96,200 afy compared to an average of 52,500 afy for 2000 to 2012, although it is important to note that precipitation from 2000 to 2012 was only 83 percent of precipitation from 1981 to 1999. The previous method of estimation was based on a monthly moisture model spreadsheet, which incorporated known crop types based on sporadic aerial photography and land use surveys, rainfall distribution and CIMIS data, and very old soil survey data. The data presented for the period between 2000 and 2012 are based on evapotransiration and applied water estimates from remote sensing data (Davids Engineering, 2013). The latter method benefited from greater accuracy of soil and plant moisture throughout the District with more frequent measurements than possible with the older land survey-based methods. 4.2.2.3 Streambed Percolation and Delivered Water Conveyance Losses The methods used to estimate seepage losses in the Lower Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers were presented in Section 3. As indicated in Table 17 - Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems, annual conveyance losses associated with the Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems ranged from about 31,200 (1990) to 166,900 (1983) and averaged about 77,800 afy over the study period. These systems do not traverse Hydrologic Unit No. V. Most of the conveyance losses from these systems occurred within Hydrologic Unit No. II. Notable losses occurred during calendar years 1983, 1995, 2005 and 2011. The methods used to estimate seepage losses in the constructed channels were presented in Section 3. Based on the developed loss percentages, a summary of the estimated annual quantities of conveyance losses within each hydrologic unit related to the channel systems is tabulated in Table 20 - Summary of Ditch Systems Conveyance Losses. Average losses in the constructed channels (ditches) were on the order of 122,700 afy over the study period. These data are, in turn, combined with the conveyance losses related to the Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River systems presented in Table 21 - Summary of All Delivered Water Conveyance Losses. As indicated, average annual losses within the District are estimated at about 200,600 afy and ranged from a low of about 49,000 af in 1990 to a high of about 435,000 af in 1983. 4.2.2.4 Artificial Recharge Discussion on the background, calculation methods, and data summaries of artificial recharge volumes were provided in Section 3 of this report and in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Average annual flow into the recharge basins is approximately 54,700 af and ranged from a high of about 305,700 afy in 1983 to a low of 60 afy in 1990. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 22 - Summary of Recharge Basin Inflow. 4.2.2.5 Percolation of Irrigation Return Water Background information, calculation methods, and data summaries for percolation of irrigation water from 1981 to 1999 are provided in Fugro (2007), and for 2000 to 2012 similar information and data are provided in Davids Engineering (2013). The data are presented in Table 27 - Percolation of Irrigation Return Water. As indicated in Table 27, the average annual percolation of irrigation return water calculated in the study for the 32-year study period was about
60 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
237,300 afy, or about 28 percent of the average annual total applied irrigation water total of 852,100 afy (refer to Table 30).
Table 27. Percolation of Irrigation Return Water (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 9,855 36,899 23,154 59,496 63,925 67,988 261,317 1982 9,107 33,702 21,504 55,288 60,012 63,858 243,471 1983 8,627 29,728 19,463 50,479 51,766 52,713 212,776 1984 11,649 42,235 26,647 69,197 73,871 75,029 298,628 1985 10,599 36,831 23,625 62,453 67,167 69,006 269,681 1986 8,456 29,033 19,212 50,510 53,855 55,338 216,404 1987 9,672 31,910 20,841 55,796 59,335 59,961 237,515 1988 9,846 33,068 21,077 56,987 60,615 60,690 242,283 1989 9,797 32,485 20,798 56,538 60,355 61,348 241,321 1990 10,481 32,615 21,390 58,682 61,952 61,542 246,662 1991 9,556 29,290 18,976 52,427 54,429 53,877 218,555 1992 8,993 27,761 18,006 49,985 52,076 51,534 208,355 1993 8,895 26,500 17,579 48,895 49,240 48,421 199,530 1994 9,015 28,000 17,805 50,593 51,909 51,552 208,874 1995 8,247 24,284 15,765 44,633 45,210 45,186 183,325 1996 8,880 24,466 15,389 44,886 45,458 46,213 185,292 1997 9,282 25,984 15,650 45,944 46,070 46,946 189,876 1998 6,768 18,376 11,396 33,323 33,010 33,066 135,939 1999 8,953 24,425 14,422 42,819 41,750 43,768 176,137 2000 7,616 42,075 24,393 60,704 76,325 74,254 285,367 2001 6,838 38,995 23,040 54,194 68,548 67,883 259,498 2002 6,421 38,787 23,932 55,640 70,699 68,448 263,927 2003 5,625 38,306 22,074 52,336 66,743 63,636 248,720 2004 5,331 36,921 21,337 50,357 65,299 63,971 243,216 2005 5,684 36,551 19,783 50,628 61,664 61,624 235,934 2006 6,292 38,835 21,264 56,429 71,172 69,432 263,424 2007 5,366 37,490 20,007 55,216 70,880 70,908 259,867 2008 5,646 40,737 21,862 57,117 74,138 75,343 274,843 2009 5,500 38,951 22,129 56,468 70,176 75,843 269,067 2010 7,966 45,630 25,258 68,651 81,077 79,691 308,273 2011 4,598 33,312 17,632 46,865 60,514 64,428 227,349 2012 5,512 41,270 20,987 56,510 73,142 79,516 276,937
Maximum 11,649 45,630 26,647 69,197 81,077 79,691 308,273 Minimum 4,598 18,376 11,396 33,323 33,010 33,066 135,939 Average 7,971 33,608 20,200 53,439 60,699 61,344 237,261
61 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.2.6 Percolation of Wastewater The cities of Visalia, Tulare and Farmersville operate wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in the District that discharge treated wastewater to holding ponds for percolation, evaporation, or agricultural reuse. All three WWTPs are regulated by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MRP) by the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Other regulated discharges also occur in the District (notably dairy farm discharges) but the overall contribution, as a component of inflow to the groundwater system is viewed as small and is not considered further (Collar, 2002). Additional background information, calculation methods, and data summaries are provided in Fugro (2007). For this WRI update, percolation of wastewater from Ivanhoe, Exeter, Visalia, Farmerville and Tulare treated wastewater disposal systems were added to previous 1981 to 1999 wastewater inflow totals and are included in 2000 to 2012 totals. Notably, during this update, it was determined that Ivanhoe and Exeter, although outside of the District discharge wastewater into ponds located within the District boundaries. The result of this addition for the 1981 to 1999 base period was a slight increase in wastewater inflows from 10,600 to 11,300 afy. During the entire study period between 1981 and 2012, wastewater flow had increased such that the average for the period was 13,500 afy, as summarized on Table 28 - Summary of Wastewater Return Flows. The City of Tulare discharges wastewater to percolation and storage ponds for agricultural reuse. The disposition of wastewater from the City of Farmersville WWTP is similarly assumed to be percolation ponds and for reuse in proximate irrigated agriculture.
62 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 28. Summary of Wastewater Return Flows (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 0 155 4,728 1,009 2,951 0 8,843
1982 0 158 4,917 919 3,051 0 9,045 1983 0 162 5,107 941 3,151 0 9,361 1984 0 165 5,296 961 3,251 0 9,673 1985 0 169 5,486 996 3,352 0 10,003 1986 0 172 5,676 917 3,452 0 10,217 1987 0 176 5,865 1,050 3,552 0 10,643 1988 0 179 6,055 1,007 3,652 0 10,893 1989 0 182 6,245 1,061 3,752 0 11,240 1990 0 186 6,299 972 3,853 0 11,310 1991 0 193 6,438 992 3,977 0 11,600 1992 0 199 6,329 1,009 3,689 0 11,226 1993 0 206 6,556 1,028 4,077 0 11,867 1994 0 213 6,865 1,051 4,481 0 12,610 1995 0 219 7,011 1,094 4,639 0 12,963 1996 0 226 6,966 1,099 4,638 0 12,929 1997 0 233 7,251 1,147 4,682 0 13,313 1998 0 239 7,446 1,086 4,726 0 13,497 1999 0 246 7,671 1,169 5,171 0 14,257 2000 0 255 8,004 1,205 5,366 0 14,830 2001 0 266 8,186 1,219 5,441 0 15,112 2002 0 284 8,155 1,273 6,062 0 15,774 2003 0 305 8,124 1,292 6,825 0 16,546 2004 0 269 8,093 1,272 7,043 0 16,677 2005 0 275 8,087 1,269 7,426 0 17,057 2006 0 293 8,290 1,248 7,573 0 17,404 2007 0 298 8,135 1,203 7,773 0 17,409 2008 0 296 8,273 1,233 7,665 0 17,467 2009 0 263 8,032 1,235 7,434 0 16,964 2010 0 232 8,356 1,212 7,527 0 17,327 2011 0 222 8,030 1,182 7,604 0 17,038 2012 0 196 7,914 1,157 8,092 0 17,359
Maximum 0 305 8,356 1,292 8,092 0 17,467 Minimum 0 155 4,728 917 2,951 0 8,843 Average 0 223 6,996 1,110 5,185 0 13,514 City of Farmersville City of Visalia City of Tulare Ivanhoe Exeter
63 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.3 Components of Outflow 4.2.3.1 Subsurface Outflow Estimates of the annual quantities of subsurface outflow from the District and from each hydrologic unit were made in the same manner as the estimates of inflow and derived from the analysis contained in Section 2. Results of the analyses are summarized on Table 29 - Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Outflow Calculations, which presents annual totals of subsurface outflow for each year of the study period for each hydrologic unit as well as total District outflow volumes. During the study period, the total groundwater outflow from the District was about 33,300 afy. As indicated, annual subsurface outflows ranged from about 5,600 afy (2006) to about 101,600 afy (2012). As stated previously, there was a "net" average annual gain of subsurface inflow into the District of about 23,400 afy over the study period.
64 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 29. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Outflow Calculations (in acre-feet per year)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar District District District Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Year Inflow Outflow Net No. I No. II No. III No. IV No. V No. VI
1981 17,711 9,964 1,646 68,426 16,277 0 73,596 46,214 27,382
1982 27,793 18,010 9,344 52,246 14,616 0 64,523 32,159 32,364 1983 14,810 12,333 4,548 73,225 33,867 0 61,820 48,858 12,962 1984 15,294 20,551 5,177 56,513 35,298 0 86,961 38,720 48,241 1985 11,054 8,177 2,367 33,185 26,713 70 47,110 16,120 30,990 1986 27,130 18,583 711 29,026 31,336 835 45,126 24,753 20,373 1987 25,027 6,965 2,445 20,381 24,406 0 54,288 8,776 45,512 1988 15,413 9,777 8,276 26,461 5,126 0 35,884 12,509 23,375 1989 23,275 8,909 4,982 25,920 6,678 965 36,796 23,012 13,784 1990 18,745 7,490 9,245 22,787 7,849 0 53,527 11,891 41,636 1991 28,841 6,121 7,940 26,923 6,494 435 59,906 18,111 41,795 1992 35,144 2,039 15,507 16,996 2,603 0 62,895 9,334 53,561 1993 32,717 9,609 8,217 26,468 10,217 300 48,130 13,806 34,324 1994 29,238 1,121 10,228 26,018 17,929 3,297 36,643 13,321 23,322 1995 30,611 1,785 12,028 29,797 9,263 16 59,813 12,445 47,368 1996 13,490 12,761 8,550 50,202 9,570 544 71,533 35,147 36,386 1997 28,794 17,466 6,109 70,966 8,547 0 68,574 50,716 17,858 1998 23,528 8,694 4,977 44,180 23,432 7,042 49,156 24,890 24,266 1999 14,920 7,278 5,545 47,676 17,386 11,874 39,534 32,363 7,171 2000 14,747 11,195 6,705 34,141 34,917 12,709 57,776 20,134 37,642 2001 25,154 10,557 2,736 30,865 20,425 15,114 45,087 29,622 15,465 2002 18,539 8,559 8,554 19,864 19,183 34,493 36,972 39,332 (2,360) 2003 31,046 9,340 2,646 19,673 29,940 33,161 36,082 61,173 (25,091) 2004 26,498 9,869 5,754 31,302 41,823 41,304 61,755 63,822 (2,067) 2005 24,378 9,271 5,052 27,359 25,347 27,728 91,288 32,334 58,954 2006 22,031 5,751 6,284 27,368 44,794 0 101,102 5,622 95,480 2007 20,549 12,050 18,626 33,364 60,752 6,754 60,742 29,360 31,382 2008 45,873 8,460 10,995 5,921 50,406 6,687 125,783 19,092 106,691 2009 53,552 13,943 15,056 38,597 51,911 15,942 28,872 72,806 (43,934) 2010 49,859 4,086 18,988 18,605 46,567 18,501 46,155 58,284 (12,129) 2011 50,248 17,644 19,531 47,614 36,682 484 38,834 73,380 (34,546) 2012 47,670 20,315 17,483 55,896 50,399 19,237 29,927 101,612 (71,685)
Maximum 53,552 20,551 19,531 73,225 60,752 41,304 125,783 101,612 107,548 Minimum 11,054 1,121 711 5,921 2,603 0 28,872 5,622 (71,685) Average 26,990 10,271 8,320 35,561 25,649 8,047 56,756 33,340 23,416
65 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.3.2 Groundwater Pumpage Agricultural Water Demand and Consumptive Use The background information, calculation methods, and data summaries for agricultural groundwater pumping are provided in Fugro (2007) for 1981 to 1999, and in Davids Engineering (2013) for 2000 to 2012. Additional modifications to methods were provided by the District for this WRI Update. Table 30 - Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Entire District, tabulates the results of the computations using data and methodology from both Fugro (2007) and Davids Engineering (2013). Applied irrigation water, or gross required irrigation water averaged about 852,100 afy in the District over the study period and ranged from about 574,900 af in 1998 to 1,001,300 af in 2009. A similar high value of gross applied irrigation water occurred previously in 1984 of 997,000 af. Average annual unit crop demand data are also provided in Table 30 and indicate use of about 3 af per acre per year. Similar tables are provided for each of the six hydrologic units (Tables 31 to 36). As indicated, Hydrologic Units Nos. V and VI had applied irrigation water demands of over 214,000 afy each, and relate to the size of the units and the intensive irrigated agriculture, which occur in this part of the District.
66 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 30. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Entire District
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 263,255 716,877 165,783 63,621 872,475 60,062 261,317 611,158 3.314
1982 263,564 716,496 223,612 78,475 812,877 76,521 243,471 569,406 3.084 1983 263,866 671,073 322,939 108,048 710,434 149,523 212,776 497,658 2.692 1984 264,173 749,829 73,722 21,933 997,011 22,277 298,628 698,383 3.774 1985 264,478 711,510 136,761 47,651 900,352 55,922 269,681 630,671 3.404 1986 264,788 691,576 246,328 86,627 774,735 113,083 216,404 558,331 2.926 1987 265,090 725,187 190,169 73,471 850,387 77,853 237,515 612,872 3.208 1988 265,398 728,104 149,732 45,273 867,503 46,848 242,283 625,220 3.269 1989 265,702 723,283 154,346 51,473 864,008 53,749 241,321 622,687 3.252 1990 266,007 748,920 176,201 56,106 883,217 63,841 246,662 636,555 3.320 1991 266,313 720,194 177,700 64,257 844,462 83,412 218,555 625,907 3.171 1992 268,762 685,666 147,608 58,798 805,027 58,616 208,355 596,672 2.995 1993 271,211 695,025 258,222 85,570 771,034 134,701 199,530 571,504 2.843 1994 273,659 714,804 177,626 49,675 807,094 61,043 208,874 598,220 2.949 1995 276,108 692,487 339,431 104,140 708,547 172,165 183,325 525,222 2.566 1996 278,557 733,637 239,577 83,725 782,259 102,905 185,292 596,967 2.808 1997 281,005 678,800 150,407 49,552 801,882 83,612 189,876 612,006 2.854 1998 283,454 655,276 491,329 134,959 574,898 275,012 135,939 438,959 2.028 1999 285,900 695,641 263,793 79,449 744,883 136,898 176,137 568,746 2.605 2000 252,267 744,522 217,772 76,322 885,521 73,765 285,367 600,535 3.510 2001 252,267 772,897 216,761 82,311 880,864 45,052 259,498 601,186 3.492 2002 252,267 767,968 118,818 30,071 945,933 37,979 263,927 687,101 3.750 2003 252,267 794,630 157,605 47,350 914,399 32,930 248,720 669,978 3.625 2004 252,267 783,422 180,097 71,451 898,961 36,216 243,216 639,543 3.564 2005 252,267 768,113 223,131 80,180 838,245 68,500 235,934 613,475 3.323 2006 252,267 781,143 262,947 101,632 862,977 88,210 263,424 606,414 3.421 2007 252,267 765,568 98,699 25,141 949,053 23,067 259,867 689,924 3.762 2008 252,267 815,014 135,152 47,874 989,062 30,972 274,843 710,859 3.921 2009 252,267 831,705 132,861 52,989 1,001,250 30,313 269,067 729,173 3.969 2010 252,267 798,282 326,203 150,158 890,322 104,767 308,273 576,856 3.529
2011 240,389 756,067 135,018 28,431 886,876 57,101 227,349 678,152 3.689 2012 240,389 790,430 179,892 81,267 950,374 53,552 276,937 664,094 3.953
Maximum 285,900 831,705 491,329 150,158 1,001,250 275,012 308,273 698,383 3.774 Minimum 240,389 655,276 73,722 21,933 574,898 22,277 135,939 438,959 2.028 Average 262,094 738,255 202,195 69,312 852,091 78,452 237,261 589,323 3.003
67 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 31. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. I
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 9,756 28,434 8,500 3,078 33,658 3,870 9,855 23,803 3.450
1982 9,836 28,990 12,292 4,117 31,107 5,302 9,107 22,000 3.163 1983 9,913 27,638 15,694 4,038 29,447 8,875 8,627 20,820 2.971 1984 9,991 31,105 5,495 1,594 39,764 2,505 11,649 28,115 3.980 1985 10,069 29,914 9,314 2,783 36,168 4,969 10,599 25,569 3.592 1986 10,149 29,165 14,378 4,331 31,339 8,095 8,456 22,883 3.088 1987 10,226 31,195 9,715 3,482 35,843 4,691 9,672 26,171 3.505 1988 10,305 31,638 7,299 2,584 36,524 2,338 9,846 26,678 3.544 1989 10,383 31,574 7,700 2,918 36,310 2,639 9,797 26,513 3.497 1990 10,463 33,441 9,329 2,531 38,839 4,246 10,481 28,358 3.712 1991 10,540 32,586 8,783 2,004 38,861 5,502 9,556 29,305 3.687 1992 10,992 31,467 7,511 2,639 36,552 3,604 8,993 27,559 3.325 1993 11,445 32,641 13,634 3,102 36,124 8,222 8,895 27,229 3.156 1994 11,893 33,380 9,912 2,762 36,601 4,118 9,015 27,586 3.078 1995 12,346 32,937 21,192 4,802 33,439 13,447 8,247 25,192 2.708 1996 12,797 35,970 13,863 3,708 38,579 7,592 8,880 29,699 3.015 1997 13,250 34,509 10,708 2,086 40,340 7,257 9,282 31,058 3.045 1998 13,698 33,557 31,962 6,794 29,436 21,072 6,768 22,668 2.149 1999 14,150 36,503 17,215 4,177 38,926 10,684 8,953 29,973 2.751 2000 10,176 30,887 8,784 4,664 32,138 2,465 7,616 24,569 3.158 2001 10,176 32,080 8,744 4,993 32,463 1,417 6,838 24,754 3.190 2002 10,176 30,264 4,792 2,379 32,749 1,124 6,421 26,594 3.218 2003 10,176 30,700 6,358 3,418 30,713 934 5,625 25,278 3.018 2004 10,176 28,515 7,265 4,327 28,355 1,110 5,331 22,361 2.786 2005 10,176 28,945 9,000 4,359 27,471 2,286 5,684 22,231 2.700 2006 10,176 29,361 10,607 5,248 27,818 3,006 6,292 21,761 2.734 2007 10,176 27,209 3,981 1,828 29,195 656 5,366 23,884 2.869 2008 10,176 28,053 5,451 2,679 29,310 974 5,646 23,576 2.880 2009 10,176 29,127 5,359 2,756 30,263 864 5,500 24,632 2.974 2010 10,176 28,435 13,158 7,088 27,658 3,954 7,966 19,231 2.718 2011 8,942 24,980 5,022 1,882 25,426 1,756 4,598 21,714 2.843 2012 8,942 26,245 6,692 3,608 27,048 1,576 5,512 21,130 3.025
Maximum 14,150 36,503 31,962 7,088 40,340 21,072 11,649 31,058 3.980 Minimum 8,942 24,980 3,981 1,594 25,426 656 4,598 20,820 2.149 Average 10,688 30,670 10,303 3,524 33,077 4,723 7,971 26,378 3.232
68 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 32. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. II
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 36,946 103,207 26,422 11,097 123,156 9,472 36,899 86,257 3.333
1982 37,083 103,525 37,083 14,213 112,491 12,347 33,702 78,789 3.033 1983 37,222 95,508 51,180 16,992 99,230 25,175 29,728 69,502 2.666 1984 37,359 106,857 10,896 3,317 140,975 2,780 42,235 98,740 3.774 1985 37,495 99,867 24,371 9,497 122,946 10,620 36,831 86,115 3.279 1986 37,634 97,268 43,277 15,438 103,940 20,915 29,033 74,907 2.762 1987 37,772 101,608 33,994 13,571 114,252 14,727 31,910 82,342 3.025 1988 37,909 101,615 23,691 7,846 118,410 7,419 33,068 85,342 3.124 1989 38,046 100,209 25,363 8,820 116,334 9,003 32,485 83,849 3.058 1990 38,184 102,807 29,060 9,890 116,828 10,467 32,615 84,213 3.060 1991 38,321 98,113 27,048 10,201 113,211 12,856 29,290 83,921 2.954 1992 38,727 93,363 21,946 9,331 107,325 8,147 27,761 79,564 2.771 1993 39,133 95,112 41,740 13,145 102,492 22,620 26,500 75,992 2.619 1994 39,537 98,191 27,676 8,099 108,317 9,802 28,000 80,317 2.740 1995 39,944 95,502 55,252 16,582 94,015 29,480 24,284 69,731 2.354 1996 40,346 102,623 41,355 15,406 103,603 17,867 24,466 79,137 2.568 1997 40,753 95,978 26,149 8,817 110,078 14,264 25,984 84,094 2.701 1998 41,156 94,210 80,940 21,428 78,017 46,371 18,376 59,641 1.896 1999 41,562 99,924 41,907 13,391 103,696 21,255 24,425 79,271 2.495 2000 35,228 102,742 30,411 10,294 124,813 10,546 42,075 82,880 3.543 2001 35,228 109,034 30,270 11,222 126,879 6,471 38,995 85,234 3.602 2002 35,228 106,547 16,593 3,792 133,699 5,414 38,787 95,364 3.795 2003 35,228 113,375 22,009 6,273 133,887 4,842 38,306 96,210 3.801 2004 35,228 109,790 25,150 9,483 129,124 5,278 36,921 89,918 3.665 2005 35,228 109,245 31,160 10,894 123,153 10,115 36,551 88,199 3.496 2006 35,228 109,308 36,720 13,699 123,104 12,573 38,835 85,163 3.494 2007 35,228 107,858 13,783 3,190 134,747 3,340 37,490 97,412 3.825 2008 35,228 117,067 18,874 6,155 143,766 4,410 40,737 102,606 4.081 2009 35,228 116,169 18,554 7,020 141,340 4,314 38,951 101,930 4.012 2010 35,228 113,462 45,553 20,568 128,873 14,945 45,630 82,856 3.658 2011 33,098 106,570 18,590 3,716 127,137 8,064 33,312 96,042 3.841 2012 33,098 113,097 24,768 10,795 138,529 7,648 41,270 95,977 4.185
Maximum 41,562 117,067 80,940 21,428 143,766 46,371 45,630 98,740 3.774 Minimum 33,098 93,363 10,896 3,190 78,017 2,780 18,376 59,641 1.896 Average 37,151 103,742 31,306 10,756 118,699 12,611 33,608 80,091 2.853
69 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 33. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. III
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 22,278 63,695 15,612 5,951 77,187 5,949 23,154 54,033 3.465
1982 22,175 63,550 20,510 7,259 71,687 7,143 21,504 50,183 3.233 1983 22,070 58,942 28,505 8,179 64,881 14,981 19,463 45,418 2.940 1984 21,967 66,162 5,125 1,315 88,833 1,150 26,647 62,186 4.044 1985 21,863 62,206 12,389 4,409 78,759 5,316 23,625 55,134 3.602 1986 21,761 60,315 22,848 6,900 68,624 11,945 19,212 49,412 3.154 1987 21,659 62,949 17,869 6,077 74,447 8,526 20,841 53,606 3.437 1988 21,554 62,770 12,573 3,765 75,291 4,017 21,077 54,214 3.493 1989 21,451 62,023 13,407 4,579 74,298 4,884 20,798 53,500 3.464 1990 21,345 63,864 14,407 4,504 76,410 5,564 21,390 55,020 3.580 1991 21,243 61,429 14,694 4,919 73,089 7,377 18,976 54,113 3.441 1992 21,217 58,401 11,846 4,606 69,354 4,792 18,006 51,348 3.269 1993 21,192 58,919 21,546 5,554 67,708 12,756 17,579 50,129 3.195 1994 21,166 59,541 13,758 3,709 68,580 4,993 17,805 50,775 3.240 1995 21,139 57,379 27,834 7,553 60,728 15,418 15,765 44,963 2.873 1996 21,111 60,523 20,057 6,368 65,315 9,460 15,389 49,926 3.094 1997 21,086 55,578 12,652 3,402 66,415 7,838 15,650 50,765 3.150 1998 21,060 53,269 39,310 9,508 48,433 23,078 11,396 37,037 2.300 1999 21,033 55,723 20,508 5,214 61,256 11,619 14,422 46,834 2.912 2000 19,612 59,787 16,930 5,861 73,134 5,864 24,393 48,723 3.729 2001 19,612 62,959 16,852 6,452 74,196 3,618 23,040 49,725 3.783 2002 19,612 63,049 9,237 2,313 80,670 3,164 23,932 56,974 4.113 2003 19,612 63,990 12,252 3,890 76,136 2,682 22,074 54,421 3.882 2004 19,612 62,155 14,001 5,790 73,605 2,891 21,337 51,046 3.753 2005 19,612 58,792 17,347 5,901 66,053 5,665 19,783 47,110 3.368 2006 19,612 58,370 20,442 7,456 65,771 7,114 21,264 45,043 3.354 2007 19,612 56,640 7,673 1,584 70,662 1,799 20,007 50,765 3.603 2008 19,612 61,121 10,507 3,277 75,371 2,556 21,862 53,172 3.843 2009 19,612 63,719 10,329 3,734 78,258 2,519 22,129 55,911 3.990 2010 19,612 60,616 25,360 11,299 69,227 8,494 25,258 43,751 3.530 2011 16,983 55,128 9,539 1,938 66,265 4,226 17,632 49,815 3.902 2012 16,983 56,195 12,709 5,371 69,096 3,934 20,987 47,420 4.069
Maximum 22,278 66,162 39,310 11,299 88,833 23,078 26,647 62,186 4.044 Minimum 16,983 53,269 5,125 1,315 48,433 1,150 11,396 37,037 2.300 Average 20,565 60,305 16,520 5,270 70,929 6,917 20,200 50,979 3.257
70 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 34. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. IV
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 58,607 165,138 41,276 16,110 198,760 15,401 59,496 139,264 3.391
1982 58,861 165,247 54,934 20,125 184,689 19,087 55,288 129,401 3.138 1983 59,107 155,802 73,389 22,376 168,608 35,716 50,479 118,129 2.853 1984 59,358 174,925 18,302 5,397 231,099 5,279 69,197 161,902 3.893 1985 59,612 166,287 34,276 11,926 208,560 14,096 62,453 146,107 3.499 1986 59,861 161,550 60,358 20,159 180,890 29,187 50,510 130,380 3.022 1987 60,111 170,307 44,582 17,233 199,806 18,285 55,796 144,010 3.324 1988 60,367 171,926 35,717 11,031 204,047 10,851 56,987 147,060 3.380 1989 60,616 169,533 36,876 13,027 202,404 13,208 56,538 145,866 3.339 1990 60,866 176,458 40,071 12,705 210,062 14,995 58,682 151,380 3.451 1991 61,119 171,297 43,302 13,946 202,557 22,136 52,427 150,130 3.314 1992 61,375 164,172 35,808 13,952 193,123 14,774 49,985 143,138 3.147 1993 61,629 166,642 59,582 17,209 188,916 32,961 48,895 140,021 3.065 1994 61,891 170,781 38,686 10,518 195,481 12,792 50,593 144,888 3.158 1995 62,142 165,659 81,310 22,976 172,498 43,517 44,633 127,865 2.776 1996 62,413 176,164 55,654 18,041 191,028 25,632 44,886 146,142 3.061 1997 62,664 164,234 36,032 10,450 195,533 21,387 45,944 149,589 3.120 1998 62,929 156,296 117,467 29,159 142,113 69,961 33,323 108,790 2.258 1999 63,185 167,018 64,765 16,835 182,488 37,415 42,819 139,669 2.888 2000 57,155 174,798 49,340 19,823 201,911 15,935 60,704 141,397 3.533 2001 57,155 180,353 49,109 21,434 199,689 9,481 54,194 140,725 3.494 2002 57,155 181,566 26,920 8,959 217,131 8,092 55,640 162,732 3.799 2003 57,155 187,026 35,708 13,724 209,786 7,074 52,336 158,398 3.670 2004 57,155 182,046 40,803 19,556 202,804 7,609 50,357 148,850 3.548 2005 57,155 179,489 50,554 22,184 191,660 14,739 50,628 143,674 3.353 2006 57,155 183,935 59,575 26,620 198,258 18,844 56,429 143,206 3.469 2007 57,155 183,805 22,362 7,406 221,445 4,995 55,216 166,437 3.874 2008 57,155 194,271 30,620 12,550 228,065 6,380 57,117 170,037 3.990 2009 57,155 199,827 30,102 13,341 232,931 6,222 56,468 175,952 4.075 2010 57,155 191,433 73,906 36,808 209,471 22,266 68,651 139,793 3.665 2011 54,310 176,241 30,504 8,268 200,386 11,863 46,865 157,602 3.690 2012 54,310 182,884 40,642 20,012 212,093 11,053 56,510 153,297 3.905
Maximum 63,185 199,827 117,467 36,808 232,931 69,961 69,197 161,902 3.893 Minimum 54,310 155,802 18,302 5,397 142,113 4,995 33,323 108,790 2.258 Average 59,189 174,285 47,267 16,683 199,322 18,789 53,439 140,196 3.162
71 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 35. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. V
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 66,707 174,864 38,786 15,173 213,084 13,081 63,925 149,159 3.194
1982 66,850 175,002 51,810 18,230 200,041 16,837 60,012 140,029 2.992 1983 66,993 164,862 77,043 27,514 172,556 32,971 51,766 120,790 2.576 1984 67,138 183,459 15,106 4,631 246,243 4,018 73,871 172,372 3.668 1985 67,281 175,353 29,716 10,428 223,897 11,093 67,167 156,730 3.328 1986 67,423 170,801 54,501 20,985 192,351 22,197 53,855 138,496 2.853 1987 67,565 179,622 42,791 17,402 211,930 15,764 59,335 152,595 3.137 1988 67,709 181,138 36,112 10,856 216,508 10,867 60,615 155,893 3.198 1989 67,852 179,860 37,884 12,724 215,580 13,250 60,355 155,225 3.177 1990 67,994 186,759 41,362 13,597 221,293 13,944 61,952 159,341 3.255 1991 68,137 179,378 42,585 17,234 209,472 18,250 54,429 155,043 3.074 1992 68,168 170,634 35,787 14,832 200,419 13,497 52,076 148,343 2.940 1993 68,199 171,634 60,809 22,646 189,519 29,454 49,240 140,279 2.779 1994 68,230 176,356 42,075 11,956 199,802 13,613 51,909 147,893 2.928 1995 68,263 169,887 77,360 25,344 174,049 36,312 45,210 128,839 2.550 1996 68,290 178,534 54,062 20,296 190,587 20,657 45,458 145,129 2.791 1997 68,322 163,055 33,022 12,497 193,192 17,090 46,070 147,122 2.828 1998 68,352 156,415 111,072 31,514 138,552 60,200 33,010 105,542 2.027 1999 68,382 164,833 59,265 19,958 175,247 27,929 41,750 133,497 2.563 2000 65,161 193,601 56,251 18,419 232,437 18,914 76,325 156,268 3.567 2001 65,161 199,027 55,990 19,338 228,244 11,260 68,548 154,295 3.503 2002 65,161 199,448 30,691 7,135 247,806 9,767 70,699 178,517 3.803 2003 65,161 207,343 40,709 10,992 240,877 8,564 66,743 175,204 3.697 2004 65,161 206,613 46,520 17,282 238,914 9,173 65,299 169,268 3.667 2005 65,161 199,300 57,635 19,594 217,477 17,257 61,664 158,919 3.338 2006 65,161 205,774 67,919 25,588 229,826 22,559 71,172 160,415 3.527 2007 65,161 200,528 25,494 5,962 251,694 5,971 70,880 181,001 3.863 2008 65,161 213,646 34,910 11,689 261,737 7,902 74,138 186,645 4.017 2009 65,161 211,605 34,318 12,702 256,137 7,864 70,176 185,156 3.931 2010 65,161 206,937 84,259 38,015 231,534 26,683 81,077 149,366 3.553 2011 62,121 198,402 34,891 6,884 233,683 14,467 60,514 177,979 3.762 2012 62,121 207,428 46,488 20,711 250,175 13,580 73,142 174,521 4.027
Maximum 68,382 213,646 111,072 38,015 261,737 60,200 81,077 172,372 3.668 Minimum 62,121 156,415 15,106 4,631 138,552 4,018 33,010 105,542 2.027 Average 66,527 186,003 48,663 16,942 215,777 17,656 60,699 144,859 2.940
72 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 36. Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water for Hydrologic Unit No. VI
Gross Gross Total Percolation Net Applied Total Crop Total Effective Applied Percolation Applied Calendar Cropped of Irrigation Irrigation ETc Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation of Rainfall Irrigation Year Acreage Water Water (af) (af) (af) Water (af) Water (acres) (af) (af) (af) (af/acre)
1981 68,961 181,539 35,187 12,212 226,630 12,289 67,988 158,642 3.286
1982 68,759 180,182 46,983 14,531 212,862 15,805 63,858 149,004 3.096 1983 68,561 168,321 77,128 28,949 175,712 31,805 52,713 122,999 2.563 1984 68,360 187,321 18,798 5,679 250,097 6,545 75,029 175,068 3.659 1985 68,158 177,883 26,695 8,608 230,022 9,828 69,006 161,016 3.375 1986 67,960 172,477 50,966 18,814 197,591 20,744 55,338 142,253 2.907 1987 67,757 179,506 41,218 15,706 214,109 15,860 59,961 154,148 3.160 1988 67,554 179,017 34,340 9,191 216,723 11,356 60,690 156,033 3.208 1989 67,354 180,084 33,116 9,405 219,082 10,765 61,348 157,734 3.253 1990 67,155 185,591 41,972 12,879 219,785 14,625 61,542 158,243 3.273 1991 66,953 177,391 41,288 15,953 207,272 17,291 53,877 153,395 3.096 1992 68,283 167,629 34,710 13,438 198,254 13,802 51,534 146,720 2.903 1993 69,613 170,077 60,911 23,914 186,275 28,688 48,421 137,854 2.676 1994 70,942 176,555 45,519 12,631 198,313 15,725 51,552 146,761 2.795 1995 72,274 171,123 76,483 26,883 173,818 33,991 45,186 128,632 2.405 1996 73,600 179,823 54,586 19,906 193,147 21,697 46,213 146,934 2.624 1997 74,930 165,446 31,844 12,300 196,324 15,776 46,946 149,378 2.620 1998 76,259 161,529 110,578 36,556 138,347 54,330 33,066 105,281 1.814 1999 77,588 171,640 60,133 19,874 183,270 27,996 43,768 139,502 2.362 2000 64,935 182,707 56,056 17,261 221,088 20,041 74,254 146,698 3.405 2001 64,935 189,444 55,796 18,872 219,393 12,805 67,883 146,453 3.379 2002 64,935 187,094 30,585 5,493 233,878 10,418 68,448 166,920 3.602 2003 64,935 192,196 40,569 9,053 223,000 8,834 63,636 160,467 3.434 2004 64,935 194,303 46,358 15,013 226,159 10,155 63,971 158,100 3.483 2005 64,935 192,342 57,435 17,248 212,431 18,438 61,624 153,342 3.271 2006 64,935 194,395 67,684 23,021 218,200 24,114 69,432 150,826 3.360 2007 64,935 189,528 25,406 5,171 241,310 6,306 70,908 170,425 3.716 2008 64,935 200,856 34,790 11,524 250,813 8,750 75,343 174,823 3.863 2009 64,935 211,258 34,199 13,436 262,321 8,530 75,843 185,592 4.040 2010 64,935 197,399 83,967 36,380 223,559 28,425 79,691 141,859 3.443 2011 64,935 194,746 36,472 5,743 233,979 16,725 64,428 175,000 3.603 2012 64,935 204,581 48,593 20,770 253,433 15,761 79,516 171,749 3.903
Maximum 77,588 211,258 110,578 36,556 262,321 54,330 79,691 175,068 3.659 Minimum 64,935 161,529 18,798 5,171 138,347 6,306 33,066 105,281 1.814 Average 67,974 183,249 48,136 16,138 214,287 17,757 61,344 146,821 2.899
73 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Municipal, Public Water Systems, Rural Domestic, and Dairy Groundwater Pumpage Basic Methodology. Municipal and industrial (M&I), public water system, rural domestic, dairy, nursery, golf course, and other miscellaneous groundwater pumpage in the District was estimated for each year of the study period and for each hydrologic unit using a variety of methods. Data used to estimate the water demand included metered groundwater pumping records (Cal Water Service Company (Cal Water), City of Tulare, etc.), demand estimates based on service connections and categories of facilities, population and dwelling unit density estimates, interviews with various industrial facility managers (nursery, food processing, and packing plants, etc.), and information provided by the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the Dairy Advisor. Urban Demand. Urban demand, also referred to as M & I demand in the District, is the demand on groundwater that occurs in the incorporated cities (Visalia, Tulare, Farmersville, Exeter, and Ivanhoe) and in the unincorporated areas of the District served by a municipal water purveyor. All other water demand in the unincorporated areas of the District is met by small public water systems regulated by the local environmental health departments and are accounted for separately as described below. Additional details on calculation methods are provided in Fugro (2007). A summary of the urban demand groundwater pumping over the study period and for each hydrologic unit is tabulated on Table 37 - Urban Groundwater Pumpage. Note that the urban pumpage values presented on Table 37 have been revised compared to the values presented in the 2007 report for the base period between 1981 and 1999, based on revised values provided by the Cities of Visalia, Farmersville and Tulare. As indicated, urban demand ranged from about 23,600 to 58,900 afy over the study period and averaged about 40,700 afy. During 2012, approximately 40,000 acres of the District were urbanized largely in and around the cities of Tulare and Visalia, which suggests that water demand within the urbanized areas is approximately one af per acre per year, or approximately one third of the water use for irrigated agriculture (Table 30).
74 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 37. Urban Groundwater Pumpage (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 325 2,305 12,294 1,718 7,525 0 24,167
1982 336 2,173 11,588 1,753 7,780 0 23,631 1983 347 2,288 12,200 1,890 8,036 0 24,761 1984 358 2,751 14,674 2,242 8,291 0 28,318 1985 369 2,720 14,507 2,127 8,547 0 28,270 1986 380 2,932 15,636 2,243 8,802 0 29,993 1987 391 3,046 16,246 2,405 9,058 0 31,146 1988 402 2,991 15,950 1,872 9,982 0 31,198 1989 699 2,953 15,748 2,615 9,250 0 31,264 1990 777 3,068 16,363 3,123 9,617 0 32,947 1991 235 2,881 15,367 3,206 9,503 0 31,191 1992 349 3,153 16,818 2,785 10,155 0 33,261 1993 676 3,185 16,984 2,698 10,050 0 33,593 1994 276 3,411 18,189 3,091 11,347 0 36,314 1995 210 3,552 18,944 3,095 11,566 0 37,366 1996 475 3,745 19,973 3,352 12,074 0 39,619 1997 653 3,897 20,786 3,116 12,829 0 41,282 1998 414 3,480 18,559 2,916 9,486 0 34,854 1999 415 3,976 21,208 3,030 12,266 0 40,895 2000 937 4,038 21,537 3,185 12,158 0 41,855 2001 864 4,337 23,132 3,617 14,372 0 46,322 2002 768 4,510 24,052 3,779 15,440 0 48,549 2003 936 4,622 24,648 4,029 15,833 0 50,068 2004 912 4,905 26,160 4,099 17,336 0 53,413 2005 955 4,736 25,261 3,945 16,986 0 51,883 2006 978 4,703 25,081 3,952 17,435 0 52,150 2007 841 5,115 27,281 4,527 18,269 0 56,032 2008 921 5,227 27,879 4,512 18,059 0 56,597 2009 855 5,379 28,689 4,701 17,820 0 57,444 2010 758 5,525 29,468 4,594 16,801 0 57,146 2011 741 5,626 30,005 5,122 16,282 0 57,775 2012 619 5,673 30,254 5,936 16,386 0 58,867
Maximum 978 5,673 30,254 5,936 18,269 0 58,867 Minimum 210 2,173 11,588 1,718 7,525 0 23,631 Average 599 3,841 20,484 3,290 12,479 0 40,693 City of Visalia (5%) Visalia (15%) Visalia (80%) City of Tulare Ivanhoe Farmersville
75 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Public Water System Demand. The location of small public water systems is shown on Plate 4 - Small Water Systems Location Map. Calculations of groundwater pumping are provided in Table 38 – Summary of Small Water System Groundwater Demand. The increase in small water system groundwater demand over the study period was indexed to Tulare County population. As indicated, the annual demand about 7,600 afy is relatively small. Additional details on the analysis of small water systems demand is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007).
76 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 38. Summary of Small Water System Groundwater Demand (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire District Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 0 0 3,195 384 1,159 693 5,431
1982 0 0 3,279 394 1,189 711 5,573 1983 0 0 3,363 404 1,220 729 5,716 1984 0 0 3,447 414 1,250 747 5,858 1985 0 0 3,531 424 1,280 765 6,000 1986 0 0 3,614 434 1,311 783 6,142 1987 0 0 3,698 444 1,341 802 6,285 1988 0 0 3,782 454 1,372 820 6,428 1989 0 0 3,866 465 1,402 838 6,571 1990 0 0 3,950 475 1,432 856 6,713 1991 0 0 4,021 483 1,458 871 6,833 1992 0 0 4,092 492 1,484 887 6,955 1993 0 0 4,163 500 1,510 902 7,075 1994 0 0 4,234 509 1,535 918 7,196 1995 0 0 4,305 517 1,561 933 7,316 1996 0 0 4,376 526 1,587 948 7,437 1997 0 0 4,447 534 1,613 964 7,558 1998 0 0 4,518 543 1,638 979 7,678 1999 0 0 4,589 551 1,664 995 7,799 2000 0 0 4,660 560 1,690 1,010 7,920 2001 0 0 4,754 571 1,724 1,030 8,079 2002 0 0 4,848 583 1,758 1,051 8,240 2003 0 0 4,942 594 1,792 1,071 8,399 2004 0 0 5,036 605 1,826 1,091 8,558 2005 0 0 5,130 616 1,860 1,112 8,718 2006 0 0 5,223 628 1,894 1,132 8,877 2007 0 0 5,317 639 1,928 1,152 9,036 2008 0 0 5,411 650 1,962 1,173 9,196 2009 0 0 5,505 662 1,996 1,193 9,356 2010 0 0 5,599 673 2,031 1,214 9,517 2011 0 0 5,629 676 2,041 1,220 9,566 2012 0 0 5,658 680 2,052 1,226 9,616
Maximum 0 0 5,658 680 2,052 1,226 9,616 Minimum 0 0 3,195 384 1,159 693 5,431 Average 0 0 4,443 534 1,611 963 7,551
77 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Rural Domestic Water Demand. Rural domestic water demand in the District consists of the demand of residences not served by a municipal connection, mutual water company, or other small public water system. Details of the estimation of rural domestic groundwater pumping are provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007).
Unlike the small, public water system demand estimates that were indexed to population changes in Tulare County, it was felt that the density of rural domestic dwellings has not changed significantly in the District over the last 30 years, other than being replaced by urban sprawl. Rural domestic demand was estimated to be on the order of 1,900 afy using this method. Table 39 - Rural Domestic Groundwater Demand, presents the rural domestic demand figures for each hydrologic unit over the study period.
Table 39. Rural Domestic Groundwater Demand
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
Houses Per 7.81 1.70 2.60 1.92 1.70 1.80 2.27 Square Mile Percentage 45 10 15 11 10 10 100 of Total Rural Domestic 835 182 278 205 182 193 1,876 Demand Per Year (af)
Dairy and Related Demand. The dairy industry and related processing and distribution facilities are an important and growing industry in Tulare and Kings Counties, and water use associated with this land use is not insignificant. Estimates of net water consumed by the dairy industry (farms) in the District were based on cow census records for the respective Kings and Tulare county areas. Additional information on calculation of dairy water demands is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Table 40 – Summary of Dairy Cow Population and Water Use Estimates, presents the estimates of cow populations in the District based recently on Regional Water Quality Control Board dairy data. The population of related livestock (poultry, swine, sheep, etc.) is also shown, and was not considered in the water demand estimates due to the small numbers.
78 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 40. Summary of Dairy Cow Population and Water Use Estimates
Cows in Cows in Cows in Cows in Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Calendar Kings Tulare Total Cows Kings Tulare per Cow Per Day Per Year Per Year Year County & County & in District County County (gpd)* (mgd) (mgd) (af) District District
1981 49,149 22,247 54,895 27,373 49,620 75 3.72 1,358 4,169
1982 52,625 23,820 69,746 34,778 58,598 75 4.39 1,604 4,923 1983 56,100 25,393 84,596 42,183 67,576 75 5.07 1,850 5,677 1984 59,575 26,966 99,447 49,588 76,555 75 5.74 2,096 6,431 1985 63,050 28,539 114,298 56,994 85,533 75 6.41 2,341 7,186 1986 66,525 30,112 129,149 64,399 94,511 75 7.09 2,587 7,940 1987 70,000 31,685 144,000 71,804 103,489 75 7.76 2,833 8,694 1988 71,000 32,138 141,000 70,308 102,446 75 7.68 2,804 8,607 1989 77,000 34,854 178,000 88,758 123,612 75 9.27 3,384 10,385 1990 77,000 34,854 189,000 94,243 129,097 75 9.68 3,534 10,846 1991 78,000 35,306 200,000 99,728 135,034 75 10.13 3,697 11,344 1992 78,000 35,306 217,000 108,205 143,511 75 10.76 3,929 12,057 1993 82,758 37,460 210,798 105,112 142,572 75 10.69 3,903 11,978 1994 91,156 41,261 232,674 116,021 157,282 75 11.80 4,306 13,213 1995 101,716 46,041 265,346 132,312 178,354 75 13.38 4,882 14,984 1996 98,772 44,709 249,429 124,375 169,084 75 12.68 4,629 14,205 1997 104,751 47,415 292,509 145,857 193,272 75 14.50 5,291 16,237 1998 108,226 48,988 300,921 144,394 193,382 75 14.50 5,294 16,246 1999 111,701 50,561 309,334 142,931 193,492 75 14.51 5,297 16,255 2000 115,176 52,134 317,746 141,468 193,602 75 14.52 5,300 16,265 2001 118,651 53,707 326,158 140,005 193,712 75 14.53 5,303 16,274 2002 124,380 58,116 347,774 146,305 204,420 75 15.33 5,596 17,174 2003 130,109 62,524 369,390 152,604 215,128 75 16.13 5,889 18,073 2004 135,838 66,932 391,006 158,904 225,836 75 16.94 6,182 18,973 2005 141,566 71,341 412,622 165,204 236,544 75 17.74 6,475 19,872 2006 147,295 75,749 434,239 171,503 247,253 75 18.54 6,769 20,772 2007 153,024 80,158 455,855 177,803 257,961 75 19.35 7,062 21,671 2008 158,753 84,566 477,471 184,103 268,669 75 20.15 7,355 22,571 2009 164,481 88,975 499,087 190,402 279,377 75 20.95 7,648 23,471 2010 170,210 93,383 520,703 196,702 290,085 75 21.76 7,941 24,370 2011 156,636 81,297 523,064 193,589 274,886 75 20.62 7,525 23,093 2012 126,618 65,585 436,435 160,203 225,788 75 16.93 6,181 18,969
Maximum 170,210 93,383 523,064 196,702 290,085 75 22 7,941 24,370 Minimum 49,149 22,247 54,895 27,373 49,620 75 4 1,358 4,169 Average 104,370 50,379 281,053 121,817 172,196 75 13 4,714 14,466
79 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
The cow population data presented on Table 40 include a net water duty factor based on information of daily cow water consumption and water use (facility wash water, etc.). Conversations with the Kings County Dairy Advisor (Ms. Carole Collar) indicate the gross daily water use per cow is on the order of 125 gallons per day (gpd). Net water use (after consideration for the recycling of the water for use on adjacent agricultural lands) is considered to be on the order of 75 gpd. Using these values, dairy farm water use in the District has ranged from about 4,100 afy in 1981 (estimated cow census of about 50,000 head) to approximately 24,300 afy in 2010 (estimated cow census of about 290,000). Distribution of the dairy water demand (all assumed to be from pumped groundwater) by hydrologic unit was based on the locations of the dairy farms in the District (Plate 5). As indicated in Table 41 - Summary of Dairy Water Demand, most of the dairy farm demand occurs in Hydrologic Unit Nos. IV, V, and VI.
80 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 41. Summary of Dairy Water Demand (in acre-feet per year)
Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Calendar Year Entire District Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI
1981 0 570 407 1,060 976 1,156 4,169
1982 0 673 481 1,252 1,153 1,365 4,923 1983 0 776 554 1,444 1,329 1,574 5,677 1984 0 879 628 1,635 1,506 1,783 6,431 1985 0 982 702 1,827 1,682 1,992 7,186 1986 0 1,085 775 2,019 1,859 2,201 7,940 1987 0 1,188 849 2,211 2,036 2,410 8,694 1988 0 1,176 840 2,189 2,015 2,386 8,607 1989 0 1,419 1,014 2,641 2,431 2,879 10,385 1990 0 1,482 1,059 2,758 2,539 3,007 10,846 1991 0 1,550 1,108 2,885 2,656 3,145 11,344 1992 0 1,648 1,177 3,066 2,823 3,343 12,057 1993 0 1,637 1,170 3,046 2,804 3,321 11,978 1994 0 1,806 1,290 3,360 3,094 3,663 13,213 1995 0 2,048 1,463 3,810 3,508 4,154 14,984 1996 0 1,941 1,387 3,612 3,326 3,938 14,205 1997 0 2,219 1,585 4,129 3,802 4,502 16,237 1998 0 2,220 1,586 4,131 3,804 4,504 16,246 1999 0 2,222 1,587 4,134 3,806 4,507 16,255 2000 0 2,223 1,588 4,136 3,808 4,509 16,265 2001 0 2,224 1,589 4,138 3,810 4,512 16,274 2002 0 2,347 1,677 4,367 4,021 4,761 17,174 2003 0 2,470 1,765 4,596 4,232 5,011 18,073 2004 0 2,593 1,853 4,825 4,442 5,260 18,973 2005 0 2,716 1,940 5,053 4,653 5,510 19,872 2006 0 2,839 2,028 5,282 4,864 5,759 20,772 2007 0 2,962 2,116 5,511 5,074 6,008 21,671 2008 0 3,085 2,204 5,740 5,285 6,258 22,571 2009 0 3,208 2,292 5,968 5,495 6,507 23,471 2010 0 3,331 2,380 6,197 5,706 6,757 24,370 2011 0 3,156 2,255 5,872 5,407 6,403 23,093 2012 0 2,592 1,852 4,824 4,441 5,259 18,969
Maximum 0 3,331 2,380 6,197 5,706 6,757 24,370 Minimum 0 570 407 1,060 976 1,156 4,169 Average 0 1,977 1,413 3,679 3,387 4,011 14,466
81 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Agricultural Pumpage Methods used to estimate the annual volumes of groundwater pumpage for irrigation demands from 1981 to 1999 are described in Fugro (2007), and methods for the years 2000 to 2012 are described in Davids Engineering (2013). Total (gross) agricultural water demand in the District was estimated in the preceding section. If surface water were not a component of supply in the District, groundwater pumped to meet the irrigation demand would be equal to the gross agricultural water demand. However, as presented in Section 3, the conjunctive use of surface water provides an important source of water to meet, in part, the agricultural water demands in the District. Agricultural groundwater pumpage is accordingly equal to the total applied irrigation water demand less the surface water deliveries. The estimated amounts for each year of the study period are presented in Table 42 - Groundwater Pumpage for Irrigated Agriculture, for the entire District and for each of the six hydrologic units. The average annual groundwater pumping for irrigated agriculture was 600,400 afy, with a range from 190,100 af (1998) to 859,400 af (2007). The average groundwater pumpage for irrigated agriculture for the period 2000 to 2012 was 656,600 afy, which compared to the 1981 to 1999 value of 561,900 afy, is 17 percent higher.
82 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 42. Groundwater Pumpage for Irrigated Agriculture (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 23,728 98,889 61,423 154,023 155,109 201,622 694,794
1982 18,659 43,527 35,262 67,142 52,018 140,936 357,544 1983 20,503 45,010 31,833 105,416 143,150 127,935 473,847 1984 30,106 99,023 66,708 162,841 150,505 187,491 696,674 1985 27,181 84,197 62,079 149,324 154,774 194,677 672,232 1986 23,102 52,034 44,915 95,313 37,976 140,780 394,120 1987 27,750 96,924 62,291 164,711 200,833 193,427 745,936 1988 29,328 99,741 61,927 169,814 152,321 196,302 709,433 1989 27,972 90,416 62,435 162,370 179,014 200,585 722,792 1990 30,329 104,401 66,580 186,266 220,886 218,761 827,223 1991 30,720 86,000 62,501 155,915 159,960 189,303 684,399 1992 29,411 93,031 62,074 165,876 179,052 195,423 724,867 1993 26,115 49,851 48,750 98,668 31,601 125,055 380,040 1994 28,743 87,059 58,803 163,984 163,405 192,646 694,640 1995 16,659 24,351 37,099 56,441 45,410 103,257 283,217 1996 27,120 58,720 50,327 100,692 52,192 132,665 421,716 1997 28,773 65,509 50,560 104,844 86,078 146,298 482,062 1998 15,673 8,033 21,865 38,150 19,189 87,218 190,128 1999 29,077 74,514 47,155 128,378 84,877 156,509 520,510 2000 22,625 82,044 59,895 135,242 119,329 174,241 593,376 2001 24,398 101,890 64,697 151,942 181,455 198,320 722,702 2002 25,495 101,034 64,719 168,015 191,328 210,984 761,575 2003 24,228 101,758 63,550 144,438 148,510 181,199 663,683 2004 21,979 106,440 63,533 162,426 193,399 209,050 756,827 2005 20,018 55,338 46,265 80,059 34,075 142,968 378,723 2006 20,420 68,120 46,598 96,220 85,788 156,933 474,079 2007 24,094 118,685 61,145 202,801 221,246 231,427 859,398 2008 22,033 106,692 62,085 164,995 208,822 230,571 795,198 2009 24,125 107,213 65,916 173,803 165,302 242,500 778,859 2010 20,202 69,576 53,037 122,533 89,554 182,909 537,811 2011 14,413 60,215 42,212 74,119 64,039 140,500 395,498 2012 16,487 113,825 56,351 173,804 218,486 238,564 817,517
Maximum 30,720 118,685 66,708 202,801 221,246 242,500 859,398 Minimum 14,413 8,033 21,865 38,150 19,189 87,218 190,128 Average 24,108 79,814 54,518 133,768 130,928 177,221 600,357
83 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Total Groundwater Pumpage Total groundwater pumpage in the District is the summation of agricultural demand, and M & I demand. M & I demand includes urban, small public water systems, rural domestic demand, dairy demand, nursery and golf course demand. The estimated volumes of groundwater pumpage are presented in Table 43 - Estimated Total Groundwater Pumpage. Average annual groundwater pumpage in the District over the study period was about 666,800 afy. The total groundwater pumpage ranged from a low of 252,900 afy in 1998 and to a high of 950,000 afy in 2007.
84 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 43. Estimated Total Groundwater Pumpage (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic District Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI Total
1981 24,888 101,946 78,347 157,689 165,251 203,664 731,786
1982 19,830 46,555 51,638 71,046 62,622 143,205 394,896 1983 21,685 48,256 48,979 109,660 154,217 130,431 513,227 1984 31,299 102,835 86,485 167,637 162,034 190,214 740,505 1985 28,385 88,081 81,846 154,208 166,765 197,627 716,912 1986 24,317 56,233 65,967 100,514 50,430 143,957 441,418 1987 28,976 101,340 84,112 170,276 213,750 196,832 795,286 1988 30,565 104,090 83,527 174,834 166,172 199,701 758,889 1989 29,506 94,970 84,091 168,596 192,579 204,495 774,237 1990 31,941 109,133 88,980 193,126 234,956 222,817 880,954 1991 32,290 90,613 84,024 162,994 174,059 193,512 737,492 1992 31,095 98,014 85,189 172,725 193,996 199,846 780,866 1993 28,126 54,855 72,095 105,417 46,447 129,471 436,411 1994 30,354 92,458 83,545 171,449 179,863 197,420 755,089 1995 18,204 30,133 62,838 64,367 62,527 108,537 346,606 1996 28,930 64,588 77,242 108,687 69,661 137,744 486,852 1997 30,761 71,807 78,556 113,128 104,804 151,957 551,015 1998 17,572 13,915 47,706 46,245 34,599 92,894 252,931 1999 30,977 80,895 75,717 136,598 103,095 162,204 589,485 2000 25,047 88,487 88,858 143,628 137,467 179,953 663,440 2001 26,747 108,633 95,350 160,773 201,843 204,055 797,401 2002 27,898 108,073 96,474 177,249 213,029 216,989 839,712 2003 26,799 109,032 96,083 154,162 170,849 187,474 744,399 2004 24,526 114,120 97,760 172,460 217,485 215,594 841,946 2005 22,608 62,972 79,774 90,178 58,056 149,783 463,371 2006 23,033 75,844 80,108 106,587 110,163 164,017 559,753 2007 26,570 126,944 97,037 213,983 246,699 238,780 950,012 2008 24,589 115,186 98,757 176,402 234,310 238,195 887,438 2009 26,615 115,982 103,580 185,639 190,795 250,393 873,004 2010 22,595 78,614 91,662 134,502 114,274 191,073 632,720 2011 16,789 69,179 81,279 86,294 87,951 148,316 489,807 2012 18,741 122,272 95,293 185,749 241,547 245,242 908,843
Maximum 32,290 126,944 103,580 213,983 246,699 250,393 950,012 Minimum 16,789 13,915 47,706 46,245 34,599 92,894 252,931 Average 26,008 85,814 81,966 141,775 148,822 182,387 666,772 Note: Includes pumpage for M & I, irrigated agricultural, rural domestic demand, small water system demand, and dairy demand.
85 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.3.3 Consumptive Use by Phreatophytes Methods used to estimate consumptive use by phreatophytes in the District are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007), Briefly, the volumes of phreatophyte extractions are assigned a water use factor of 0.8 afy/acre indexed to variations in precipitation as measured at the Visalia station. The results of the analysis present the minor extraction volumes on Table 44 - Summary of Phreatophytes Extractions. As indicated in this table, annual volumes of groundwater use by phreatophytes are on the order of 450 afy, and are a relatively small component of outflow in the water balance.
86 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 44. Summary of Phreatophyte Extractions (in acre-feet per year)
Calendar Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Hydrologic Entire Year Unit No. I Unit No. II Unit No. III Unit No. IV Unit No. V Unit No. VI District
1981 116 78 36 188 35 25 478
1982 135 91 42 218 41 29 556
1983 189 126 58 304 57 40 774
1984 69 46 21 111 21 15 282
1985 87 58 27 140 26 19 356
1986 113 76 35 182 34 24 464
1987 116 77 36 186 35 25 475
1988 95 64 29 154 29 20 392
1989 51 34 16 83 16 11 211
1990 58 39 18 94 18 12 239
1991 118 79 36 189 35 25 482
1992 104 70 32 168 31 22 428
1993 128 86 40 206 39 27 525
1994 98 66 30 158 30 21 402
1995 174 116 54 279 52 37 712
1996 169 113 52 272 51 36 692
1997 101 67 31 162 30 21 413
1998 207 139 64 334 63 44 851
1999 89 59 27 143 27 19 364
2000 133 89 41 215 40 28 547
2001 159 106 49 256 48 34 652
2002 67 45 21 108 20 14 274
2003 87 58 27 141 26 19 358
2004 87 58 27 141 26 19 358
2005 109 73 34 176 33 23 448
2006 154 103 48 248 46 33 632
2007 52 35 16 84 16 11 215
2008 60 40 19 97 18 13 247
2009 69 46 21 111 21 15 282
2010 167 112 51 268 50 36 684
2011 59 40 18 95 18 13 243
2012 61 41 19 98 18 13 250
Maximum 207 139 64 334 63 44 851
Minimum 51 34 16 83 16 11 211
Average 109 73 34 175 33 23 446
87 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
4.2.3.4 Evaporative Losses Evaporative water losses from the river and distributary systems and in artificial recharge basins (when present) were considered in the overall water balance. Evaporative losses in the District related to artificial recharge basins are estimated at about 500 afy. For the remainder of the network of rivers and canals an allowance of 1,000 afy has been assigned and apportioned to each hydrologic unit based on the relative percentage of conveyance losses presented in Section 3. Additional discussion of evaporative losses is provided in a previous report (Fugro, 2007). 4.2.3.5 Exported Water Exported water, as used in this report, is any groundwater that is pumped from within the District and transferred for use outside the District. Surface water that passes through the District (exits at designated spill points as discussed in the section describing surface water) is not considered an export per se since the surface water never reaches the zone of saturation. While incidental transfers of pumped groundwater are presumed to occur across the District boundaries to satisfy agricultural demands, for the most part such transfers are small (measured in the several of hundreds of afy) and assumed to balance back and forth in any given year. There are several notable exceptions however in Hydrologic Unit VI where both the Corcoran Irrigation District (CID) and the Melga Water District (MWD) pump groundwater from well fields within the District and deliver such water to lands west and southwest of the District. The significance of these transfers is discussed in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Although water transfers outside the District by CID and MWD is recognized to occur, the magnitude of these exports out of the District has not been quantified. 4.3 GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE Seasonal variations in the volumes of groundwater in storage in the District and each hydrologic unit were calculated for each year of the study period using the water level elevation contour maps (presented as part of Section 2) and the estimated specific yield values. The changes in storage for the 32-year study period from 1981 to 2012 were used to evaluate conditions of water supply surplus and deficiency, and in recognizing conditions of long-term overdraft. As indicated in Table 10, using the specific yield method, there was an accumulated water supply deficiency of about 2,403,000 af over the 32-year study period, of which 1,637,300 af occurred during the period between 2000 and 2012. This deficiency was equal to approximately 75,100 afy. Most of the water supply deficiency, some 994,100 af (or about 31,100 afy) occurred in Hydrologic Unit No. VI. Hydrologic Unit Nos. II through V show a relatively slight deficit of 4,900 to 18,900 afy. Hydrologic Unit No. I shows a slight water supply deficit over the study period. 4.4 WATER BALANCE 4.4.1 General Statement Using the inventory method, the total seasonal water demand (i.e., the sum of all the components of outflow from the District) exceeded the sum of all the components of inflow during the 32-year study period. This resulted in an accumulated deficit of about 1,947,500 af during the study period, and a corresponding decrease of groundwater in storage. This accumulated deficit is equal to an average annual deficit of about 60,900 afy. Table 45 - Estimated Seasonal Deep
88 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Entire District, presents the seasonal amounts of each component of deep percolation and extractions for the District as computed by the use of the equation of hydrologic equilibrium (the "inventory method"). Summary tables are also provided for each of the six hydrologic units as Tables 46 to 51 - Estimated Seasonal Deep Percolation, Extraction, and Changes in Storage, Hydrologic Units I through VI, respectively. Changes in the amount of groundwater in storage as calculated by the specific yield method are also presented for comparison. By the specific yield method, there was a seasonal decrease in the amount of groundwater in storage of about 75,100 afy, and an accumulated deficit of 2,403,300 af during the study period. The seasonal changes in storage by the two methods differed in all cases, and these differences can be graphically presented as cumulative variations on Plate 27 – Estimated Change of Groundwater In Storage, Entire District, and on Plates 28 through 33 – Estimated Change of Groundwater in Storage, Hydrologic Units I through VI, respectively. Such differences are usual for several reasons: in any particular season, the amount of water entering the zone of saturation is not always equal to the amount of water originating as deep percolation and subsurface inflow. Typically, the estimated change in storage by the specific yield method, based on spring data of each year, provides a more muted seasonal response of storage change. Further, any inaccuracies in the estimated seasonal components of water supply, use, and disposal can cause appreciable and cumulative variations in the amount of change of groundwater in storage. This is particularly true for those years or succession of years in which annual rainfall and surface water deliveries are significantly greater or lesser than the long-term average. In some cases, the inventory method simply cannot account for the complexities and timing in how recharge to the aquifers occurred or in the routing of surface water deliveries for irrigated agriculture. In such cases, there is a fairly wide divergence in the cumulative storage changes between the two methods (cf. for Hydrologic Unit Nos. I, III, and VI). In these cases, the inventory method is likely not accounting for sufficient recharge as is expressed in the water levels, due to imbalances between surface water deliveries and groundwater pumpage. In the remaining hydrologic units (II, IV, and V), the differences, however, appear differently since the accumulated amounts derived from each method follow seasonal totals reasonably well, In these units, and the entire district, it appears that the summation of the inventory components either overestimate some of the components of inflow or underestimates some of the components of outflow (refer to Plates 35 to 41). Balancing of the equation of hydrologic equilibrium can be accomplished by adjusting values of individual components of inflow and outflow (e.g., subsurface inflow) to achieve a better match.
89 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 73.6 8.8 126.5 4.9 261.3 60.1 37.0 872.5 177.7 694.8 731.8 0.5 1.5 46.2 535.2 780.0 (244.8) (172.4) (244.8) (172.4) 1982 13.0 124% 64.5 9.0 428.7 191.0 243.5 76.5 37.4 812.9 455.3 357.5 394.9 0.6 1.5 32.2 1,013.2 429.1 584.1 486.8 339.3 314.4 1983 18.1 173% 61.8 9.4 435.1 305.7 212.8 149.5 39.4 710.4 236.6 473.8 513.2 0.8 1.5 48.9 1,174.3 564.4 609.9 329.1 949.2 643.5 1984 6.6 63% 87.0 9.7 242.9 68.0 298.6 22.3 43.8 997.0 300.3 696.7 740.5 0.3 1.5 38.7 728.4 781.0 (52.6) (87.0) 896.6 556.5 1985 8.4 80% 47.1 10.0 163.8 25.2 269.7 55.9 44.7 900.4 228.1 672.2 716.9 0.4 1.5 16.1 571.7 734.9 (163.2) (118.2) 733.4 438.3 1986 10.9 104% 45.1 10.2 336.2 107.9 216.4 113.1 47.3 774.7 380.6 394.1 441.4 0.5 1.5 24.8 828.9 468.1 360.7 209.6 1,094.1 648.0 1987 11.1 106% 54.3 10.6 77.1 3.2 237.5 77.9 49.3 850.4 104.5 745.9 795.3 0.5 1.5 8.8 460.6 806.0 (345.5) (279.3) 748.7 368.7 1988 9.2 88% 35.9 10.9 97.2 4.4 242.3 46.8 49.5 867.5 158.1 709.4 758.9 0.4 1.5 12.5 437.4 773.3 (335.8) (246.5) 412.8 122.2 1989 5.0 47% 36.8 11.2 87.4 0.3 241.3 53.7 51.4 864.0 141.2 722.8 774.2 0.2 1.5 23.0 430.8 799.0 (368.2) (426.0) 44.6 (303.8) 1990 5.6 54% 53.5 11.3 48.9 0.1 246.7 63.8 53.7 883.2 56.0 827.2 881.0 0.2 1.5 11.9 424.3 894.6 (470.2) (528.1) (425.6) (832.0) 1991 11.3 108% 59.9 11.6 111.9 1.1 218.6 83.4 53.1 844.5 160.1 684.4 737.5 0.5 1.5 18.1 486.5 757.6 (271.1) (222.6) (696.6) (1,054.6) 1992 10.0 96% 62.9 11.2 68.3 1.2 208.4 58.6 56.0 805.0 80.2 724.9 780.9 0.4 1.5 9.3 410.6 792.1 (381.5) (285.8) (1,078.2) (1,340.4) 1993 12.3 118% 48.1 11.9 274.2 55.1 199.5 134.7 56.4 771.0 391.0 380.0 436.4 0.5 1.5 13.8 723.5 452.2 271.3 (37.7) (806.9) (1,378.1) 1994 9.4 90% 36.6 12.6 95.3 1.0 208.9 61.0 60.4 807.1 112.5 694.6 755.1 0.4 1.5 13.3 415.5 770.3 (354.8) 132.1 (1,161.7) (1,246.0) 1995 16.7 160% 59.8 13.0 352.7 155.4 183.3 172.2 63.4 708.5 425.3 283.2 346.6 0.7 1.5 12.4 936.4 361.3 575.1 288.4 (586.6) (957.5) 1996 16.2 155% 71.5 12.9 262.9 94.3 185.3 102.9 65.1 782.3 360.5 421.7 486.9 0.7 1.5 35.1 729.9 524.2 205.7 100.7 (380.9) (856.8) 1997 9.7 93% 68.6 13.3 274.2 95.2 189.9 83.6 69.0 801.9 319.8 482.1 551.0 0.4 1.5 50.7 724.8 603.6 121.1 (20.0) (259.8) (876.9) 1998 19.9 191% 49.2 13.5 339.4 205.6 135.9 275.0 62.8 574.9 384.8 190.1 252.9 0.8 1.5 24.9 1,018.6 280.2 738.4 436.9 478.7 (440.0) 1999 8.5 81% 39.5 14.3 139.3 10.7 176.1 136.9 69.0 744.9 224.4 520.5 589.5 0.4 1.5 32.4 516.9 623.7 (106.9) (324.9) 371.8 (764.9) 2000 12.8 122% 57.8 14.8 190.1 18.8 285.4 73.8 70.1 885.5 292.1 593.4 663.4 0.5 1.5 20.1 640.6 685.6 (45.0) (4.2) 326.8 (769.1) 2001 15.3 146% 45.1 15.1 100.8 4.8 259.5 45.1 74.7 880.9 158.2 722.7 797.4 0.7 1.5 29.6 470.3 829.2 (358.9) (318.3) (32.1) (1,087.4) 2002 6.4 61% 37.0 15.8 143.9 23.5 263.9 38.0 78.1 945.9 184.4 761.6 839.7 0.3 1.5 39.3 522.1 880.8 (358.7) (464.0) (390.8) (1,551.5) 2003 8.4 80% 36.1 16.5 172.4 22.2 248.7 32.9 80.7 914.4 250.7 663.7 744.4 0.4 1.5 61.2 528.9 807.4 (278.5) (120.4) (669.3) (1,671.9) 2004 8.4 80% 61.8 16.7 108.1 3.1 243.2 36.2 85.1 899.0 142.1 756.8 841.9 0.3 1.5 63.8 469.1 907.6 (438.5) (127.2) (1,107.9) (1,799.1) 2005 10.5 100% 91.3 17.1 323.7 48.5 235.9 68.5 84.6 838.2 459.5 378.7 463.4 0.4 1.5 32.3 785.0 497.6 287.4 548.4 (820.5) (1,250.7) 2006 14.8 142% 101.1 17.4 301.1 96.7 263.4 88.2 85.7 863.0 388.9 474.1 559.8 0.5 1.5 5.6 868.0 567.4 300.6 (217.0) (519.9) (1,467.7) 2007 5.0 48% 60.7 17.4 70.0 1.9 259.9 23.1 90.6 949.1 89.7 859.4 950.0 0.2 1.5 29.4 433.0 981.1 (548.1) (488.0) (1,068.0) (1,955.7) 2008 5.8 55% 125.8 17.5 139.4 6.9 274.8 31.0 92.2 989.1 193.9 795.2 887.4 0.3 1.5 19.1 595.4 908.3 (313.0) (400.5) (1,381.0) (2,356.2) 2009 6.6 63% 28.9 17.0 158.0 8.7 269.1 30.3 94.1 1,001.3 222.4 778.9 873.0 0.3 1.5 72.8 511.9 947.6 (435.7) 39.9 (1,816.6) (2,316.3) 2010 16.0 153% 46.2 17.3 273.5 59.8 308.3 104.8 94.9 890.3 352.5 537.8 632.7 0.6 1.5 58.3 809.8 693.1 116.7 400.2 (1,699.9) (1,916.1) 2011 5.7 54% 38.8 17.0 380.8 122.3 227.3 57.1 94.3 886.9 491.4 395.5 489.8 0.3 1.5 73.4 843.4 565.0 278.5 56.6 (1,421.5) (1,859.5) 2012 5.9 56% 29.9 17.4 93.9 2.2 276.9 53.6 91.3 950.4 132.9 817.5 908.8 0.3 1.5 101.6 473.9 1,012.3 (538.4) (542.7) (1,959.9) (2,402.2) Maximum 19.9 191% 125.8 17.5 435.1 305.7 308.3 275.0 94.9 1,001.3 491.4 859.4 950.0 0.8 1.5 101.6 1,174.3 1,012.3 738.4 548.4 Minimum 5.0 47% 28.9 8.8 48.9 0.1 135.9 22.3 37.0 574.9 56.0 190.1 252.9 0.2 1.5 5.6 410.6 280.2 (548.1) (542.7) Average 10.5 100% 56.8 13.5 200.6 54.7 237.3 78.5 66.4 852.1 251.7 600.4 666.8 0.4 1.5 33.7 641.2 702.5 (61.2) (75.1)
% of Total 9% 2% 31% 9% 37% 12% 9% 86% 0% 0% 5%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Entire District Values in 1,000s af TABLE 45
90 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 13.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 9.9 3.9 1.2 33.7 9.9 23.8 25.0 0.1 0.2 17.7 39.1 43.0 (3.9) (2.7) (3.9) (2.7) 1982 13.0 124% 11.9 0.0 23.9 0.0 9.1 5.3 1.2 31.1 12.4 18.7 19.9 0.1 0.2 27.8 50.2 48.0 2.2 9.6 (1.7) 6.9 1983 18.1 173% 13.5 0.0 24.3 0.0 8.6 8.9 1.2 29.4 8.9 20.5 21.7 0.2 0.2 14.8 55.3 36.9 18.4 3.9 16.7 10.8 1984 6.6 63% 11.7 0.0 14.4 0.0 11.6 2.5 1.2 39.8 9.7 30.1 31.3 0.1 0.2 15.3 40.2 46.9 (6.7) (13.2) 10.0 (2.4) 1985 8.4 80% 8.8 0.0 13.9 0.0 10.6 5.0 1.2 36.2 9.0 27.2 28.4 0.1 0.2 11.1 38.3 39.8 (1.5) 5.6 8.5 3.2 1986 10.9 104% 11.4 0.0 22.6 0.0 8.5 8.1 1.2 31.3 8.2 23.1 24.3 0.1 0.2 27.1 50.6 51.7 (1.1) (6.2) 7.4 (3.0) 1987 11.1 106% 18.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 9.7 4.7 1.2 35.8 8.1 27.7 28.9 0.1 0.2 25.0 44.0 54.2 (10.2) (4.3) (2.8) (7.3) 1988 9.2 88% 18.9 0.0 8.0 0.0 9.8 2.3 1.2 36.5 7.2 29.3 30.5 0.1 0.2 15.4 39.0 46.2 (7.2) (5.6) (10.0) (12.9) 1989 5.0 47% 15.3 0.0 8.1 0.0 9.8 2.6 1.5 36.3 8.3 28.0 29.5 0.1 0.2 23.3 35.8 53.1 (17.3) (6.6) (27.3) (19.5) 1990 5.6 54% 20.5 0.0 9.1 0.0 10.5 4.2 1.6 38.8 8.5 30.3 31.9 0.1 0.2 18.7 44.3 50.9 (6.6) (11.1) (33.9) (30.6) 1991 11.3 108% 17.2 0.0 13.5 0.0 9.6 5.5 1.6 38.9 8.1 30.8 32.4 0.1 0.2 28.8 45.8 61.5 (15.7) 9.2 (49.6) (21.4) 1992 10.0 96% 22.4 0.0 12.6 0.0 9.0 3.6 1.7 36.6 7.1 29.5 31.2 0.1 0.2 35.1 47.6 66.6 (19.0) (6.2) (68.6) (27.6) 1993 12.3 118% 12.7 0.0 19.4 0.0 8.9 8.2 2.0 36.1 10.0 26.1 28.1 0.1 0.2 32.7 49.2 61.1 (11.9) (12.7) (80.5) (40.3) 1994 9.4 90% 8.6 0.0 15.6 0.0 9.0 4.1 1.6 36.6 7.9 28.7 30.3 0.1 0.2 29.2 37.3 59.8 (22.5) 20.5 (103.0) (19.8) 1995 16.7 160% 15.7 0.0 23.9 0.0 8.2 13.4 1.5 33.4 16.8 16.6 18.1 0.2 0.2 30.6 61.2 49.1 12.1 2.1 (90.9) (17.7) 1996 16.2 155% 26.8 0.0 14.2 0.0 8.9 7.6 1.8 38.6 11.5 27.1 28.9 0.2 0.2 13.5 57.5 42.8 14.7 10.7 (76.2) (7.0) 1997 9.7 93% 18.9 0.0 19.2 0.0 9.3 7.3 2.0 40.3 11.6 28.7 30.7 0.1 0.2 28.8 54.7 59.8 (5.1) (1.8) (81.3) (8.8) 1998 19.9 191% 16.5 0.0 19.4 0.0 6.8 21.1 1.9 29.4 13.8 15.6 17.5 0.2 0.2 23.5 63.8 41.4 22.4 6.8 (58.9) (2.0) 1999 8.5 81% 15.7 0.0 9.6 0.0 9.0 10.7 1.9 38.9 9.8 29.1 31.0 0.1 0.2 14.9 45.0 46.2 (1.2) (2.3) (60.1) (4.3) 2000 12.8 122% 20.3 0.0 14.0 0.0 7.6 2.5 2.4 32.1 9.5 22.6 25.0 0.1 0.2 14.7 44.4 40.0 4.4 2.0 (55.7) (2.3) 2001 15.3 146% 9.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 6.8 1.4 2.3 32.5 8.1 24.4 26.7 0.2 0.2 25.2 29.5 52.3 (22.8) (10.2) (78.5) (12.5) 2002 6.4 61% 20.7 0.0 14.5 0.0 6.4 1.1 2.4 32.7 7.3 25.4 27.8 0.1 0.2 18.5 42.7 46.6 (3.9) 2.6 (82.4) (9.9) 2003 8.4 80% 19.6 0.0 14.1 0.0 5.6 0.9 2.6 30.7 6.5 24.2 26.8 0.1 0.2 31.0 40.2 58.1 (17.9) (6.3) (100.3) (16.2) 2004 8.4 80% 9.8 0.0 11.3 0.0 5.3 1.1 2.5 28.4 6.4 22.0 24.5 0.1 0.2 26.5 27.5 51.3 (23.8) 0.0 (124.1) (16.2) 2005 10.5 100% 20.9 0.0 20.3 0.0 5.7 2.3 2.6 27.5 7.5 20.0 22.6 0.1 0.2 24.4 49.2 47.3 1.9 6.3 (122.2) (9.9) 2006 14.8 142% 15.6 0.0 15.8 0.0 6.3 3.0 2.6 27.8 7.4 20.4 23.0 0.1 0.2 22.0 40.7 45.3 (4.6) (12.9) (126.8) (22.8) 2007 5.0 48% 11.9 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.4 0.7 2.5 29.2 5.1 24.1 26.6 0.0 0.2 20.5 27.4 47.3 (19.9) 2.1 (146.7) (20.7) 2008 5.8 55% 13.9 0.0 11.9 0.0 5.6 1.0 2.6 29.3 7.3 22.0 24.6 0.1 0.2 45.9 32.4 70.8 (38.4) (5.8) (185.1) (26.5) 2009 6.6 63% 15.2 0.0 12.2 0.0 5.5 0.9 2.5 30.3 6.1 24.2 26.7 0.1 0.2 53.6 33.8 80.6 (46.8) 6.7 (231.9) (19.8) 2010 16.0 153% 10.7 0.0 19.2 0.0 8.0 4.0 2.4 27.7 7.5 20.2 22.6 0.2 0.2 49.9 41.9 72.9 (31.0) 8.9 (262.9) (10.9) 2011 5.7 54% 10.4 0.0 22.4 0.0 4.6 1.8 2.4 25.4 11.0 14.4 16.8 0.1 0.2 50.2 39.2 67.3 (28.1) 2.4 (291.0) (8.5) 2012 5.9 56% 11.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 5.5 1.6 2.3 27.0 10.6 16.4 18.7 0.1 0.2 47.7 32.3 66.7 (34.4) (13.2) (325.4) (21.7) Maximum 19.9 191% 26.8 0.0 24.3 0.0 11.6 21.1 2.6 40.3 16.8 30.8 32.4 0.2 0.2 53.6 63.8 80.6 22.4 20.5 Minimum 5.0 47% 8.6 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.6 0.7 1.2 25.4 5.1 14.4 16.8 0.0 0.2 11.1 27.4 36.9 (46.8) (13.2) Average 10.5 100% 15.2 0.0 15.2 0.0 8.0 4.7 1.9 33.1 9.0 24.1 26.0 0.1 0.2 27.0 43.1 53.3 (10.2) (0.7)
% of Total 35% 0% 35% 0% 18% 11% 4% 45% 0% 0% 51%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit I Values in 1,000s af TABLE 46
91 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 9.5 0.2 26.6 0.2 36.9 9.5 3.1 123.2 24.3 98.9 101.9 0.1 0.5 10.0 82.8 112.5 (29.7) (10.0) (29.7) (10.0) 1982 13.0 124% 7.7 0.2 88.2 16.9 33.7 12.3 3.0 112.5 69.0 43.5 46.6 0.1 0.5 18.0 159.0 65.2 93.9 40.3 64.2 30.3 1983 18.1 173% 7.3 0.2 96.5 26.9 29.7 25.2 3.2 99.2 54.2 45.0 48.3 0.1 0.5 12.3 185.8 61.2 124.5 31.0 188.7 61.3 1984 6.6 63% 7.7 0.2 49.9 5.3 42.2 2.8 3.8 141.0 42.0 99.0 102.8 0.0 0.5 20.6 108.1 123.9 (15.8) (8.0) 172.9 53.3 1985 8.4 80% 10.4 0.2 35.3 1.6 36.8 10.6 3.9 122.9 38.7 84.2 88.1 0.1 0.5 8.2 94.9 96.8 (1.9) (11.8) 171.0 41.5 1986 10.9 104% 6.6 0.2 74.4 10.3 29.0 20.9 4.2 103.9 51.9 52.0 56.2 0.1 0.5 18.6 141.4 75.4 66.0 13.0 237.0 54.5 1987 11.1 106% 7.4 0.2 17.9 0.1 31.9 14.7 4.4 114.3 17.3 96.9 101.3 0.1 0.5 7.0 72.3 108.9 (36.6) (32.0) 200.4 22.6 1988 9.2 88% 9.6 0.2 17.0 0.1 33.1 7.4 4.3 118.4 18.7 99.7 104.1 0.1 0.5 9.8 67.4 114.4 (47.0) (23.2) 153.4 (0.6) 1989 5.0 47% 9.5 0.2 20.3 0.0 32.5 9.0 4.6 116.3 25.9 90.4 95.0 0.0 0.5 8.9 71.5 104.4 (32.9) (44.0) 120.5 (44.6) 1990 5.6 54% 9.3 0.2 11.4 0.0 32.6 10.5 4.7 116.8 12.4 104.4 109.1 0.0 0.5 7.5 64.0 117.2 (53.2) (54.5) 67.3 (99.2) 1991 11.3 108% 10.4 0.2 26.8 0.1 29.3 12.9 4.6 113.2 27.2 86.0 90.6 0.1 0.5 6.1 79.6 97.3 (17.7) (13.1) 49.6 (112.3) 1992 10.0 96% 11.4 0.2 14.6 0.1 27.8 8.1 5.0 107.3 14.3 93.0 98.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 62.2 100.6 (38.4) (26.4) 11.2 (138.7) 1993 12.3 118% 10.6 0.2 46.9 4.8 26.5 22.6 5.0 102.5 52.6 49.9 54.9 0.1 0.5 9.6 111.7 65.0 46.6 16.6 57.8 (122.1) 1994 9.4 90% 13.2 0.2 21.2 0.1 28.0 9.8 5.4 108.3 21.3 87.1 92.5 0.1 0.5 1.1 72.5 94.1 (21.6) (18.1) 36.2 (140.2) 1995 16.7 160% 23.3 0.2 74.9 13.9 24.3 29.5 5.8 94.0 69.7 24.4 30.1 0.1 0.5 1.8 166.1 32.5 133.6 64.0 169.7 (76.3) 1996 16.2 155% 6.3 0.2 41.3 8.1 24.5 17.9 5.9 103.6 44.9 58.7 64.6 0.1 0.5 12.8 98.3 78.0 20.4 10.0 190.1 (66.2) 1997 9.7 93% 14.3 0.2 54.3 7.9 26.0 14.3 6.3 110.1 44.6 65.5 71.8 0.1 0.5 17.5 117.0 89.8 27.2 (3.1) 217.3 (69.4) 1998 19.9 191% 13.1 0.2 74.8 17.0 18.4 46.4 5.9 78.0 70.0 8.0 13.9 0.1 0.5 8.7 169.9 23.2 146.6 46.7 363.9 (22.7) 1999 8.5 81% 10.9 0.2 25.2 0.8 24.4 21.3 6.4 103.7 29.2 74.5 80.9 0.1 0.5 7.3 82.9 88.7 (5.9) (39.5) 358.0 (62.3) 2000 12.8 122% 16.1 0.3 42.1 1.5 42.1 10.5 6.4 124.8 42.8 82.0 88.5 0.1 0.5 11.2 112.5 100.3 12.3 (5.4) 370.3 (67.6) 2001 15.3 146% 16.1 0.3 18.2 0.2 39.0 6.5 6.7 126.9 25.0 101.9 108.6 0.1 0.5 10.6 80.2 119.8 (39.6) (9.0) 330.7 (76.6) 2002 6.4 61% 16.9 0.3 31.6 1.7 38.8 5.4 7.0 133.7 32.7 101.0 108.1 0.0 0.5 8.6 94.7 117.2 (22.4) (43.5) 308.3 (120.1) 2003 8.4 80% 17.1 0.3 34.4 2.1 38.3 4.8 7.3 133.9 32.1 101.8 109.0 0.1 0.5 9.3 97.1 118.9 (21.9) (26.5) 286.4 (146.6) 2004 8.4 80% 14.3 0.3 23.4 0.2 36.9 5.3 7.7 129.1 22.7 106.4 114.1 0.1 0.5 9.9 80.3 124.5 (44.2) (29.7) 242.2 (176.3) 2005 10.5 100% 24.8 0.3 72.0 4.4 36.6 10.1 7.6 123.2 67.8 55.3 63.0 0.1 0.5 9.3 148.1 72.8 75.3 62.4 317.5 (114.0) 2006 14.8 142% 14.8 0.3 57.8 7.9 38.8 12.6 7.7 123.1 55.0 68.1 75.8 0.1 0.5 5.8 132.1 82.2 49.9 (6.0) 367.4 (120.0) 2007 5.0 48% 10.8 0.3 14.3 0.1 37.5 3.3 8.3 134.7 16.1 118.7 126.9 0.0 0.5 12.1 66.3 139.5 (73.2) (59.5) 294.2 (179.5) 2008 5.8 55% 26.0 0.3 36.6 0.5 40.7 4.4 8.5 143.8 37.1 106.7 115.2 0.1 0.5 8.5 108.5 124.2 (15.6) (44.5) 278.6 (224.0) 2009 6.6 63% 18.9 0.3 36.3 0.9 39.0 4.3 8.8 141.3 34.1 107.2 116.0 0.0 0.5 13.9 99.7 130.5 (30.8) 6.4 247.8 (217.6) 2010 16.0 153% 35.6 0.2 56.3 6.4 45.6 14.9 9.0 128.9 59.3 69.6 78.6 0.1 0.5 4.1 159.0 83.3 75.7 73.0 323.5 (144.5) 2011 5.7 54% 25.6 0.2 71.9 11.1 33.3 8.1 9.0 127.1 66.9 60.2 69.2 0.0 0.5 17.6 150.2 87.4 62.9 33.2 386.4 (111.4) 2012 5.9 56% 17.9 0.2 17.3 0.0 41.3 7.6 8.4 138.5 24.7 113.8 122.3 0.1 0.5 20.3 84.4 143.1 (58.7) (75.8) 327.6 (187.2) Maximum 19.9 191% 35.6 0.3 96.5 26.9 45.6 46.4 9.0 143.8 70.0 118.7 126.9 0.1 0.5 20.6 185.8 143.1 146.6 73.0 Minimum 5.0 47% 6.3 0.2 11.4 0.0 18.4 2.8 3.0 78.0 12.4 8.0 13.9 0.0 0.5 1.1 62.2 23.2 (73.2) (75.8) Average 10.5 100% 14.2 0.2 41.6 4.7 33.6 12.6 6.0 118.7 38.9 79.8 85.8 0.1 0.5 10.3 106.9 96.7 10.2 (5.8)
% of Total 13% 0% 39% 4% 31% 12% 6% 83% 0% 1% 11%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit II Values in 1,000s af TABLE 47
92 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 18.7 4.7 10.6 0.0 23.2 5.9 16.9 77.2 15.8 61.4 78.3 0.0 0.2 1.6 63.2 80.2 (17.1) (17.9) (17.1) (17.9) 1982 13.0 124% 20.7 4.9 32.4 4.4 21.5 7.1 16.4 71.7 36.4 35.3 51.6 0.0 0.2 9.3 91.1 61.2 29.9 47.1 12.8 29.3 1983 18.1 173% 23.5 5.1 32.9 7.5 19.5 15.0 17.1 64.9 33.0 31.8 49.0 0.1 0.2 4.5 103.3 53.8 49.6 13.5 62.3 42.7 1984 6.6 63% 33.7 5.3 18.6 2.4 26.6 1.2 19.8 88.8 22.1 66.7 86.5 0.0 0.2 5.2 87.8 91.9 (4.1) 0.3 58.2 43.0 1985 8.4 80% 15.3 5.5 13.3 0.6 23.6 5.3 19.8 78.8 16.7 62.1 81.8 0.0 0.2 2.4 63.6 84.4 (20.8) (11.6) 37.4 31.4 1986 10.9 104% 20.4 5.7 26.3 4.4 19.2 11.9 21.1 68.6 23.7 44.9 66.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 87.9 66.9 21.0 27.6 58.4 58.9 1987 11.1 106% 14.1 5.9 8.4 0.1 20.8 8.5 21.8 74.4 12.2 62.3 84.1 0.0 0.2 2.4 57.8 86.8 (29.0) (27.6) 29.4 31.3 1988 9.2 88% 9.4 6.1 8.9 0.1 21.1 4.0 21.6 75.3 13.4 61.9 83.5 0.0 0.2 8.3 49.5 92.0 (42.5) (28.4) (13.1) 2.9 1989 5.0 47% 16.4 6.2 8.4 0.0 20.8 4.9 21.7 74.3 11.9 62.4 84.1 0.0 0.2 5.0 56.7 89.3 (32.6) (26.6) (45.7) (23.8) 1990 5.6 54% 12.9 6.3 7.1 0.0 21.4 5.6 22.4 76.4 9.8 66.6 89.0 0.0 0.2 9.2 53.2 98.4 (45.2) (51.3) (90.9) (75.1) 1991 11.3 108% 12.1 6.4 8.5 0.0 19.0 7.4 21.5 73.1 10.6 62.5 84.0 0.0 0.2 7.9 53.4 92.2 (38.8) 6.2 (129.7) (68.8) 1992 10.0 96% 7.8 6.3 7.0 0.1 18.0 4.8 23.1 69.4 7.3 62.1 85.2 0.0 0.2 15.5 44.0 100.9 (57.0) (40.9) (186.7) (109.7) 1993 12.3 118% 13.4 6.6 18.2 1.7 17.6 12.8 23.3 67.7 19.0 48.8 72.1 0.0 0.2 8.2 70.2 80.6 (10.3) 11.3 (197.0) (98.5) 1994 9.4 90% 9.2 6.9 10.3 0.0 17.8 5.0 24.7 68.6 9.8 58.8 83.5 0.0 0.2 10.2 49.2 94.0 (44.8) (6.0) (241.8) (104.4) 1995 16.7 160% 7.4 7.0 23.5 5.9 15.8 15.4 25.7 60.7 23.6 37.1 62.8 0.1 0.2 12.0 75.1 75.1 (0.1) 23.0 (241.9) (81.5) 1996 16.2 155% 17.1 7.0 17.8 3.4 15.4 9.5 26.9 65.3 15.0 50.3 77.2 0.1 0.2 8.6 70.2 86.0 (15.9) (9.2) (257.8) (90.6) 1997 9.7 93% 33.8 7.3 17.0 3.8 15.7 7.8 28.0 66.4 15.9 50.6 78.6 0.0 0.2 6.1 85.3 84.9 0.4 18.2 (257.4) (72.5) 1998 19.9 191% 21.9 7.4 23.8 7.4 11.4 23.1 25.8 48.4 26.6 21.9 47.7 0.1 0.2 5.0 95.0 52.9 42.0 47.0 (215.4) (25.5) 1999 8.5 81% 13.3 7.7 11.1 0.2 14.4 11.6 28.6 61.3 14.1 47.2 75.7 0.0 0.2 5.5 58.3 81.5 (23.2) (32.9) (238.5) (58.4) 2000 12.8 122% 27.9 8.0 10.6 0.3 24.4 5.9 29.0 73.1 13.2 59.9 88.9 0.0 0.2 6.7 77.1 95.8 (18.7) (2.0) (257.3) (60.3) 2001 15.3 146% 21.8 8.2 7.4 0.1 23.0 3.6 30.7 74.2 9.5 64.7 95.4 0.0 0.2 2.7 64.1 98.3 (34.3) (8.2) (291.5) (68.6) 2002 6.4 61% 16.6 8.2 12.8 0.4 23.9 3.2 31.8 80.7 16.0 64.7 96.5 0.0 0.2 8.6 65.0 105.2 (40.3) (33.8) (331.8) (102.3) 2003 8.4 80% 16.6 8.1 10.1 0.7 22.1 2.7 32.5 76.1 12.6 63.6 96.1 0.0 0.2 2.6 60.3 99.0 (38.6) (16.0) (370.4) (118.3) 2004 8.4 80% 23.4 8.1 9.1 0.0 21.3 2.9 34.2 73.6 10.1 63.5 97.8 0.0 0.2 5.8 64.9 103.7 (38.8) (42.3) (409.2) (160.7) 2005 10.5 100% 24.6 8.1 19.1 0.8 19.8 5.7 33.5 66.1 19.8 46.3 79.8 0.0 0.2 5.1 78.1 85.1 (6.9) 62.5 (416.2) (98.2) 2006 14.8 142% 14.3 8.3 17.2 3.4 21.3 7.1 33.5 65.8 19.2 46.6 80.1 0.0 0.2 6.3 71.5 86.6 (15.2) (10.7) (431.3) (108.9) 2007 5.0 48% 23.7 8.1 7.9 0.0 20.0 1.8 35.9 70.7 9.5 61.1 97.0 0.0 0.2 18.6 61.5 115.9 (54.3) (37.5) (485.7) (146.4) 2008 5.8 55% 12.5 8.3 11.0 0.2 21.9 2.6 36.7 75.4 13.3 62.1 98.8 0.0 0.2 11.0 56.3 110.0 (53.7) (29.4) (539.3) (175.7) 2009 6.6 63% 20.4 8.0 9.6 0.1 22.1 2.5 37.7 78.3 12.3 65.9 103.6 0.0 0.2 15.1 62.7 118.9 (56.1) 5.9 (595.5) (169.9) 2010 16.0 153% 19.9 8.4 17.0 1.1 25.3 8.5 38.6 69.2 16.2 53.0 91.7 0.0 0.2 19.0 80.1 110.9 (30.8) 22.2 (626.3) (147.7) 2011 5.7 54% 28.3 8.0 26.1 3.5 17.6 4.2 39.1 66.3 24.1 42.2 81.3 0.0 0.2 19.5 87.7 101.0 (13.3) 25.8 (639.6) (121.9) 2012 5.9 56% 24.0 7.9 8.8 0.0 21.0 3.9 38.9 69.1 12.7 56.4 95.3 0.0 0.2 17.5 65.6 113.0 (47.4) (35.0) (687.0) (156.9) Maximum 19.9 191% 33.8 8.4 32.9 7.5 26.6 23.1 39.1 88.8 36.4 66.7 103.6 0.1 0.2 19.5 103.3 118.9 49.6 62.5 Minimum 5.0 47% 7.4 4.7 7.0 0.0 11.4 1.2 16.4 48.4 7.3 21.9 47.7 0.0 0.2 0.7 44.0 52.9 (57.0) (51.3) Average 10.5 100% 18.6 7.0 14.7 1.6 20.2 6.9 27.4 70.9 16.4 54.5 82.0 0.0 0.2 8.3 69.1 90.5 (21.5) (4.9)
% of Total 27% 10% 21% 2% 29% 10% 30% 60% 0% 0% 9%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit III Values in 1,000s af TABLE 48
93 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 26.7 1.0 38.5 0.5 59.5 15.4 3.7 198.8 44.7 154.0 157.7 0.2 0.2 68.4 141.5 226.5 (85.0) (37.4) (85.0) (37.4) 1982 13.0 124% 33.6 0.9 133.4 25.1 55.3 19.1 3.9 184.7 117.5 67.1 71.0 0.2 0.2 52.2 267.4 123.7 143.7 96.1 58.7 58.7 1983 18.1 173% 38.2 0.9 122.3 38.5 50.5 35.7 4.2 168.6 63.2 105.4 109.7 0.3 0.2 73.2 286.1 183.4 102.7 40.8 161.4 99.5 1984 6.6 63% 74.1 1.0 67.3 8.7 69.2 5.3 4.8 231.1 68.3 162.8 167.6 0.1 0.2 56.5 225.5 224.5 1.0 (21.3) 162.5 78.2 1985 8.4 80% 36.2 1.0 52.7 4.7 62.5 14.1 4.9 208.6 59.2 149.3 154.2 0.1 0.2 33.2 171.2 187.7 (16.5) (26.9) 146.0 51.3 1986 10.9 104% 39.3 0.9 97.4 16.2 50.5 29.2 5.2 180.9 85.6 95.3 100.5 0.2 0.2 29.0 233.5 129.9 103.6 31.2 249.6 82.4 1987 11.1 106% 39.9 1.1 24.5 0.6 55.8 18.3 5.6 199.8 35.1 164.7 170.3 0.2 0.2 20.4 140.1 191.0 (51.0) (54.7) 198.6 27.7 1988 9.2 88% 14.2 1.0 31.8 1.2 57.0 10.9 5.0 204.0 34.2 169.8 174.8 0.2 0.2 26.5 116.1 201.6 (85.6) (64.4) 113.0 (36.7) 1989 5.0 47% 7.9 1.1 30.2 0.1 56.5 13.2 6.2 202.4 40.0 162.4 168.6 0.1 0.2 25.9 109.0 194.8 (85.8) (70.6) 27.2 (107.3) 1990 5.6 54% 21.1 1.0 15.7 0.0 58.7 15.0 6.9 210.1 23.8 186.3 193.1 0.1 0.2 22.8 111.4 216.2 (104.8) (112.0) (77.5) (219.3) 1991 11.3 108% 21.7 1.0 37.2 0.3 52.4 22.1 7.1 202.6 46.6 155.9 163.0 0.2 0.2 26.9 134.8 190.3 (55.5) (35.6) (133.0) (254.9) 1992 10.0 96% 40.0 1.0 22.4 0.7 50.0 14.8 6.8 193.1 27.2 165.9 172.7 0.2 0.2 17.0 128.8 190.1 (61.3) (47.4) (194.3) (302.4) 1993 12.3 118% 34.9 1.0 91.9 8.1 48.9 33.0 6.7 188.9 90.2 98.7 105.4 0.2 0.2 26.5 217.8 132.3 85.5 44.9 (108.7) (257.4) 1994 9.4 90% 26.9 1.1 29.8 0.8 50.6 12.8 7.5 195.5 31.5 164.0 171.4 0.2 0.2 26.0 121.9 197.8 (75.9) (17.0) (184.6) (274.4) 1995 16.7 160% 15.9 1.1 112.6 20.2 44.6 43.5 7.9 172.5 116.1 56.4 64.4 0.3 0.2 29.8 237.8 94.6 143.2 52.3 (41.4) (222.1) 1996 16.2 155% 31.8 1.1 88.7 14.1 44.9 25.6 8.0 191.0 90.3 100.7 108.7 0.3 0.2 50.2 206.3 159.4 46.9 57.9 5.5 (164.2) 1997 9.7 93% 44.5 1.1 94.5 13.5 45.9 21.4 8.3 195.5 90.7 104.8 113.1 0.2 0.2 71.0 220.9 184.5 36.5 23.6 41.9 (140.7) 1998 19.9 191% 40.5 1.1 101.5 26.7 33.3 70.0 8.1 142.1 104.0 38.2 46.2 0.3 0.2 44.2 273.0 91.0 182.1 96.7 224.0 (44.0) 1999 8.5 81% 20.1 1.2 43.8 1.5 42.8 37.4 8.2 182.5 54.1 128.4 136.6 0.1 0.2 47.7 146.8 184.6 (37.8) (61.8) 186.2 (105.8) 2000 12.8 122% 27.8 1.2 58.5 2.5 60.7 15.9 8.4 201.9 66.7 135.2 143.6 0.2 0.2 34.1 166.7 178.2 (11.5) 7.9 174.7 (97.8) 2001 15.3 146% 24.6 1.2 37.1 0.8 54.2 9.5 8.8 199.7 47.7 151.9 160.8 0.3 0.2 30.9 127.4 192.1 (64.7) (72.2) 110.0 (170.1) 2002 6.4 61% 15.9 1.3 43.7 2.8 55.6 8.1 9.2 217.1 49.1 168.0 177.2 0.1 0.2 19.9 127.4 197.4 (70.0) (57.0) 40.0 (227.1) 2003 8.4 80% 14.9 1.3 57.8 3.4 52.3 7.1 9.7 209.8 65.3 144.4 154.2 0.1 0.2 19.7 136.8 174.2 (37.3) (23.9) 2.6 (251.0) 2004 8.4 80% 44.2 1.3 34.3 0.3 50.4 7.6 10.0 202.8 40.4 162.4 172.5 0.1 0.2 31.3 138.1 204.1 (66.0) (82.8) (63.4) (333.8) 2005 10.5 100% 70.5 1.3 100.3 6.0 50.6 14.7 10.1 191.7 111.6 80.1 90.2 0.2 0.2 27.4 243.4 117.9 125.5 77.8 62.2 (256.1) 2006 14.8 142% 72.5 1.2 97.8 11.2 56.4 18.8 10.4 198.3 102.0 96.2 106.6 0.2 0.2 27.4 258.0 134.4 123.6 (29.8) 185.8 (285.8) 2007 5.0 48% 42.0 1.2 19.2 0.2 55.2 5.0 11.2 221.4 18.6 202.8 214.0 0.1 0.2 33.4 122.9 247.6 (124.8) (127.2) 61.0 (413.1) 2008 5.8 55% 82.6 1.2 48.3 0.9 57.1 6.4 11.4 228.1 63.1 165.0 176.4 0.1 0.2 5.9 196.5 182.6 13.8 (89.4) 74.9 (502.5) 2009 6.6 63% 62.6 1.2 50.8 0.6 56.5 6.2 11.8 232.9 59.1 173.8 185.6 0.1 0.2 38.6 177.9 224.5 (46.7) 42.7 28.2 (459.8) 2010 16.0 153% 39.1 1.2 87.4 7.9 68.7 22.3 12.0 209.5 86.9 122.5 134.5 0.2 0.2 18.6 226.6 153.6 73.0 60.5 101.2 (399.3) 2011 5.7 54% 24.0 1.2 123.9 17.1 46.9 11.9 12.2 200.4 126.3 74.1 86.3 0.1 0.2 47.6 224.9 134.2 90.6 44.6 191.9 (354.8) 2012 5.9 56% 37.6 1.2 30.3 0.1 56.5 11.1 11.9 212.1 38.3 173.8 185.7 0.1 0.2 55.9 136.7 242.0 (105.2) (83.5) 86.6 (438.3) Maximum 19.9 191% 82.6 1.3 133.4 38.5 69.2 70.0 12.2 232.9 126.3 202.8 214.0 0.3 0.2 73.2 286.1 247.6 182.1 96.7 Minimum 5.0 47% 7.9 0.9 15.7 0.0 33.3 5.0 3.7 142.1 18.6 38.2 46.2 0.1 0.2 5.9 109.0 91.0 (124.8) (127.2) Average 10.5 100% 36.4 1.1 63.3 7.3 53.4 18.8 8.0 199.3 65.6 133.8 141.8 0.2 0.2 35.6 180.4 177.7 2.7 (13.7)
% of Total 20% 1% 35% 4% 30% 10% 5% 75% 0% 0% 20%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit IV Values in 1,000s af TABLE 49
94 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 29.3 3.0 22.7 3.7 63.9 13.1 10.1 213.1 58.0 155.1 165.3 0.0 0.2 16.3 135.7 181.8 (46.1) (43.9) (46.1) (43.9) 1982 13.0 124% 25.5 3.1 96.7 84.6 60.0 16.8 10.6 200.0 148.0 52.0 62.6 0.0 0.2 14.6 286.6 77.5 209.1 157.6 163.1 113.7 1983 18.1 173% 24.8 3.2 97.6 141.8 51.8 33.0 11.1 172.6 29.4 143.2 154.2 0.1 0.2 33.9 352.1 188.3 163.8 107.6 326.8 221.3 1984 6.6 63% 22.5 3.3 51.2 33.0 73.9 4.0 11.5 246.2 95.7 150.5 162.0 0.0 0.2 35.3 187.8 197.6 (9.8) (23.6) 317.0 197.6 1985 8.4 80% 15.5 3.4 30.5 14.3 67.2 11.1 12.0 223.9 69.1 154.8 166.8 0.0 0.2 26.7 141.9 193.7 (51.8) (34.0) 265.3 163.6 1986 10.9 104% 15.4 3.5 84.0 51.4 53.9 22.2 12.5 192.4 154.4 38.0 50.4 0.0 0.2 31.3 230.3 82.0 148.3 86.4 413.6 250.0 1987 11.1 106% 14.1 3.6 4.8 2.0 59.3 15.8 12.9 211.9 11.1 200.8 213.7 0.0 0.2 24.4 99.6 238.4 (138.8) (114.1) 274.8 135.9 1988 9.2 88% 19.5 3.7 24.3 2.5 60.6 10.9 13.9 216.5 64.2 152.3 166.2 0.0 0.2 5.1 121.4 171.5 (50.1) (80.5) 224.7 55.4 1989 5.0 47% 18.1 3.8 13.4 0.2 60.4 13.3 13.6 215.6 36.6 179.0 192.6 0.0 0.2 6.7 109.0 199.5 (90.4) (123.5) 134.3 (68.1) 1990 5.6 54% 17.5 3.9 0.2 0.0 62.0 13.9 14.1 221.3 0.4 220.9 235.0 0.0 0.2 7.8 97.4 243.0 (145.6) (160.3) (11.4) (228.4) 1991 11.3 108% 25.2 4.0 18.1 0.4 54.4 18.3 14.1 209.5 49.5 160.0 174.1 0.0 0.2 6.5 120.3 180.8 (60.4) (80.6) (71.8) (309.0) 1992 10.0 96% 30.6 3.7 7.9 0.2 52.1 13.5 14.9 200.4 21.4 179.1 194.0 0.0 0.2 2.6 108.0 196.8 (88.8) (84.0) (160.6) (393.0) 1993 12.3 118% 20.1 4.1 67.5 27.7 49.2 29.5 14.8 189.5 157.9 31.6 46.4 0.0 0.2 10.2 198.1 56.9 141.2 59.5 (19.4) (333.5) 1994 9.4 90% 31.5 4.5 13.2 0.0 51.9 13.6 16.5 199.8 36.4 163.4 179.9 0.0 0.2 17.9 114.7 198.0 (83.3) (66.3) (102.7) (399.8) 1995 16.7 160% 32.6 4.6 72.4 68.2 45.2 36.3 17.1 174.0 128.6 45.4 62.5 0.1 0.2 9.3 259.3 72.0 187.3 94.6 84.6 (305.2) 1996 16.2 155% 17.0 4.6 66.7 45.2 45.5 20.7 17.5 190.6 138.4 52.2 69.7 0.1 0.2 9.6 199.7 79.5 120.2 8.0 204.8 (297.3) 1997 9.7 93% 9.8 4.7 59.5 42.0 46.1 17.1 18.7 193.2 107.1 86.1 104.8 0.0 0.2 8.5 179.1 113.6 65.5 66.0 270.3 (231.2) 1998 19.9 191% 22.2 4.7 78.7 91.3 33.0 60.2 15.4 138.6 119.4 19.2 34.6 0.1 0.2 23.4 290.2 58.3 231.9 108.1 502.2 (123.2) 1999 8.5 81% 29.8 5.2 34.8 4.9 41.8 27.9 18.2 175.2 90.4 84.9 103.1 0.0 0.2 17.4 144.3 120.7 23.6 (11.7) 525.7 (134.9) 2000 12.8 122% 28.7 5.4 44.3 8.6 76.3 18.9 18.1 232.4 113.1 119.3 137.5 0.0 0.2 34.9 182.2 172.6 9.6 (22.1) 535.3 (157.0) 2001 15.3 146% 26.3 5.4 17.9 2.5 68.5 11.3 20.4 228.2 46.8 181.5 201.8 0.0 0.2 20.4 131.9 222.5 (90.6) (74.2) 444.7 (231.1) 2002 6.4 61% 15.5 6.1 25.0 11.8 70.7 9.8 21.7 247.8 56.5 191.3 213.0 0.0 0.2 19.2 138.9 232.4 (93.5) (78.1) 351.2 (309.3) 2003 8.4 80% 9.8 6.8 38.0 11.0 66.7 8.6 22.3 240.9 92.4 148.5 170.8 0.0 0.2 29.9 140.9 201.0 (60.1) (41.9) 291.1 (351.2) 2004 8.4 80% 19.2 7.0 17.7 2.0 65.3 9.2 24.1 238.9 45.5 193.4 217.5 0.0 0.2 41.8 120.4 259.5 (139.1) (62.9) 152.0 (414.1) 2005 10.5 100% 21.8 7.4 75.8 23.0 61.7 17.3 24.0 217.5 183.4 34.1 58.1 0.0 0.2 25.3 206.9 83.6 123.3 86.7 275.3 (327.4) 2006 14.8 142% 28.7 7.6 69.8 40.7 71.2 22.6 24.4 229.8 144.0 85.8 110.2 0.0 0.2 44.8 240.5 155.2 85.3 29.6 360.5 (297.7) 2007 5.0 48% 23.1 7.8 11.5 1.1 70.9 6.0 25.5 251.7 30.4 221.2 246.7 0.0 0.2 60.8 120.3 307.7 (187.3) (149.2) 173.2 (447.0) 2008 5.8 55% 65.8 7.7 20.8 4.2 74.1 7.9 25.5 261.7 52.9 208.8 234.3 0.0 0.2 50.4 180.5 284.9 (104.4) (118.8) 68.8 (565.7) 2009 6.6 63% 7.4 7.4 35.7 5.9 70.2 7.9 25.5 256.1 90.8 165.3 190.8 0.0 0.2 51.9 134.4 242.9 (108.5) (23.8) (39.7) (589.6) 2010 16.0 153% 9.6 7.5 63.8 31.6 81.1 26.7 24.7 231.5 142.0 89.6 114.3 0.0 0.2 46.6 220.2 161.1 59.2 102.3 19.5 (487.3) 2011 5.7 54% 9.8 7.6 82.7 55.0 60.5 14.5 23.9 233.7 169.6 64.0 88.0 0.0 0.2 36.7 230.0 124.9 105.2 65.7 124.6 (421.6) 2012 5.9 56% 5.0 8.1 12.4 2.1 73.1 13.6 23.1 250.2 31.7 218.5 241.5 0.0 0.2 50.4 114.2 292.2 (177.9) (182.5) (53.3) (604.1) Maximum 19.9 191% 65.8 8.1 97.6 141.8 81.1 60.2 25.5 261.7 183.4 221.2 246.7 0.1 0.2 60.8 352.1 307.7 231.9 157.6 Minimum 5.0 47% 5.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 33.0 4.0 10.1 138.6 0.4 19.2 34.6 0.0 0.2 2.6 97.4 56.9 (187.3) (182.5) Average 10.5 100% 21.6 5.2 42.5 25.4 60.7 17.7 17.9 215.8 84.8 130.9 148.8 0.0 0.2 25.6 173.0 174.7 (1.7) (18.9)
% of Total 12% 3% 25% 15% 35% 10% 10% 75% 0% 0% 15%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit V Values in 1,000s af TABLE 50
95 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Components of Inflow Components of Outflow Cumulative Rainfall Change in Storage Change in Storage Groundwater Pumpage Calendar Streambed Total Total Percolation of Year Subsurface Wastewater Percolation and Percolations of Percolation of Extraction by Evaporative Subsurface Inflow Outflow Recharge % of Inflow Inflow Conveyance Irrigation Water Precipitation Gross Applied Delivered Irrigated Total Net Phreatophytes Losses Outflow Inventory Specific Yield Inventory Specific Yield Inches Basins M & I Average Losses Irrigation Water Surface Water Agriculture Extraction Method Method Method Method
1981 11.2 107% 43.9 0.0 16.1 0.5 68.0 12.3 2.0 226.6 25.0 201.6 203.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 140.7 203.9 (63.1) (60.5) (63.1) (60.5) 1982 13.0 124% 55.1 0.0 54.0 60.0 63.9 15.8 2.3 212.9 71.9 140.9 143.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 248.8 143.4 105.3 136.0 42.2 75.5 1983 18.1 173% 44.5 0.0 61.6 91.0 52.7 31.8 2.5 175.7 47.8 127.9 130.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 281.6 130.7 151.0 132.4 193.2 207.9 1984 6.6 63% 31.3 0.0 41.5 18.7 75.0 6.5 2.7 250.1 62.6 187.5 190.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 173.1 190.4 (17.3) (21.1) 175.8 186.7 1985 8.4 80% 26.3 0.0 18.1 3.9 69.0 9.8 3.0 230.0 35.3 194.7 197.6 0.0 0.2 0.1 127.1 197.9 (70.8) (39.4) 105.1 147.4 1986 10.9 104% 34.9 0.0 31.4 25.6 55.3 20.7 3.2 197.6 56.8 140.8 144.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 168.1 145.0 23.0 57.7 128.1 205.1 1987 11.1 106% 31.1 0.0 10.0 0.4 60.0 15.9 3.4 214.1 20.7 193.4 196.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 117.4 197.1 (79.7) (46.6) 48.4 158.5 1988 9.2 88% 16.8 0.0 7.3 0.4 60.7 11.4 3.4 216.7 20.4 196.3 199.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 96.5 199.9 (103.4) (44.5) (55.0) 114.0 1989 5.0 47% 17.3 0.0 7.0 0.1 61.3 10.8 3.9 219.1 18.5 200.6 204.5 0.0 0.2 1.0 96.5 205.7 (109.2) (154.6) (164.2) (40.6) 1990 5.6 54% 26.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 61.5 14.6 4.1 219.8 1.0 218.8 222.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 108.2 223.0 (114.8) (139.0) (279.0) (179.5) 1991 11.3 108% 32.0 0.0 7.8 0.3 53.9 17.3 4.2 207.3 18.0 189.3 193.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 111.2 194.2 (82.9) (108.8) (362.0) (288.3) 1992 10.0 96% 13.6 0.0 3.8 0.1 51.5 13.8 4.4 198.3 2.8 195.4 199.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 82.9 200.1 (117.2) (80.8) (479.2) (369.1) 1993 12.3 118% 30.0 0.0 30.3 12.7 48.4 28.7 4.4 186.3 61.2 125.1 129.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 150.1 130.0 20.1 (157.3) (459.0) (526.5) 1994 9.4 90% 21.8 0.0 5.1 0.1 51.6 15.7 4.8 198.3 5.7 192.6 197.4 0.0 0.2 3.3 94.3 200.9 (106.6) 219.0 (565.6) (307.5) 1995 16.7 160% 36.0 0.0 45.4 47.3 45.2 34.0 5.3 173.8 70.6 103.3 108.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 207.9 108.8 99.1 52.5 (466.6) (254.9) 1996 16.2 155% 32.4 0.0 34.2 23.5 46.2 21.7 5.1 193.1 60.5 132.7 137.7 0.0 0.2 0.5 158.0 138.5 19.4 23.3 (447.1) (231.6) 1997 9.7 93% 28.4 0.0 29.8 28.0 46.9 15.8 5.7 196.3 50.0 146.3 152.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 149.0 152.2 (3.2) (122.9) (450.3) (354.5) 1998 19.9 191% 22.0 0.0 41.2 63.2 33.1 54.3 5.7 138.3 51.1 87.2 92.9 0.0 0.2 7.0 213.7 100.2 113.5 131.7 (336.8) (222.8) 1999 8.5 81% 22.0 0.0 14.9 3.3 43.8 28.0 5.7 183.3 26.8 156.5 162.2 0.0 0.2 11.9 111.9 174.3 (62.4) (176.6) (399.1) (399.4) 2000 12.8 122% 31.3 0.0 20.6 5.9 74.3 20.0 5.7 221.1 46.8 174.2 180.0 0.0 0.2 12.7 152.1 192.9 (40.8) 15.3 (440.0) (384.1) 2001 15.3 146% 22.3 0.0 8.0 1.3 67.9 12.8 5.7 219.4 21.1 198.3 204.1 0.0 0.2 15.1 112.3 219.4 (107.1) (144.5) (547.1) (528.7) 2002 6.4 61% 21.2 0.0 16.3 6.8 68.4 10.4 6.0 233.9 22.9 211.0 217.0 0.0 0.2 34.5 123.2 251.7 (128.5) (254.2) (675.6) (782.9) 2003 8.4 80% 22.7 0.0 18.0 5.1 63.6 8.8 6.3 223.0 41.8 181.2 187.5 0.0 0.2 33.2 118.2 220.9 (102.7) (5.8) (778.2) (788.7) 2004 8.4 80% 43.5 0.0 12.2 0.6 64.0 10.2 6.5 226.2 17.1 209.1 215.6 0.0 0.2 41.3 130.5 257.1 (126.6) 90.6 (904.9) (698.1) 2005 10.5 100% 15.5 0.0 36.2 14.3 61.6 18.4 6.8 212.4 69.5 143.0 149.8 0.0 0.2 27.7 146.1 177.7 (31.7) 252.9 (936.5) (445.3) 2006 14.8 142% 55.8 0.0 42.8 33.6 69.4 24.1 7.1 218.2 61.3 156.9 164.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 225.8 164.2 61.6 (187.2) (875.0) (632.5) 2007 5.0 48% 72.0 0.0 7.7 0.4 70.9 6.3 7.4 241.3 9.9 231.4 238.8 0.0 0.2 6.8 157.3 245.7 (88.5) (116.7) (963.4) (749.2) 2008 5.8 55% 34.2 0.0 10.8 1.2 75.3 8.8 7.6 250.8 20.2 230.6 238.2 0.0 0.2 6.7 130.3 245.1 (114.8) (112.6) (1,078.3) (861.8) 2009 6.6 63% 20.5 0.0 13.4 1.3 75.8 8.5 7.9 262.3 19.8 242.5 250.4 0.0 0.2 15.9 119.6 266.5 (146.9) 2.0 (1,225.2) (859.9) 2010 16.0 153% 29.6 0.0 29.8 12.8 79.7 28.4 8.2 223.6 40.7 182.9 191.1 0.0 0.2 18.5 180.4 209.8 (29.4) 133.4 (1,254.6) (726.5) 2011 5.7 54% 39.6 0.0 53.8 35.7 64.4 16.7 7.8 234.0 93.5 140.5 148.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 210.3 149.0 61.3 (114.9) (1,193.4) (841.4) 2012 5.9 56% 43.2 0.0 11.4 0.0 79.5 15.8 6.7 253.4 14.9 238.6 245.2 0.0 0.2 19.2 149.9 264.7 (114.7) (152.7) (1,308.1) (994.1) Maximum 19.9 191% 72.0 0.0 61.6 91.0 79.7 54.3 8.2 262.3 93.5 242.5 250.4 0.0 0.2 41.3 281.6 266.5 151.0 252.9 Minimum 5.0 47% 13.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 33.1 6.3 2.0 138.3 1.0 87.2 92.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 82.9 100.2 (146.9) (254.2) Average 10.5 100% 31.8 0.0 23.3 15.6 61.3 17.8 5.2 214.3 37.1 177.2 182.4 0.0 0.2 8.0 149.8 190.7 (40.9) (31.1)
% of Total 21% 0% 16% 10% 41% 12% 3% 93% 0% 0% 4%
Estimated Deep Percolation; Extractions and Change in Storage Hydrologic Unit VI Values in 1,000s af TABLE 51
96 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 52. Summary of Comparative Change in Storage Using the Inventory and Specific Yield Methods 1981 - 2012 (in 1,000s of afy)
Hydrologic Change in Storage Unit No. Inventory Method Specific Yield Method
I -10.2 -0.7 II 10.2 -5.8 III -21.5 -4.9 IV 2.7 -13.7 V -1.7 -18.9 VI -40.9 -31.1 Entire District -61.2 -75.1
Inspection of Plate 27 reveals that water supply deficiencies were apparent in both the inventory and specific yield methods during the late 1980s to early 1990s and again during the period between 2000 and 2012, interrupted by 2 wet years. Surpluses occurred during the early 1980s (1982 and 1983) and 1990s (1993, 1995 and 1998) and twice in the 2000s (2005 and 2011). During these periods, seasonal surpluses of between 271,000 (1993) afy and 738,000 (1998) afy occurred. The periods of water supply surplus and deficiency are generally consistent with the seasonal and cyclic pattern of precipitation and surface water supply that occurred during the study period. The components of inflow and outflow are presented for the entire District during each year of the study period on Plate 35 – Hydrologic Budget Summary, Entire District and for each of the Hydrologic Units on Plates 36 to 41. As presented on Plate 35 and Table 45, percolation of irrigation water was the greatest component of inflow (37 percent), followed by streambed percolation and conveyance loss at about 31 percent and percolation of precipitation at 12 percent. With regard to the components of outflow, irrigated agriculture accounts for 86 percent of the outflow from the groundwater within the District. Plate 42 - Schematic Diagram of Average Annual Volumes of Inflow and Outflow graphically presents the results of the water balance using the inventory method. 4.4.2 Safe Yield The safe or perennial yield of a groundwater basin is typically defined as the volume of groundwater that can be pumped year after year without producing an undesirable result (Todd, 1959). Any withdrawal in excess of safe yield is considered overdraft. The "undesired results" mentioned in the definition are recognized to include not only the depletion of groundwater reserves, but also deterioration in water quality, unreasonable and uneconomic pumping lifts, creation of conflicts in water rights, land subsidence, and depletion of streamflow by induced infiltration (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). It should be recognized that the concepts of safe yield and overdraft imply conditions of water supply and use over a long-term period. Given the importance of the conjunctive use of both surface water and groundwater in the District, short-term surface water supply deficiencies are satisfied by groundwater pumpage, which in any given year, often exceeds the safe yield of the District and individual hydrologic units. The District, however, has a
97 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123) very large amount of groundwater in storage that can be used as carryover storage during years when there is little natural recharge. Usable groundwater in storage can generally be defined as the cumulative difference of groundwater in storage from historic high water levels (such as occurred in the District in about 1985 or other comparable earlier periods) to historic low water levels. The cumulative storage difference using the inventory method between these periods (refer to Plate 27) is on the order of 1,947,500 af. Calculation of the safe yield of the District is challenging because of the inherent uncertainties in the estimates of recharge and discharge, coupled with the lack of data to account for the changes of groundwater in storage in the confined "pressure" area of the District. Despite these limitations, there are several methods available to estimate the safe yield under the conditions of water supply and use that prevailed during the 32-year study period. The first approach assumes that the safe yield is equal to the long-term recharge. Although there are considerable assumptions used to estimate each component of inflow in the hydrologic equation, previous data suggest the safe yield of the District was on the order of 590,000 afy. Using similar methodology for the data through 2012, the safe yield would be somewhat lower at approximately 570,000 afy (summation of the components of inflow, which is 641,200 afy, less the average seasonal overdraft, which is from about 60,900 to 75,100 afy). Using the inventory method, discharge from the District exceeded recharge by some 60,900 afy over the study period, resulting in a decline in water levels. Imbalances of pumping demand related to patterns of land use over the study period are apparent, which created a progressive lowering of water levels in some parts of the District, particularly the westerly area. A second method to estimate the safe yield of the District is to compare the annual extractions over the study period to the net changes of groundwater in storage. The resulting graphs (Plates 43 to 49) provide the rate of extraction in which there is a zero net change of groundwater in storage. Both the inventory and specific yield methods can be used to create such graphs. This method, the so-called "practical rate of withdrawal," is a useful method so long as the coefficient of correlation between annual pumpage and storage changes is sufficiently robust and the calculated seasonal values of inflow and outflow are relatively accurate. For these latter values, a degree of uncertainty exists. In this study, it is believed that there is reasonable accuracy in the estimates of annual groundwater extractions. Annual storage change estimates based on the specific yield method are also believed to be reasonably accurate, based on the distribution of wells and frequency of water level measurements in the District. As shown on Plate 43 - Practical Rate of Withdrawal, Entire District, the intercept of zero storage change occurs at an annual pumpage value of about 635,900 afy (inventory method), implying that net annual groundwater extractions at this approximate amount would produce no change of groundwater in storage. Notably, the practical rate of withdrawal was not calculated for Hydrologic Unit I because the correlation between groundwater extractions in an entire calendar year (inventory method) were not significantly correlated to spring water levels in that same calendar year (specific yield method), which was not the case in the prior study, which was based on water years. Similar plates (Plate Nos. 44 to 49 - Practical Rate of Withdrawal, Hydrologic Unit Nos. I to VI, respectively) are provided for each of the six hydrologic units. A summary of the results is provided in Table 53 - Practical Rate of Withdrawal Using the Inventory and Specific Yield Methods 1981 - 2012.
98 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Table 53. Practical Rate of Withdrawal Using the Inventory and Specific Yield Methods 1981 – 2012 (in 1,000s of afy)
Practical Rate of Withdrawal Hydrologic Specific Yield Unit No. Inventory Method Method
I Not calculated Not calculated II 90.9 80.0 III 69.5 78.5 IV 143.1 130.9 V 147.9 133.7 VI 160.0 156.0 District 635.9 610.0
Based on the above, under the current conditions of development and water supply, it is apparent that the District as a whole is in a condition of overdraft as of the end of 2012. The magnitude of the overdraft is in the range of about 60,900 to 75,100 afy (inventory versus specific yield). The practical rate of withdrawal from the inventory method for the District shown on Table 53 is 635,900 afy. As calculated by the specific yield method, the practical rate of withdrawal is similar at 610,000 afy. . The values of annual replenishment are based upon cultural conditions that continually changed over the study period and on vastly differing hydrologic conditions. Some components of recharge are qualified as "best" estimates. It is accordingly inevitable that a slight discrepancy would occur between the safe yield value determined using an annual replenishment method and the practical rate of withdrawal method. The annual replenishment (total inflow) value derived for the District as a whole is 641,200 afy, which cannot be taken as equivalent to the safe yield since there has been a progressive decline of water levels and storage depletion in the District over the study period. As used in this report, the safe yield of the District is the average seasonal amount of groundwater that can be pumped over a long-term period and under a particular set of physical conditions without affecting a long-term net change in the amount of groundwater in storage. The physical conditions are the same conditions that were used to determine the annual storage deficit (or surplus) over the study period. Consequently, the safe yield of the District of approximately 570,000 afy are equal to the average annual pumpage, less the average seasonal deficit, which in this case is taken as the deficit estimated by the specific yield method.
99 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
5.0 CONCLUSIONS Under the current conditions of development and water supply, the District as a whole is in an overdraft. The magnitude of the overdraft is estimated as of the end of this study period (2012) to be between 60,900 and 75,100 afy. Larger amounts of overdraft occur predominantly in the west side of the District and to the extent that groundwater is exported out of the District from Hydrologic Unit No. VI, this overdraft would increase. Notably, this average annual overdraft is valid for the study period of 1981 to 2012, which does not represent a balanced base period. The current study period includes significantly more dry years than wet years than did the original WRI, and so overemphasizes the estimated overdraft. It should be noted that water supply to the District over the last 30 years has benefited significantly from the regulation of the Kaweah River system by Terminus Dam. Overdraft in the District will continue to be expressed as falling water levels, particularly in the western part. In the remainder of the District, water level variations will fluctuate over wider ranges, resulting in an increase in average pumping costs. The overdraft present in the District is manifested as a progressive lowering of water levels and such declining water levels are most evident in Hydrologic Unit No. VI. Generally, the average decline in water levels in this area have been about 4 feet per year during the dry period between 2002 and 2012, but this varies widely depending on location, seasonal imbalances in water supply (i.e., wet versus dry cycles within the study period), and where pumping (well fields) is concentrated. As of 2012, about 918,500 acre-feet (af) of water per year are delivered for irrigation, municipal and industrial and related uses. Use of water by irrigated agriculture comprises more than 93 percent of the total, or a total of 852,100 acre-feet per year (afy).
100 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
6.0 REFERENCES Anderson, F.M. (1905), A Stratigraphic Study in the Mount Diablo Range of California, California Academy of Science, Proc. 3d ser. V. 2, p. 155-248. Association of Engineering Geologists (1998), Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, Updated to 1995, in Special Publication No. 8, James W. Borchers (ed.). Ayers, R. S. (1977), Quality of Water for Irrigation, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 103 (IR2):135-54. Ayers, R.S., and D. W. Westcott (1985) Water Quality for Agriculture, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 (rev. 1), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bertoldi, Gilbert L., Johnston, Richard H., and Evenson, K.D. (1991), Ground Water in the Central Valley, California - A Summary Report, USGS Professional Paper 1401-A. Blaney, H.F. (1933), "Ventura County Investigation," Bulletin No. 46, pp. 82-88, Table 57, California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. Bookman-Edmonston Engineering (1972), Report on Investigation of the Water Resources of Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, consultant's unpublished report prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, February. (1997), Investigation of Feasibility of Avoidance or Recovery of Conveyance Losses from the Tulare Irrigation District Main Canal, consultant's unpublished report prepared for the Tulare Irrigation District, Tulare, California, September. California Department of Water Resources (1962), "Planned Utilization of the Ground Water Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County," Bulletin No. 104, Appendix 3, Safe Yield Determinations. Collar, Carole (2002), personal communication, Dairy Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, November. Crippen, J.R. (1965), Natural Water Loss and Recoverable Water in Mountain Basins of Southern California, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 417-E. Croft, M.G. (1968), Geology and Radiocarbon Ages of Late Pleistocene Lacustrine Clay Deposits, Southern Part of San Joaquin Valley, California, USGS Professional Paper 600-B, p. B151-B156. (1972), Subsurface Geology of the Late Tertiary and Quaternary Water-Bearing Deposits of the Southern Part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 1999-H, p. H1-H29, scale 1:125,000. Croft, M.G. and Gordon, G.V. (1968), Geology, Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Hanford- Visalia Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Open-File Report prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources. Dames & Moore (1999), Technical Memorandum No. 1999-4, Review of CH2M Hill Groundwater Model Regarding Kaweah River Rock Company Project, letter-report dated February 15.
101 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Davids Engineering (2013), Time Series Evapotransiration and Applied Water Estimates from Remote Sensing, consultant's unpublished report prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, March. Davis G.H., Green, J.H., Olmsted, F.H., and Brown, D.W. (1957), Ground-Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USGS Open-file Report. Driscoll, Fletcher G. (1987), Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, published by Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minnesota. EDAW (1998), San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update, prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department. Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A. (1979), Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Frink, J.W. and Kues, H.A. (1954), Corcoran Clay, a Pleistocene Lacustrine Deposit in San Joaquin Valley, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 38, no. 11, p. 2357-2371. Fugro West, Inc., (2003), Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, consultant's unpublished report prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December. (2005), Numerical Groundwater Flow Model for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, consultant's unpublished prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, April. (2007), Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, consultant's unpublished revised report prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, July. (2008-2009), Update to the Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, Interim Reports, consultant's unpublished reports prepared for the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Goldhammer, D. and Snyder, R. (1989), Irrigation Scheduling, University of California at Davis Publication #21454 (hereinafter referred to as "Publication 21454"). Hanson, Blaine, Schwankl, L, and Fulton, A. (1999), Scheduling Irrigations: When and How Much Water to Apply, University of California at Davis, Resources Publication 3396. Harter, Thomas (2002),
102 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (1994), Groundwater Conditions at and Near the City of Tulare, consultant's unpublished report prepared for Montgomery Watson, April 4. Kings River Conservation District (1992), Alta Irrigation District Groundwater Study, December. Klausing, R.L. and Lohman, K.E. (1964), Upper Pliocene Marine Strata on the East Side of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Art. 124 in Short papers in geology and hydrology, USGS Professional Paper 189-C, p. 81-102. Letey, John (2002), "Officials and Scientists Still Seeking Agricultural Drainage Solutions" in Currents, Summer 2002, Volume 3, Issue 1 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2001), Evaluation Monitoring Program Report, An Interim Report for Phase I Investigations, Visalia Solid Waste Disposal Site, Visalia, California, Volume 1 of 2, consultant's unpublished report prepared for the County of Tulare Resource Management Agency, Solid Waste Division, May. Mass, E. V. (1996), Salt Tolerance of Plants, Applied Agricultural Research, Vol. 1:12-26. Matthews, R.A. and Burnett, J.L. (1965), Geologic Map of California, Fresno Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000. Naugle, Alec (2001), A Hydrologic Budget Model for the Tule Basin Area, Southeastern San Joaquin Valley, California, Master of Science Thesis, University of California, Davis. Page, R.W. (1983), Geology of the Tulare Formation and Other Continental Deposits, Kettlemen City Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, with a Section on Ground-Water Management Considerations and Use of Texture Maps, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4000. (1986), Geology of the Fresh Ground-Water Basin of the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and Sections, Regional Aquifer-System Analysis, USGS Professional Paper 1401-C. Park, W.H. and Weddle, J.R. (1959), Correlation Study of Southern San Joaquin Valley, Summary of Operations, in California Oil Fields, v. 45, no. 1, p. 33-34. Poland, J.F. and Evenson, R.E. (1966), Hydrogeology and Land Subsidence, Great Central Valley, California, in Geology of Northern California, California Division of Mines Bulletin 190, chap. 5, p. 239-247. Quad Knopf (2001), Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report, Hilarides Dairy, Sch. #99101079, prepared for Tulare County Board of Supervisors, Visalia, California, November. Shultz, Tom (1997), Water Usage Study on Several Dairies in the Central Valley, Dairy Compliance for Environmental Protection, Source: Milklines, August. Smith, A.R. (1964), Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000. Snyder, Richard, Eching, S., and Gomez-MacPherson, Helena (2000), California Irrigation Management Information System - Reference Evapotranspiration Data, California Department of Water Resources, 2000.
103 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District January 2016 (Project No. 04.62130123)
Todd, D. K. (1959), Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Tulare Irrigation District (2001), personal conversation regarding Projected Water Demands - Year 2025. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1938), Soil Survey Series 1938, No. 9 - Kings County, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service (1993), Irrigation Water Requirements, Chapter 2 of part 223 of National Engineering Handbook (referred to as "NEH-2"). Natural Resources Conservation Service (1998), Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Tulare County, California, central part: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service digital file, accessed on March 20, 2002 at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2001), Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Tulare County, western part, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service digital file, accessed on March 20, 2002 at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html. (undated), Soil Survey of the Visalia Area, California. United States Geological Survey (1969), Subsurface Geology of the Late Tertiary and Quaternary Water-Bearing Deposits of the Southern Part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Open- File Report. (1983), Geology of the Tulare Formation and Other Continental Deposits, Kettleman City Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, Water Resources Investigation Report 83-4000. Williamson, Alex K., Prudic, David E., and Swain, Lindsay A. (1989), Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, USGS Professional Paper 1401-D. Wood, P.R and Davis G.H. (1959), Ground-water Conditions in the Avenal-McKittrick Area, Kings and Kern Counties, California, USGS Water-Supply Paper 1457. Woodring, W.P., Stewart, Ralph, and Richards, R.W. (1940), Geology of the Kettleman Hills Oil Field, California, USGS Professional paper 195, 170 p., 15 figs. Zhang, M. (undated) "Digital Maps of Land Use, Tulare County for the period 1986."
104 M:\\WP\2016\04.621310123\04 62130123_FINALRPT_2016_0202.DOCX