DOCSLIB.ORG

6 Water Resources Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 6 WATER RESOURCES SETTING 6.1 Climate and Precipitation Figure 6‐1 Average Monthly Rainfall Distribution (Lodi Station) The climate in San Joaquin County is characterized by long, dry summers with an average growing season of 292 days. 4 Cold and rainy conditions occur in November and last through April with almost 90 percent of the annual 3 precipitation falling in these months. The average annual rainfall is about sixteen inches per year and varies due to 2 orographic effects across the Coastal Foothills in the west to Rainfall Rainfall (in) the Sierra Nevada Foothills in the east. Temperatures can 1 exceed 110 degrees in the summer and may also fall to the low 20’s in extreme cold weather events.49 Figure 6‐1 and 0 N B R R N L E P U UG Figure 6‐2 depict the annual and monthly variation in OCT NOV DEC JA F MA A MAY JU J A SEP precipitation. Month (Water Year Calendar) Figure 6‐2 Total Annual Rainfall 1941‐2012 (Stockton Fire Station) 49 San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 Chapter 6 6-1 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 6.2 Urban Land and Water Use Accommodating planned growth in San Joaquin County is a huge challenge for land use entities throughout the Regional Planning Area. The current population of San Joaquin is expected to increase by approximately 48 percent by 2030 from nearly 690,000 to over 1.0 million. Land use in the Eastern San Joaquin Regional Planning Area is summarized based on GIS mapped urban areas, the latest DWR land use survey completed in 1996, and the projected urban spheres of influence as reported in adopted or draft general planning documents. For the purposes of this IRWMP, the “current” planning level is assumed to be 2010 for urban and water use while “future” conditions assume a 2035 planning horizon. The IRMWP assumes that urban growth will occur as either infill or entirely within spheres of influence (SOI) delineated in the latest general plan revisions. To account for the loss of agricultural production, it is assumed that existing agricultural irrigation within the SOI will be entirely replaced with urban uses by 2035. Figure 6‐3 and Figure 6‐4 depict the 2010 and projected 2035 urban footprints. Water use within the urban areas of the Regional Planning Area is summarized based on current Urban Water Management Plans, water production data obtained from water service providers, or other general planning documents. Table 6‐1 summarizes the current and projected water demands, urban footprint acreage, and water use per acre. The net increase in annual urban demand from 2010 to 2035 is estimated to be approximately 72,000 acre‐feet. Urban areas are projected to expand and population is projected to grow, but overall use per capita is projected to decline. Several agencies are aggressively implementing many of the best management practices and demand management measures (BMPs/DMMs) recommended by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. In many cases, the 2035 demands reflect reductions attributed to the implementation of current and future conservation programs. Changes in population density, infill development, subsequent general plan revisions, and increased water conservation may affect the accuracy of the projected water demand. 6.3 Agricultural Land and Water Use Irrigation throughout the Regional Planning Area are mostly un‐metered, so water use estimates are based largely on cropping patterns and the associated applied water demand. The DWR Division of Planning and Local Assistance collects unit crop and applied water use estimates throughout the State for the preparation of DWR Bulletin 160, the California Water Plan Update. The following sections describe the method, crop inventory, and applied water demand for the Regional Planning Area. Chapter 6 6-2 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table 6‐1 Current and Future Urban Water Demands 2010 2035 Urban City Urban Unit Use SOI Unit Use Use Limits Use (af/yr) (acres) (af/yr) (af/yr) (acres) (af/yr) Urban Areas Escalon 2,705 1,501 1.80 4,742 2,144 2.21 Lathrop 19,043 12,671 1.50 31,647 15,685 2.02 Lodi 21,109 8,926 2.36 25,539 10,653 2.40 Manteca 29,588 12,873 2.30 43,076 20,351 2.12 Ripon 8,235 3,524 2.34 17,601 7,108 2.48 Stockton 73,886 41,763 1.77 113,895 72,714 1.57 Urban Total 154,566 81,257 1.90 236,500 128,656 1.84 Change +53% +58% ‐3% Note: Includes agricultural uses within city limits or sphere of influence 6.3.1 Agricultural Land Use DWR performs detailed land use surveys Statewide at unspecified intervals. For San Joaquin County, land use surveys were performed in 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1996. The IRWMP utilizes the latest land use survey performed in 1996 and assumes that changes in land use since 1996 are accurate enough to support planning level estimates of agricultural water use. Table 6‐2 summarizes the historic land use summaries and illustrates trends of increasing vineyards, orchards, and urban areas, with decreasing amounts of land for pasture, miscellaneous truck and field crops, and farmstead crops. To account for changes in urban land use since 1996 to current conditions and beyond, the 2010 “current” and 2035 “future” urban foot prints were spatially overlaid upon the 1996 land use survey. All agricultural lands within the urban foot prints are considered to be entirely converted to urban uses. A summary of agricultural and urban land uses 2010 and 2035 is presented in Table 6‐3. Figure 6‐3 and Figure 6‐4 depict the spatial distribution of land use for both the 2010 and 2035 conditions. Chapter 6 6-3 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table 6‐2 San Joaquin County Land Use Summary (acres) Land Use 1976 1982 1988 1996 2005 2030 Urban 59,221 57,557 74,186 86,550 120,860 180,160 Orchard 87,294 96,322 102,895 107,784 103,720 95,650 Pasture, Truck, Field, & Farmstead 458,248 439,497 454,778 393,297 370,249 328,760 Rice 7,918 7,865 6,141 5,991 5,990 5,990 Vineyards 60,921 65,646 63,860 76,975 76,070 72,150 Native & Riparian Vegetation 213,922 202,073 201,133 218,056 212,510 208,072 Water Surface 17,576 27,128 22,755 22,621 21,550 20,170 TOTAL 905,100 896,088 925,748 911,273 910,950 910,950 Source: DWR Land Use Surveys ‐ San Joaquin County 1996 Note: San Joaquin County comprises 901,760 acres. The difference between the land use total and the area of the County is attributed to double‐cropping. Chapter 6 6-4 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Figure 6‐3 2010 City Limits and Land Use Map Chapter 6 6-5 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Figure 6‐4 2035 Urban Spheres of Influence and Land Use Map Chapter 6 6-6 Water Resources Setting FINAL – 6/05/2014 – R21 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 6.3.2 Land Use Summary A summary of existing (2010 level of development) and projected (2035 level of development) is presented in Table 6‐3. Table 6‐3 Summary of Existing and Future Land Use 2010 Area (acres) 2035 Area (acres) Within IRWM Area Outside IRMW Area Within IRWM Area Outside IRMW Area Total Total M&I Agricultural M&I Agricultural M&I Agricultural M&I Agricultural Urban Areas Escalon 1,237 264 ‐ ‐ 1,501 1,306 838 ‐ ‐ 2,144 Lathrop 5,817 1,117 1,366 4,371 12,671 7,122 2,817 1,375 4,371 15,685 Lodi 7,470 1,456 ‐ ‐ 8,926 8,402 2,251 ‐ ‐ 10,653 Manteca 9,052 3,821 ‐ ‐ 12,873 11,665 8,686 ‐ ‐ 20,351 Ripon 2,917 607 ‐ ‐ 3,524 3,488 3,620 ‐ ‐ 7,108 Stockton 35,918 4,924 921 ‐ 41,763 51,893 19,278 1,098 445 72,714 Tracy ‐ ‐ 12,032 1,846 13,878 ‐ ‐ 23,607 10,321 33,928 Unincorporated Urban Areas 25,623 ‐ 8,131 ‐ 33,754 12,958 ‐ 4,459 ‐ 17,417 Urban Total 88,034 22,450 110,484 96,834 30,539 127,373 Agricultural Areas Central Delta Water Agency ‐ 38,907 38,907 35,227 35,227 Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District 55,185 55,185 50,521 50,521 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District 66,385 66,385 66,145 66,145 Oakdale Irrigation District 5,719 5,719 5,719 5,719 South Delta Water Agency 12,996 12,996 11,504 11,504 South San Joaquin Irrigation District 46,159 46,159 37,715 37,715 Stockton East Water District 59,788 59,788 56,447 56,447 Woodbridge Irrigation District 26,238 26,238 25,105 25,105 Other Agriculture 41,370 149,603 190,973 39,065 140,683 179,748 Ag Total 364,937 155,820 520,757 364,937 155,820 520,757 Remaining Acreage (Native Veg, Water, etc.) 168,468 113,741 282,209 159,668 105,652 265,320 Acreage Total 621,439 292,011 913,450 621,439 292,011 913,450 6.3.3 Agricultural Water Use Agricultural water use is based on various crop Evapotranspiration (ET) and efficiency data collected by DWR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Project Update/Activities U.S
    Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 2 Project Update/Activities since Publication of the Draft EIR/EIS This chapter is intended to provide an update on various aspects of the project that have changed since issuance of the draft EIR/EIS on August 8, 2003. Many of these changes are a result of comments received on the draft EIR/EIS during the comment period, which ended December 15, 2003. Changes to the project are presented in the list below, followed by a more detailed description of each. 1. Modifications to the layout and configuration of the intake facilities 2. Site identification for Zone 40 water treatment plant 3. Revised modeling and coordinated operation agreement assumptions 4. Water contract settlement agreements None of these changes results in new impacts. In some cases they result in a reduction of severity of impacts identified in the draft EIR/EIS. A revised summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided at the end of this chapter in Tables S-1, S-2, and S-3. Table S-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts and Table S-2 summarizes the less-than-significant environmental impacts of the FRWP alternatives. Table S-3 summarizes significant cumulative impacts. The tables are organized to present impacts by environmental topic area and to indicate the significance of each impact, available mitigation measures, and the significance of each impact if mitigation is implemented. Responsibility for Project Implementation As noted in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR/EIS, FRWA is a joint powers agency formed by the Sacramento County Water Agency and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the River Report
    Lower American River State of the River Report Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 1 April 2005 Lower American River The Water Forum is a diverse group of business and agricultural leaders, citizens groups, environmentalists, water managers, and local governments in the Sacramento Region that have joined to fulfill two co-equal objectives: • Provide a reliable and safe water supply for the region’s economic health and planned development to the year 2030; and • Preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. In 2000, Water Forum members approved a comprehensive Water Forum Agreement, consisting of integrated actions necessary to provide a regional solution to potential water shortages, environmental degradation, groundwater contamination, threats to groundwater reliability, and limits to economic prosperity. The Water Forum Agreement allows the region to meet its needs in a balanced way through implementation of seven elements. The seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement are: 1) increased surface water diversions, 2) actions to meet customers’ needs while reducing diversion impacts in drier years, 3) an improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir, 4) lower American River Habitat Management Element, 5) water conservation, 6) groundwater management, and 7) the Water Forum Successor Effort (WFSE). The WFSE was created to implement the seven elements of the Water Forum Agreement over the next 30 years. Additional information can be found on the Water Forum’s web site at: www.waterforum.org. Water Forum 660 J Street, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 2005 2 Lower American River State of the River Report 3 Letter to Readers Dear Reader, This is the first lower American River State of the River Report.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical
    THE FOLSOM POWERHOUSE NO. 1 1895 National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark The American Society of Mechanical Engineers September 12, 1976 FACTUAL DATA ON AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION The American River Division, a part of the Central Valley Project, provides water for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, hydroelectric power, recreation, and flood control through a system of dams, canals, and powerplants. The Division includes Folsom and Sly Park Units, both in operation, and Auburn-Folsom South Unit in construction stage. FOLSOM UNIT consists of Folsom Dam, Lake, AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT, authorized in and Powerplant, Nimbus Dam, Lake Natoma, and 1986, will provide agricultural and municipal and Nimbus Powerplant on the American River. The industrial water supplies for Placer, El Dorado, Folsom Unit was added to the Central Valley Project Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, together with by Congressional authorization in 1949. hydroelectric power, flood control, fish protection, and new recreational facilities. Principal features of the Unit will be Auburn Dam, Powerplant and Reservoir, FOLSOM DAM AND FOLSOM LAKE. Folsom Dam, the Folsom South Canal, and Sugar Pine and County below a drainage area of 1,875 square miles, was Line Dams and Reservoirs. constructed by the Corps of Engineers and upon completion was transferred to the Bureau of AUBURN DAM presently under construction will Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral be a 700-foot-high, concrete thin arch structure, with part of the Central Valley Project. The dam has a a crest length of 4,000 feet. The dam will create the concrete main river section with a height of 340 feet 2.4 million acre-foot Auburn Reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 59/Tuesday, March 30, 2021/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Notices 16639 provide drainage service to lands within water annually with the Agency for Recreation Act of March 12, 2019 (Pub. the San Luis Unit of the CVP including storage and conveyance in Folsom L. 116–9). the Westlands WD service area. Reservoir, and a contract with the 42. Shasta County Water Agency, 20. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms District for conveyance of non-project CVP, California: Proposed partial Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; water through Folsom South Canal. assignment of 50 acre-feet of the Shasta California: Revision of an existing 31. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, CVP, County Water Agency’s CVP water contract among San Luis WD, Meyers California: Reimbursement agreement supply to the City of Shasta Lake for Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation between the California Department of M&I use. providing for an increase in the Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for 43. Friant Water Authority, CVP, exchange of water from 6,316 to 10,526 groundwater pumping costs. California: Negotiation and execution of acre-feet annually and an increase in the Groundwater will provide a portion of a repayment contract for Friant Kern storage capacity of the bank to 60,000 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area’s Central Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction acre-feet. Valley Improvement Act Level 4 water Project. 21. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: supplies. This action is taken pursuant Amendment to an existing O&M to Public Law 102–575, Title 34, Section Completed Contract Actions agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra 3406(d)(1, 2 and 5), to meet full Level 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS
    6. Surface Water Resources 6.1 Introduction This chapter describes Existing Conditions (the environmental setting) and Sites Reservoir Project (Project)-related changes to surface water resources in the Extended, Secondary, and Primary study areas. Detailed descriptions and maps of these three study areas are provided in Chapter 1 Introduction, and summarized descriptions are included in this chapter. Surface water resources generally include reservoirs, rivers, and diversions. Permits and authorizations for surface water resources are presented in Chapter 4 Environmental Compliance and Permit Summary. The regulatory setting for surface water resources is presented in Appendix 4A Environmental Compliance. This chapter also includes a description of the surface water supply facilities operations and resulting surface water resources characteristics of California’s major water systems that are relevant to the Project: the Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal project that is operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP), operated and maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and associated tributary rivers and streams. A schematic showing the layout of these two water systems, with the relative location of the Project, is shown in Figures 6-1A, 6-1B, and 6-1C. A comparison of these characteristics has been made between the Existing Conditions/No Project/No Action Condition, and the four action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D). Unless noted, all numbers shown related to storages, flows, exports, and deliveries in this chapter are generated from the CALSIM II computer simulation model. Appendix 6A Modeling of Alternatives, Appendix 6B Water Resources System Modeling, and Appendix 6C Upper Sacramento River Daily River Flow and Operations Modeling describe the assumptions and the analytical framework used in the surface water modeling analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region
    Volume 3 Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region California Water Plan Update 2005 Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region Contents Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region ........................................................................................................7-1 Setting ................................................................................................................................................................7-1 Climate ...............................................................................................................................................................7-1 Population ..........................................................................................................................................................7-1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................7-2 Water Supply and Use .........................................................................................................................................7-5 State of the Region ..............................................................................................................................................7-8 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................................7-8 Accomplishments ..........................................................................................................................................7-10
    [Show full text]
  • 4.9 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY Sacramento River
    4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the DEIR identifies the hydrological resources, the existing drainage conditions, and the surface and groundwater quality in the General Plan Planning Area. This section also evaluates the potential impacts with respect to flooding, drainage, erosion, water quality, and water supply, and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to lessen the identified impacts. 4.9.1 EXISTING SETTING REGIONAL HYDROLOGY Surface watersheds are those land areas that catch rain or snow and drain to specific marshes, streams, rivers, lakes, or the groundwater table. There are several watersheds in Sacramento County, including: the Lower Sacramento, the Lower American, the North Fork of the American, the Upper Butte, the Upper Yuba, the South Fork of the American, and the Upper Cosumnes. The largest watershed in the County is the Lower Sacramento Watershed, which covers approximately 27,000 square miles and drains the Sacramento Valley, the Modoc Plateau, and parts of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada Range. The Lower Sacramento Watershed is one of the largest watersheds in the United States and covers most of northern California. The main tributaries in the Lower Sacramento Watershed are the Feather, Yuba, Pit, and American Rivers. The Lower American, North Fork American, South Fork American, and Upper Cosumnes watersheds are adjacent to the Lower Sacramento Watershed. In addition to the natural hydrologic processes of rainfall runoff, snowmelt, and base flow from groundwater, the flows in the Sacramento River are greatly affected by reservoir releases, water diversions, irrigation return flows, and diversions through bypasses. Both the Sutter and Yolo bypasses have the capacity to carry larger volumes of water than the Sacramento River channel, and are used to prevent flooding during wetter years and higher flows.
    [Show full text]
  • CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT FY 2017 Vs. FY 2018 O&M COST
    CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT FY 2017 vs. FY 2018 O&M COST ESTIMATE ANALYSIS M&I Explanation of significant decrease/ increase in cost 2017 2018 Variance % Change Storage American River $ 10,847 $ 10,847 - Black Butte Reservoir 24,642 23,346 (1,296) -5% Columbia-Mowry System 28,486 28,734 248 1% Coleman National Fish Hatchery 418,633 428,204 9,571 2% Delta Cross Channel 13,318 13,318 - 0% Folsom Dam & Reservoir 178,860 178,860 - 0% Folsom Pumping Plant 158,941 143,005 (15,936) -10% Friant Dam & Reservoir 197,113 201,515 4,402 2% Gianelli, WR PGP 712,675 843,957 131,282 18% Less: Gianelli Credit (640,065) (622,528) 17,537 -3% Hill, CA Whiskeytown Dam 34,968 34,968 - 0% New Melones Dam & Reservoir - Nimbus Dam & Reservoir 23,432 23,432 - 0% Sacramento River 17,797 17,297 (500) -3% San Joaquin River 14,603 14,603 - 0% Security Costs 547,058 596,622 49,564 9% Shasta Dam & Reservoir 307,440 286,769 (20,671) -7% Sisk, BF San Luis Dam 2,063,638 2,108,822 45,184 2% Trinity Dam & Reservoir 13,102 13,102 - 0% Water Forum - American River Div. 9,059 9,059 - 0% Overall increase is below materiality of 10%. No further action is Total Storage 4,134,547 4,353,932 219,385 5% required. MI Page 1 of 4 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT FY 2017 vs. FY 2018 O&M COST ESTIMATE ANALYSIS M&I Explanation of significant decrease/ increase in cost 2017 2018 Variance % Change Conveyance DMC Regulatory Actions 6,597 6,597 - 0% Delta Barrier - Hydrologic operating Modeling-Delta Division 1,456 1,456 - 0% Water Wheeling - DMC Subsidence Study - Friant-Kern Canal 2,716 2,716 - 0% Los Banos Creek Detention Dam-Maint.
    [Show full text]
  • Drought Brochure 2021 Update
    Drought In California January 2021 California Department of Water Resources | Natural Resources Agency | State of California Major Water Facilities Tule Lake Clear LLaakke Reservoir Trinity Reservoir Shasta Lake Whiskeytown Redding State Water Project Lake Antelope Federal Water Project Corning Canal Lake Tehama-ColuColussa Local Water Project Canal Frenchmmaan BlackBlack ButteButte LaLakke Lake Lake Lake Oroville Davis Stony GoGorgege Reservvoioir New BullBullaards East PaParrk Reservoivoir Bar Reservoir Lake Mennddoocincino Englebrightight Reservoivoir Indian Vaalleylley Reservoivoir Glenn-Colusa Canal Lake Sonoma Folsom Lake Lake Sacramento Auburn FolFolsom Sooututhh CCananaal Berryessa Putah S. CanaCanal Camanche Reservvoioir North Bay Aqueduct Mokelkeluummnne New Hogan Reservoir AqAquedueducuct New Meloelonnees LaLakke Contra Costa CCananal Stockton Los Vaqueros Reservoir Hetch Hetchyetchy Reservoir Don Pedro Lake San Francisco Lake McClure Lake Crowley Lake Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct Del Vaalllle South Bay Aqueduceduct Delta-Meendotandota Pachechecoo Conduit Canal Madera CaCanal Tinemaha Santa Clara CondConduiuit Millerton Lake Reservoir Hollister Condduuiit Pine Flat Reservoir San Luis Reeservvoioir Fresno San Luis Los Banos Reservoir Canal Lake Friant-Kern Kaweah Coalinga Canal Canal Haiwee Reservoir Lake Calif Success San Antonio Reservvoioir or Nacimientnto ni Isabella Reservoiir a Lake Los Angeles Cross Valley Aqueduct Canal California Aqueduct Twitchelwitchell Coastal Branch Reservoir Quail Lake Aq ued Pyramid LaLakke u ct Colorado
    [Show full text]