DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix H. Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix H. Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs Technical Appendix H Wei-Hsiang Chen Kristine Haunschild Jay R. Lund with research support from William E. Fleenor September 2008 Description This document is an appendix to the Public Policy Institute of California report, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by a team of researchers from the Center for Watershed Sciences (University of California, Davis) and the Public Policy Institute of California. Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute’s goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute’s research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California's future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. Mark Baldassare is President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Contents Summary iii Acknowledgments v Acronyms vi Introduction 1 1. WATER QUALITY IN AND NEAR DELTA 2 Delta Drinking Water Intakes 2 Electrical Conductivity (Salinity) 6 Bromide 8 Chloride 10 Total and Dissolved Organic Carbon 10 Nutrients 13 Pesticides and Herbicides 15 Prediction of Future Water Quality 16 2. DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS 19 Potential Disinfection Byproducts of Concern in the Delta 19 3. TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR DISINFECTION AND DBP PRECURSOR REMOVAL FOR DELTA WATERS 22 Alternative Disinfection 22 Treatment Processes for DBP Precursor Removal 23 Enhanced Coagulation 23 Adsorption 23 Membrane Filtration 23 Magnetic Ion Exchange 24 Existing and Future Potential Treatment Processes 24 4. COST ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITIES AND DELTA LOCATIONS 27 Cost Concepts and Estimation Methods 27 Treatment Cost Estimation for Unit Processes 28 Disinfection Technologies 28 Advanced Treatment for DBP Precursor Removal 30 Treatment Cost Estimation for Water Quality Scenarios and Intake Locations 33 Treatment Strategies for Various Water Quality Scenarios 33 Treatment Costs for Various Treatment Alternatives in Delta 35 Treatment Costs for Potential Future Quality Condition in Delta 37 5. RESIDUAL HEALTH RISK 40 i Conclusions 42 Addendum H1. Water Quality Data 45 Data Sources 45 Water Quality Constituents of Interest 47 Bromide 47 Chloride 48 Total Organic Carbon 50 Nutrients 52 References 53 About the Authors 55 ii Summary This appendix explores the current and long-term effects of Delta export water quality on drinking water treatment cost and public health risk from disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation. While these analyses are preliminary, they should provide a better understanding of the general magnitude of these costs and concerns for strategic decisions on managing Delta water exports. The analysis considers several intake locations within the Delta, including the South Delta intakes (Contra Costa Canal intake, South Delta pumps at Banks), the North Bay Aqueduct, and upstream locations on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, the two major tributaries to the Delta. Salinity (electrical conductivity, bromide, and chloride), total and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC), nutrients (total nitrogen and phosphorous), and pesticides/herbicides are the primary water quality constituents of interest. Salinity-associated contaminants will become more significant for South Delta water exports, from both San Joaquin River drainage and seawater intrusion from sea level rise and western island failures. High DOC concentrations also are troublesome, particularly for the North Bay Aqueduct. Although the Sacramento River, a likely intake location for water exports with a peripheral canal, has lower concentrations of salinity and TOC/DOC, it occasionally has pesticide and herbicide issues. Various DBPs of greatest concern, including those regulated and commonly studied, are considered in light of the current and future conditions in the Delta with regard to water quality and treatment technologies. Ozone and UV disinfection are considered, with additional treatment technologies for removing DBP precursors including enhanced coagulation, adsorption, membrane filtration, and magnetic ion exchange (MIEX). Costs for these technologies are estimated as total annualized capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Appropriate treatment options and strategies are discussed based on these water quality conditions (TOC and bromide concentrations). Since many DBPs are caused by a combination of DOCs and bromides, and since dissolved bromides largely require expensive reverse osmosis for removal, additional DOC removal can be the least expensive way to reduce DBPs for some range of seawater bromides. Greater seawater intrusion with sea level rise is likely to lead to more advanced and expensive drinking water treatment for DOCs. The cost information is applied to estimate the current and future costs of treatment alternatives for different export locations with projections of future water quality from hydrodynamic modeling described in Appendix C. The major cost results are summarized in Table H.S1 for two of the locations treating water sourced in the South Delta and for water sourced at the Sacramento River site in the northern Delta. With a peripheral canal, the Sacramento River would supply urban water districts; this source is assumed least susceptible to water quality deterioration from sea level rise and Delta levee failures. Although some combined treatment technologies might be impractical for some simulated water quality conditions, overall, drinking water treatment costs would be lower for Sacramento River water. The additional drinking water treatment cost of taking water from the South Delta, rather than from an upstream intake on the Sacramento River, is currently about $20 to $60 per iii acre-foot (af). These cost differences are likely to increase to $100 to $500/af with sea level rise and island failures, unless net Delta outflows are increased to keep salinity at bay. With roughly 1.5 million af per year of Delta water use for urban water supplies at present, these cost differences amount to $30 to $90 million per year currently. The total treatment cost difference could rise to $200 to $1000 million per year in the future, as Delta water quality deteriorates and as urban demands for Delta exports are likely to rise to 2 million acre-feet annually. Table H.S1. Estimated treatment costs for treating current and future Delta exports using selected treatment technologies Annualized treatment cost1 ($/af) Current Plant/intake location2 1 ft SLR 3 ft SLR W Is. Fail (2003 - 2007) Sacramento River 37 – 623 (Medium plant) Sacramento River 35 – 403 (Large plant) CCWD 66 – 91 153 – 409 410 – 584 145 – 400 South Bay 53 – 78 126 – 381 160 – 416 124 – 380 (South Delta pumps) Southern California 46 – 53 124 – 360 158 – 394 122 – 359 (South Delta pumps) Treatments include: ozonation, enhanced coagulation, granular activated carbon, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and magnetic ion exchange resin CCWD: Contra Costa Water District, 1and 3 ft SLR: 1 and 3 feet sea level rise, W Is. fail: western islands fail 1. Includes annual operation and maintenance costs of existing enhanced coagulation and ozonation processes and total annualized cost of selected additional advanced technologies granular activated carbon, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, magnetic ion exchange, and nanofiltration. 2. Medium treatment plant (7 to 76 mgd) is assumed for CCWD and South Bay, while a large plant (76 to 430 mgd) is assumed for Southern California. Both sizes are considered for water sourced from the Sacramento River. 3. Assumes water quality in Sacramento River is constant over simulated conditions. SOURCE: Authors’ estimates using professional judgment and cost data from Figures H.7, H.8, and H.10 and Tables H.5 and H.11 through H.13. Currently, DBPs are manageable for Delta supplies within treatment standards with moderate additional costs. But sea level rise and western island failures would make treatment of Delta water for urban water supply much more difficult and expensive. Residual public health risks also may remain after treatment from unregulated and residual DBPs. Bromide from seawater, combined with TOC, is a particularly problematic precursor of DBPs whose concentration will be most affected by sea level
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District
    Environmental Assessment Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District EA-12-069 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. EA-12-069 Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Relevant Legal and Statutory Authorities........................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Warren Act .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Reclamation Project Act ......................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Central Valley Project Improvement Act ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Technical Appendix
    A New Approach to Accounting for Environmental Water Insights from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Technical Appendices CONTENTS Appendix A: A Brief Review of Regulatory Assignment of Water in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Greg Gartrell and Brian Gray Appendix B: Water Assigned to Meeting Environmental Standards in the Delta from 1980–2016 Greg Gartrell, Jeffrey Mount, Ellen Hanak, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Brian Gray Supported with funding from the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency (with partial support from Assistance Agreement No.83586701), and the Water Foundation Appendix A Introduction In this appendix, we review the history of the water quality and flow standards that have governed the impoundment and diversion of water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River and Delta system. Although most of the responsibility for complying with these standards falls on the two largest water-right holders—the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the California State Water Project (SWP)—this history begins well before their creation. It includes the early development of irrigated agriculture in the Delta and upstream in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins. It incorporates the design and operation of the two great water projects. And it concludes with the modern era of ecological protection and multifaceted water quality administration. Pre-Project Water Quality Issues Delta water salinity has posed challenges for water users—both within and upstream of the Delta—since the late 19th century. The Delta is an estuary.1 Salt moves from the San Francisco Bay into the Delta with the action of the tides; fresh water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers mixes with and dilutes brackish water in the western Delta and flows into the Carquinez Strait.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: a Brief History of California Water Policy
    1Floods, Droughts, and Lawsuits: A Brief History of California Water Policy MPI/GETTY IMAGES The history of California in the twentieth century is the story of a state inventing itself with water. William L. Kahrl, Water and Power, 1982 California’s water system might have been invented by a Soviet bureaucrat on an LSD trip. Peter Passell, “Economic Scene: Greening California,” New York Times, 1991 California has always faced water management challenges and always will. The state’s arid and semiarid climate, its ambitious and evolving economy, and its continually growing population have combined to make shortages and conflicting demands the norm. Over the past two centuries, California has tried to adapt to these challenges through major changes in water manage- ment. Institutions, laws, and technologies are now radically different from those brought by early settlers coming to California from more humid parts of the United States. These adaptations, and the political, economic, technologic, and social changes that spurred them on, have both alleviated and exacerbated the current conflicts in water management. This chapter summarizes the forces and events that shaped water man- agement in California, leading to today’s complex array of policies, laws, and infrastructure. These legacies form the foundation of California’s contemporary water system and will both guide and constrain the state’s future water choices.1 1. Much of the description in this chapter is derived from Norris Hundley Jr.’s outstanding book, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water: A History (Hundley 2001), Robert Kelley’s seminal history of floods in the Central Valley, Battling the Inland Sea (Kelley 1989), and Donald Pisani’s influential study of the rise of irrigated agriculture in California, From the Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade in California (Pisani 1984).
    [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]
  • Friant-Kern Canal Capacity Restoration
    Friant-Kern Canal Capacity Restoration Draft Environmental Assessment Draft June 2011 Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents 2 1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................... 1-1 3 1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 1-1 4 1.1.1 Settlement and Act ............................................................................. 1-3 5 1.2 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................... 1-4 6 1.3 Reclamation’s Legal and Statutory Authorities and Jurisdiction 7 Relevant to the Proposed Action ................................................................... 1-4 8 1.4 Implementing Agency Responsibility ........................................................... 1-5 9 1.5 Purpose and Intended Use of the EA ............................................................. 1-5 10 1.6 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 1-5 11 1.7 Resources of Potential Concern ..................................................................... 1-5 12 2.0 Alternatives Including Proposed Action ............................................................. 2-1 13 2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 2-1 14 2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Martin H. Blote Papers, 1930-1971
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf6q2nb2s3 No online items Inventory of the Martin H. Blote Papers, 1930-1971 Processed by Randal Brandt; machine-readable finding aid created by Gabriela A. Montoya Water Resources Collections and Archives Orbach Science Library, Room 118 PO Box 5900 University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Phone: (951) 827-2934 Fax: (951) 827-6378 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/wrca © 1998 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Inventory of the Martin H. Blote BLOTE-1 1 Papers, 1930-1971 Inventory of the Martin H. Blote Papers, 1930-1971 Collection number: BLOTE-1 Water Resources Collections and Archives University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Contact Information: Water Resources Collections and Archives Orbach Science Library, Room 118 PO Box 5900 University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Phone: (951) 827-2934 Fax: (951) 827-6378 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/wrca Processed by: Randal Brandt Date Completed: March 1998 Encoded by: Gabriela A. Montoya © 1998 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Martin H. Blote Papers, Date (inclusive): 1930-1971 Collection number: BLOTE-1 Creator: Blote, Martin H. Extent: 7 linear ft. (8 boxes) Repository: Water Resources Collections and Archives Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Shelf location: This collection is stored off-campus at NRLF. Please contact the Water Resources Collections and Archives staff for access to the materials. Language: English. Access Collection is open for research. Publication Rights Copyright has not been assigned to the Water Resources Collections and Archives.
    [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]
  • Order Conditionally Approving Petition, Temporary Urgency Changes in License and Permit Terms and Conditions Requiring Compliance
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD In the Matter of Specified License and Permits1 of the Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the State Water Project and Central Valley Project ORDER CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A PETITION FOR TEMPORARY URGENCY CHANGES IN LICENSE AND PERMIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DELTA WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN RESPONSE TO DROUGHT CONDITIONS BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1.0 INTRODUCTION On January 23, 2015, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (hereinafter the Petitioners) jointly filed a Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP) pursuant to Water Code section 1435 et seq., to temporarily change their water right permits and license for the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) (collectively Projects). In response to the ongoing drought emergency, the Petitioners sought changes to permit and license conditions imposed pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Water Right Decision 1641(D-1641) that require the Petitioners to meet flow-dependent and operational water quality objectives designed to protect fish and wildlife and agricultural beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta). On February 3, 2015, the Executive Director issued an order approving in part the TUCP, subject to conditions. The Executive Director modified the February 3, 2015 Order on March 5, 2015, and on April 6, 2015. On May 21, 2015, the Petitioners submitted a request to the State Water Board to modify and renew the TUCP Order pursuant to Water Code section 1441, which allows for temporary change orders to be renewed for up to 180 additional days.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Angler Survey
    Central Valley Salmon and Steell Harvest Monitoring Project 2002 Angler Survey State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game September 2003 Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Harvest Monitoring Project 2002 Angler Survey Prepared by: Duane A. Massa, Fishery Biologist & Tom Schroyer, Fishery Biologist Sacramento Valley & Central Sierra Region 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite "A" Rancho Cordova, CX 95670-4599 Abstract In October 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was signed into law. One objective of the CVPIA was to restore the abundance of natural fish stocks in Central Valley rivers and streams. To achieve this objective, the CVPIA required the development of restoration actions that ensure sustainable, long-term populations of native anadromous fish stocks. Section 3406@)(16) of the CVPIA specifies the development of a monitoring and assessment program to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented restoration actions. The Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP) was established for this purpose. The CAMP program recommends monitoring of both adult and juvenile fish populations. Adult monitoring was recommended to include spawner returns (escapement), as well as in-river recreational, ocean recreational and commercial harvest estimates. In 1998, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) created the Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Harvest Monitoring Project to help enumerate the number of adult Chinook salmon and steelhead resulting fiom natural production in Central Valley Rivers and streams. The Project's objective was to determine annual estimates of the total in-river harvest of salmon and steelhead. In addition, this project would provide limited harvest data on other anadromous and resident sport fish species.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 25-Year Water Transfer Program Water Resources Analysis
    Appendix B San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 25-Year Water Transfer Program Water Resources Analysis Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 2014–2038 Draft May 2012 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 25-Year Water Transfer Program Water Resources Analysis Prepared for San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority By Daniel B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer March 2012 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 25-Year Water Transfer Program Water Resources Analysis 1. Introduction The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority1 (Exchange Contractors) proposes to transfer up to 150,000 acre-feet of substitute water to several potential users over a 25-year timeframe. The water could provide a supply for the following uses: • Temporary water supplies for Incremental Level 4 requirements for the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin wildlife refuges; • Temporary water supplies for Central Valley Project (CVP) agricultural service and M&I contractors as supplemental water supplies to support agriculture and/or M&I uses when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made; • Temporary water supplies to Friant Division CVP repayment contractors for the production of agricultural crops or livestock because of water supply shortages or when full contract deliveries cannot otherwise be made; • Temporary water supplies to State Water Project (SWP) contractors (Kern County Water Agency - KCWA) for agricultural and/or M&I supply; and • Seasonal flexibility of deliveries to the Exchange Contractors through exchange with CVP agricultural service and M&I contractors and SWP contractors wherein water would be delivered and then returned at a later date.
    [Show full text]