Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin Volume 1 August 1, 2017

Tule Subbasin

Pixley ID GSA Eastern Tule GSA Alpaugh GSA Delano- Earlimart Tri-County Water ID GSA Authority GSA Prepared for The Tule Subbasin MOU Group

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Table of Contents Volume 1

Executive Summary ...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Tule Subbasin Area ...... 6 1.2 Types and Sources of Data ...... 7 2.0 Hydrological Setting of the Tule Subbasin ...... 9 2.1 Location ...... 9 2.2 Historical Precipitation Trends...... 9 2.3 Historical Land Use ...... 9 2.4 Surface Water Features ...... 10 2.4.1 Tulare Lake ...... 10 2.4.2 Lake Success ...... 10 2.4.3 Tule River ...... 10 2.4.4 Deer Creek ...... 11 2.4.5 White River ...... 11 2.4.6 Conveyance Facilities (Canals and Pipelines) ...... 11 2.5 Groundwater Wells ...... 12 3.0 Geology ...... 13 4.0 Hydrogeology ...... 14 4.1 Tule Groundwater Subbasin ...... 14 4.2 Aquifer Conceptualization ...... 14 4.3 Aquifer Characteristics ...... 15 4.4 Groundwater Movement ...... 16 4.4.1 Groundwater Flow Direction ...... 16 4.4.2 Historical Changes in Groundwater Elevation ...... 17 4.4.3 Historical Changes in Groundwater Storage from Groundwater Level Changes ... 18 5.0 Estimates of Tule Subbasin Subsurface Inflow and Outflow ...... 20 6.0 Surface Water Budget ...... 23

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.1 Surface Water Inflow ...... 24 6.1.1 Precipitation ...... 24 6.1.2 Stream Inflow...... 24 6.1.3 Imported Water ...... 25 6.1.4 Discharge to Crops from Wells...... 25 6.1.5 Municipal Deliveries from Wells...... 25 6.2 Surface Water Outflow...... 26 6.2.1 Areal Recharge from Precipitation ...... 26 6.2.2 Evapotranspiration of Precipitation from Crops and Native Vegetation ...... 26 6.2.3 Tule River ...... 27 6.2.4 Deer Creek ...... 29 6.2.5 White River ...... 32 6.2.6 Imported Water ...... 32 6.2.7 Recycled Water ...... 33 6.2.8 Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping ...... 34 6.2.9 Agricultural Consumptive Use ...... 35 6.2.10 Municipal Consumptive Use...... 36 7.0 Groundwater Budget ...... 37 7.1 Sources of Groundwater Recharge ...... 37 7.1.1 Areal Recharge...... 37 7.1.2 Tule River ...... 38 7.1.3 Deer Creek ...... 38 7.1.4 White River ...... 38 7.1.5 Imported Water Deliveries ...... 38 7.1.6 Recycled Water ...... 38 7.1.7 Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping ...... 38 7.1.8 Release of Water from Compression of Aquitards ...... 39 7.1.9 Subsurface Inflow ...... 39 7.1.10 Mountain-Block Recharge ...... 39 7.2 Sources of Groundwater Discharge...... 40

iii

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

7.2.1 Municipal Groundwater Pumping...... 40 7.2.2 Agricultural Groundwater Pumping ...... 40 7.2.3 Groundwater Pumping for Export Out of the Tule Subbasin ...... 40 7.2.4 Subsurface Outflow ...... 40 7.3 Historical Changes in Groundwater Storage ...... 41 8.0 Preliminary Estimate of Sustainable Yield ...... 42 8.1 Sustainable Yield Evaluation Approach ...... 42 8.2 Sustainable Yield Estimate...... 44 9.0 Summary of Findings ...... 46 10.0 References ...... 48

Tables

1 Summary of the Underflow Analysis Into and Out of the Tule Subbasin……….…..50 2a Tule Subbasin Surface Water Inflow Budget…………………………………….….51 2b Tule Subbasin Surface Water Outflow Budget………………………...... …….….52 3 Tule Subbasin Groundwater Budget………………………………………………....54 4 Tule Subbasin Sustainable Yield Analysis…………………………………………..56

Figures

1 Regional Map…...... ………………………..……………………………………57 2 Study Area……………………………...…………………………………….…...... 58 3 Jurisdictional Areas…………………………………………………………….….....59 4 Isohyetal Map………………………………………………………………….……..60 5 Annual Precipitation – Porterville Station……………………………………...... …61 6 Tule Groundwater Subbasin Historical Crop Patterns……………………....…….....62 7 Historical Irrigated Crop Acreage in the Tule Subbasin – 1990 through 2010...... 63 8 Surface Water Features in the Tule Subbasin and Vicinity…………………...……..64 9 Well Locations………………………………………………………………….……65 10 Geology Map………………………………………………………………….……..66 11 Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity and Textural Map………………………..67

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

12 Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity and Textural Map…………………….……..68 13 Fall 1998 Shallow Groundwater Elevation Contour Map……………………...……69 14 Fall 1998 Shallow Groundwater Elevation Contour Map……………………….…..70 15 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Level Hydrographs…………………………...….…71 16 Deep Aquifer Groundwater Level Hydrographs…………………………..…...... 72 17 Groundwater Level Change: Fall 1987 to Fall 2010………………………………..73 18 Groundwater Levels Near Tipton…………………………………………...……….74 19 Fall 1998 Shallow Groundwater Flow Net………………………………....………..75 20 Fall 1998 Deep Groundwater Flow Net………………………………….…………..76 21 Deer Creek versus White River Monthly Streamflow……………………...... ……..77 22 Applied Water to Irrigated Agriculture by Source...... 78

Plates

1 Cross Section A-A′

2 Cross Section B-B′

3 Cross Section C-C′

4 Cross Section D-D′

5 Cross Section E-E′

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Volume 2 Appendices

A Streamflow Data

B Groundwater Level Contour Maps

C Subsurface Flow Net Analysis

D Estimated Annual Precipitation and Areal Recharge within the Tule Subbasin

E Agricultural Groundwater Production and Return Flow Estimates

F Estimates of Municipal Groundwater Production and Surface Water Budget in the Tule Subbasin

G Tule River Stream Loss Estimates for the Tule Subbasin

H Summary of Native Tule River Water Recharge in Basins

I Summary of Native Tule River Water Return Flow from Irrigated Agriculture

J Tule River Evapotranspiration Estimates

K Deer Creek Water Balance

L Summary of Imported Water Canal Loss

M Summary of Imported Water Recharge in Basins

N Release of Water from Compression of Aquitards

O Tule Subbasin Groundwater Exports

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Executive Summary

This report presents a hydrogeological conceptual model and water budget of the Tule Subbasin of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (see Figure 1). This work has been conducted as one of the initial steps necessary for the six Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) within the subbasin to develop their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA).

In addition to describing the hydrogeological setting of the Tule Subbasin, a primary purpose of the analysis presented in this report was to develop estimates of the subsurface inflow and outflow to/from the subbasin for use in refining a groundwater budget previously developed and reported in TH&Co, 2015. The groundwater budget was further refined through a detailed analysis of the surface water budget for the subbasin. The surface water and groundwater budgets formed the basis for a preliminary estimate of the Sustainable Yield of the subbasin.

The subsurface inflow and outflow analysis relied on a hydrogeological conceptual model of the Tule Subbasin that includes four general aquifers:

• Shallow Aquifer • Deep Aquifer • Very Deep Aquifer • Santa Margarita Formation of the Southeastern Subbasin

The shallow aquifer occurs across the entire Tule Subbasin area. This aquifer is generally unconfined to semi-confined. The shallow aquifer occurs in the upper 450 ft of sediments on the western side of the basin and shallows to the east to approximately 300 ft of sediments. The deep aquifer extends across the entire western portion of the Tule Subbasin and beneath the northeastern portion of the subbasin. The total depth of this aquifer is conceptualized to be approximately 1,200 ft below ground surface. This aquifer is confined beneath the Corcoran Clay where this confining layer exists. The deep aquifer system is conceptualized to be semi- confined in the northeastern portion of the subbasin east of the Corcoran Clay. The very deep aquifer is conceptualized to occur at depths below 1,200 ft to the deepest reported depths of wells in the area.

The Santa Margarita Formation underlying the alluvial sediments of the Tulare Formation forms a localized aquifer in the southeastern portion of the Tule Subbasin. Until additional data are collected, this localized aquifer is conceptualized as hydrologically separate from the deep aquifer in the rest of the subbasin.

An analysis of subsurface groundwater inflow and outflow for the shallow and deep aquifer of the Tule Subbasin for the time period 1998 to 2007 and 2010 resulted in the following findings:

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Subsurface Subsurface Inflow Outflow (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Net Inflow Year (acre-ft/yr) South and East North West Total Boundary Boundary Boundaries

1998 43,991 20,000 63,991 -11,662 52,329

1999 47,173 20,000 67,173 -8,211 58,962

2000 44,940 20,000 64,940 -13,766 51,174

2001 49,797 20,000 69,797 -17,422 52,375

2002 51,107 20,000 71,107 -13,564 57,543

2003 49,994 20,000 69,994 -19,183 50,811

2004 49,742 20,000 69,742 -8,654 61,088

2005 47,283 20,000 67,283 -16,814 50,469

2006 44,128 20,000 64,128 -16,411 47,717

2007 42,936 20,000 62,936 -12,330 50,606

2010 60,164 20,000 80,164 -24,472 55,692

Average: 68,296 -14,772 53,524

The values of subsurface inflow and outflow were based on a groundwater flow net analysis for the southern, western and northern boundaries of the Tule Subbasin. The subsurface inflow along the eastern boundary was inferred as mountain-block recharge developed from a detailed groundwater budget.

In order to better develop estimates of groundwater recharge from water applied at various locations and from various sources at the surface, TH&Co developed a detailed surface water

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

budget to describe and estimate the surface water inflow and outflow within the Subbasin. The surface water budget was developed for the time period from 1990/91 to 2009/10. Inflow terms for the surface water budget include:

1. Precipitation. 2. Stream inflow. 3. Imported water. 4. Discharge to the land surface from wells.

Surface water outflow terms include:

1. Infiltration of precipitation. 2. Evapotranspiration of precipitation from native vegetation and crops. 3. Stream infiltration. 4. Infiltration in canals. 5. Recharge in basins. 6. Return flow. 7. Consumptive use.

Of the surface water outflow terms that become groundwater recharge, many are associated with water diverted in accordance with pre-1914 water rights or purchased imported water. The Tule MOU Group has indicated a desire to exclude these sources of groundwater recharge from the subbasin-wide Sustainable Yield estimate.

The detailed surface water budget and subsurface inflow and outflow data from the flow net analysis were used to update and refine a previously existing detailed groundwater budget that included the following recharge sources:

1. Areal recharge from precipitation. 2. Recharge within stream and river channels. 3. Artificial recharge in man-made basins. 4. Canal infiltration. 5. Return flow from municipal water use and agricultural irrigation. 6. Release of water from compression of aquitards. 7. Subsurface inflow.

The groundwater budget also included the following sources of discharge:

1. Municipal groundwater pumping. 2. Agricultural groundwater pumping. 3. Groundwater pumping for export out of the subbasin.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

4. Evapotranspiration. 5. Subsurface outflow.

The groundwater budget incorporated the time period from 1990/91 water year 2009/10. Over that time period, the cumulative change in groundwater storage, based on the groundwater budget, was estimated to be –2,351,000 acre-ft.

In addition to the subsurface inflow/outflow analysis, the following additional findings have been made based on the evaluation of groundwater conditions in the Tule Subbasin and the available data:

• Analysis of groundwater contour maps developed from groundwater levels measured in the shallow aquifer between 1998 and 2007 has indicated a persistent pumping depression in the northwestern portion of the Tule Subbasin. This pumping depression has reversed the natural westward gradient resulting in the capture of water that would have otherwise flowed out of the subbasin. • Analysis of groundwater contour maps developed from groundwater levels measured in the deep aquifer in 1998, 1999 and 2010 indicate a more southwestward pumping depression that shifts to the west in 2010. • The cumulative change in groundwater storage between 1990/91 and 2009/10, as estimated from the detailed groundwater budget is approximately –2,351,000 acre-ft. • The Sustainable Yield of the Tule Subbasin based on the water budget reported herein is approximately 257,725 acre-ft/yr. This estimate does not include recharge and losses from the delivery of imported water, recharge and losses associated with Tule River and Deer Creek surface water diversions, or release of water from compression of aquitards. This Sustainable Yield is equal to approximately 0.54 acre-ft/acre when applied equally across the entire Tule Subbasin area.

It is anticipated that as additional data are collected, the water budget and associated Sustainable Yield estimate will become more refined. Changes in the estimate of agricultural groundwater pumping, which is based on consumptive use estimates for the crops, would have the greatest impact on the change in storage and Sustainable Yield estimate. Areal recharge of precipitation and mountain-block recharge estimates, which are also uncertain, may also impact the Sustainable Yield estimate.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

1.0 Introduction This report presents a hydrogeological conceptual model and water budget of the Tule Subbasin of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (see Figure 1). This work has been conducted for the Tule MOU Group, which includes six individual Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) within the subbasin. The GSAs include:

1. The Eastern Tule Subbasin GSA 2. The Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA 3. The Pixley Irrigation District GSA 4. The Delano-Earlimart GSA 5. The Alpaugh GSA 6. The Tri-Counties GSA

As required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, each GSA will be required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as:

The management of and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.

Undesirable results, as defined by the California Water Code, are:

• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels • Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion • Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality • Significant and unreasonable land subsidence • Depletions of interconnected surface water

Development of the hydrogeological conceptual model and water budget are Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) for informing the GSPs. These BMPs are also necessary initial steps for development of a subbasin- wide groundwater flow model to be used as a planning tool for the GSAs. The hydrogeological conceptual model and water budget address the entire Tule Subbasin as defined in CDWR Bulletin 118 (CDWR, 2016). This provides a common dataset, analyses and interpretation that all of the individual GSAs can reference for developing their respective GSPs with the goal of providing technical continuity between the GSPs.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Sustainable Yield is defined in SGMA as:

…the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result.

Ch. 2 Definitions Section 10721 v.

The scope of work to conduct the analyses presented herein consisted of:

1. Obtaining and reviewing hydrogeological data. 2. Analyzing aquifer properties. 3. Preparing of hydrogeological cross sections. 4. Preparing groundwater contour maps. 5. Analyzing subsurface inflow and outflow to/from the Tule Subbasin. 6. Developing a detailed surface water budget. 7. Updating a previously developed detailed groundwater budget. 8. Preparing a preliminary estimate of Sustainable Yield. 9. Preparing this report documenting the hydrogeological conceptual model, water budget and preliminary Sustainable Yield.

The surface and groundwater budgets used to develop the preliminary Sustainable Yield estimate are specific to the 20-yr period from water years 1990/91 through 2009/10. This period represents a close approximation of average hydrological conditions on the Tule River.

1.1 Tule Subbasin Area The area of the Tule Subbasin is defined by the latest version of CDWR Bulletin 118 (CDWR, 2016) and is shown on Figures 1 and 2. The Tule Subbasin area is approximately 744 square miles (475,895 acres). The Tule Subbasin includes the jurisdictional areas of multiple water management and service entities, which have been grouped into six individual GSAs (see Figure 3).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

In order to fully analyze the water budget of the Tule Subbasin, a larger Study Area was identified to include the watersheds tributary to the subbasin as well as adjacent areas to the north, south and west. The Study Area extends from the top of the Tule River, Deer Creek and White River drainage basins (i.e. watersheds) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east to the eastern portion of the Tulare Lakebed on the west. The northern boundary encompasses the northern extent of the Tule River Drainage Basin. The southern boundary is approximately ten miles south of the Tulare County/Kern County boundary and encompasses the White River Drainage Basin and the City of Delano.

1.2 Types and Sources of Data Compilation, review and analysis of multiple types of data were necessary to develop the hydrogeological conceptual model and surface water and groundwater budgets. The various types of data included geology, soils/lithology, hydrogeology, surface water hydrology, climate, crop types/land use, topography, remote sensing, and groundwater recharge and recovery. Data were obtained from multiple sources:

Geological Data including geologic maps and cross sections were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS).

Soils/Lithological Data from drillers’ logs and reports from the CDWR, the City of Porterville, and the USGS.

Hydrogeological Data including groundwater levels and pumping tests were obtained from the CDWR, Deer Creek and Tule River Authority (DCTRA), Angiola Water District, the City of Porterville, Kern County Water Agency, 4Creeks Inc., and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) website.

Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Data including spreading basin locations and dimensions, artificial recharge, water well construction, well locations, groundwater production, surface water diversions, canal losses, and river losses were obtained from Lower Tule River Irrigation District (LTRID), CDWR, Tule River Association (TRA) annual reports, and DCTRA annual reports.

Hydrological (i.e. Surface Water) Data consisting of stream gage data along the Tule River, Deer Creek, and White River were obtained from the USGS, DCTRA reports and TRA annual reports. Imported water deliveries were obtained from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the individual agencies within the subbasin.

Climate Data was acquired from CDWR’s California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) and the Western Regional Climate Center website.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Land Use Data was obtained from the CDWR, LTRID, the Kern County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Stands, and the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center. Political boundaries were obtained from the California Cal-Atlas Geospatial Clearinghouse, Kern-Tulare Water District, and the LTRID.

In addition to the various types of data, TH&Co reviewed numerous historical reports on the geology, hydrogeology and groundwater management of the Tule Subbasin. These reports included USGS publications, CDWR reports and bulletins, consultant reports, and academic publications. Publications relied on for the hydrogeological conceptual model and water budget are summarized in the References Section (Section 10).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

2.0 Hydrological Setting of the Tule Subbasin

2.1 Location The Tule Subbasin is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in the Great Central Valley of California (see Figure 1). Communities within the subbasin include Porterville, Tulare, Tipton, Pixley, Earlimart, Richgrove, Ducor and Terra Bella (see Figure 2). Neighboring CDWR Bulletin 118 subbasins include the Kern County Subbasin to the south, the Tulare Lake Subbasin to the west, and the Kaweah Subbasin to the north.

2.2 Historical Precipitation Trends Average annual precipitation across the Tule Subbasin ranges from approximately 13 inches per year on the east side in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to approximately six inches per year in the valley areas on the west side (see Figure 4). Historical annual precipitation at the Porterville Precipitation Station (based on water years from October 1 through September 30 and a period of record from 1926 to 2016) has ranged from 2.96 inches in 2013/14 to 22.03 inches in 1977/78 with an annual average of 10.4 inches/year (see Figure 5). Analysis of the cumulative departure from mean precipitation at this station indicates the following historical trends:

• The period from approximately 1927 through 1935 was relatively dry; • The period from 1935 through 1945 was relatively wet; • The period from 1945 through 1951 was relatively dry; • The period from 1951 through 1966 was approximately average; • The period from 1966 through 1983 was relatively wet; • The period from 1983 through 1992 was relatively dry; • The period from 1992 through 1999 was relatively wet; and • The period from 1999 to 2016 was relatively dry.

2.3 Historical Land Use Land use in the Tule Subbasin is dominated by agricultural fields interspersed with dairies, urban areas and fallow land (see Figure 6). Crops grown in the Tule Subbasin between 1990 and 2010 have included cotton, grapes, fruit trees, nut trees, dairy support crops (alfalfa, wheat and corn) and truck crops (see Figure 7). Between 1990 and 2010, the amount of acreage dedicated to growing cotton has generally decreased. The amount of acreage dedicated to growing nuts and dairy support crops has increased over this time period.

Changes in crop patterns between 1990 and 2010 have been, in large part, due to an increase in the number of dairies in the Tule Subbasin. Total area specific to the dairies (the barnyards and

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

cattle holding and feeding areas) has increased from approximately 5,000 acres in 1990 to approximately 11,100 acres in 2010. However, the more significant land use change over this time period has been the increase in area for dairy support crops such as corn, alfalfa and wheat. Annual growing cycles for dairy support crops typically include multiple crops (i.e. double cropping), which results in a higher water demand relative to areas where only a single crop is grown (Provost and Pritchard, 2010).

2.4 Surface Water Features

2.4.1 Tulare Lake Although now largely a dry lake bed, prior to the mid-1800s Tulare Lake was the largest fresh water lake, by area, west of the Mississippi River. The original area of the lake was approximately 570 square miles and was fed from surface water discharges at the terminus of the Kern River, Tule River, and Kaweah River. Beginning in the mid-1800s, surface water from the rivers feeding the lake was diverted for agricultural irrigation and municipal supply. By 1900, the lake was dry except for residual marshes and wetlands and occasional flooding. This condition continues to the present.

2.4.2 Lake Success Lake Success is a manmade reservoir that was completed in 1961 and serves as a flood control and water conservation basin for the Tule River. The reservoir is managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Water storage in Lake Success, releases of water at the dam, and downstream water diversions are administered by the Tule River Association (TRA), in accordance with the Tule River Water Diversion Schedule and Storage Agreement (TRA, 1966).

2.4.3 Tule River The Tule River is the largest natural drainage feature in the Study Area. From its headwaters in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Tule River flows first into Lake Success and then, through controlled releases at the dam, flows through Porterville and into the LTRID, ultimately discharging onto the Tulare Lake Bed during periods of above-normal precipitation. Stream flow is measured via gages located below Success Dam, at Oettle Bridge downstream of Porterville, and at Turnbull Weir (see Appendix A and Figure 8). Stream flow below the Lake Success dam has ranged from 34,325 acre-ft/yr to 439,125 acre-ft/yr with an annual average from water year 1990/91 through water year 2009/10 of 132,249 acre-ft.

Releases of water at the Lake Success dam are diverted from the Tule River channel at various locations in accordance with TRA (1966). Diversion points along the river are located at the

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Porter Slough headgate, Vandalia Ditch, Poplar Ditch, and Woods Central. The lower portion of the Tule River channel is also used as a conveyance mechanism to convey imported water from the Friant-Kern Canal to the LTRID. Within the LTRID, a combination of natural stream flow and imported water are further diverted from the river channel into unlined canals for distribution to artificial recharge basins and farmers. Any residual stream flow left in the Tule River after diversions is measured at the Turnbull Weir, located at the west end of the LTRID (see Figure 8).

2.4.4 Deer Creek Deer Creek is a natural drainage that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, flowing in a westerly direction north of Terra Bella and into Pixley (see Figure 8). Although the Deer Creek channel extends past Pixley, discharges rarely reach the historical Tulare Lake bed. Stream flow in Deer Creek has been measured at the USGS gaging station at Fountain Springs from 1968 to present time. Average annual flow at this gage between water year 1990/91 and 2009/10 was approximately 19,728 acre-ft/yr with a low of 4,080 acre-ft in water year 1991/92 and a high of 88,360 acre-ft in water year 1997/98 (see Appendix A). Stream flow has also been measured at a second USGS gaging station on Deer Creek at Terra Bella although the period of record (1971 through 1987) is not as complete as the station at Fountain Springs. Friant-Kern Canal water is also diverted into Deer Creek at Trenton Weir before being delivered to farmers via unlined canals (see Figure 8).

2.4.5 White River The White River drains out of the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of the community of Richgrove in the southern portion of the Tule Subbasin (see Figure 8). Stream flow in the White River has been measured at the USGS gaging station near Ducor from 1971 to 2005. Data after 2005 has been interpolated. Average annual flow between water year 1990/91 and 2009/10 was approximately 6,900 acre-ft/yr with a low of 739 acre-ft in water year 1991/91 and a high of 36,764 acre-ft in 1997/98. The White River channel extends as far as State Highway 99 but does not reach the historical Tulare Lake bed.

2.4.6 Conveyance Facilities (Canals and Pipelines) Distribution of stream flow diversions and imported water occur via a system of manmade canals that extend throughout the Tule Subbasin. The largest of these is the Friant-Kern Canal, which supplies imported water through the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP). The Friant-Kern Canal is concrete lined and trends approximately north-south through the eastern part of the Tule Subbasin (see Figure 8). Numerous other canals are located within the Study Area to convey surface water from the Friant-Kern Canal, Tule River and Deer Creek to various recharge facilities and agricultural areas. These canals are unlined and occur primarily in the LTRID,

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Pixley Irrigation District, Porterville Irrigation District, Alpaugh Irrigation District, and Atwell Island Water District. It is noted that Alpaugh Irrigation District receives imported water deliveries from the Friant-Kern Canal via Deer Creek.

Many of the irrigation districts and water districts in the Study Area that receive imported water from the Friant-Kern Canal distribute the water exclusively via pipelines. These districts include the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, and Teapot Dome Water District.

2.5 Groundwater Wells Numerous groundwater wells are located throughout the Study Area. Most of the wells are production wells used to pump water for agricultural irrigation. The City of Porterville and other smaller communities also operate production wells for municipal supply. Finally, there are three dedicated monitoring wells located adjacent to a recharge basin near Deer Creek, which are monitored by DCTRA.

Well locations from various monitoring databases and other sources are shown on Figure 9. Most of the well locations are based on the groundwater level monitoring databases from DCTRA and the CASGEM program. Additional well locations were identified via CDWR driller’s logs. City of Porterville production well locations were obtained from the City of Porterville’s latest General Plan (accessed from their website).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

3.0 Geology The eastern boundary of the Tule Subbasin is defined by the surface contact between crystalline rocks of the Sierra Nevada and surficial alluvial sediments that make up the groundwater basin (see Figure 10). The subsurface alluvial sediment beneath the Tule Subbasin is derived from erosion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In general, alluvial sediments have been grouped into younger alluvium, flood plain deposits and older alluvium of the Tulare Formation.

Younger alluvium is associated with geologically recent stream channel deposits that were deposited by the Tule River, Deer Creek and White River. Flood plain deposits of the historical Tulare Lake Bed are also recent and occur in the western portion of the Tule Subunit. Subsurface alluvial sediments in the Study Area are generally correlated with the Tulare Formation and consist of highly stratified layers of more permeable sand and gravel interbedded with lower permeability silt and clay. Clear correlation of individual sand or clay layers laterally across the Study Area is difficult due to the interbedded nature of the sediments. However, it is noted that the thickness of clay sediments in the upper 1,000 ft bgs generally increases in the vicinity of Tulare Lake.

The only regionally extensive sediment layer that has been previously identified in the Study Area is the Corcoran Clay or “E-Clay” unit of the Tulare Formation (Frink and Kues, 1954; Kern County Water Agency, 1991). The Corcoran Clay consists of a Pleistocene diatomaceous fine- grained lacustrine deposit (primarily clay; Faunt, 2009). In the Study Area, the Corcoran Clay is as much as 150 ft thick beneath the Tulare Lake bed but becomes progressively thinner to the east, eventually pinching out immediately east of Highway 99 (Lofgren and Klausing, 1969).

Underlying the alluvial sediments in the southeastern portion of the Tule Subbasin is a sequence of Tertiary-age semi-consolidated sediments consisting of interbedded siltstone and sandstone. One well defined sandstone unit, referred to as the Santa Margarita Formation by Diepenbrock (1933) and Logfren and Klausing (1969), occurs at a depth of approximately 1,500 ft in wells constructed near Richgrove. The formation is permeable and yields economic quantities of water to wells but is localized to the southeastern portion of the subbasin.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

4.0 Hydrogeology

4.1 Tule Groundwater Subbasin The analysis of the hydrogeology and water budget for this study is specific to the Tule Subbasin, as defined in CDWR Bulletin 118 (see Figure 3). The northern boundary of the Tule Subbasin is defined as the northern boundary of the LTRID and Porterville Irrigation District. The eastern boundary is defined as the alluvium/bedrock contact at the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The southern boundary is the Tulare County/Kern County line with an extension for the inclusion of the entire Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District. The western boundary is the Tulare County/Kings County line, with the exception of a relatively small area where the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District extends east across the county line to the Homeland Canal (see Figures 3 and 8).

4.2 Aquifer Conceptualization Where saturated in the subsurface, the permeable sand and gravel layers form the principal aquifers in the Tule Subbasin and adjacent areas to the north, south and west. Individual aquifer layers consist of lenticular sand and gravel deposits of varying thickness and lateral extent. The aquifer layers are interbedded with low permeability silt and clay confining layers. In general, shallow saturated sediments in the Tule Subbasin are unconfined to semi-confined. The aquifer beneath the Corcoran Clay unit in the western portion of the basin is confined. The hydrologic characteristics of the deeper aquifer system in the western portion of the subbasin are unknown but are expected to change with depth.

In general, the aquifer system in the Tule Subbasin can be subdivided into four general aquifer units (see Plates 1 through 5):

• Shallow Aquifer • Deep Aquifer • Very Deep Aquifer • Santa Margarita Formation of the Southeastern Subbasin

The deep aquifer extends across the entire western portion of the Tule Subbasin and beneath the northeastern portion of the subbasin. The total depth of this aquifer is conceptualized to be

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

approximately 1,200 ft below ground surface (bgs). This aquifer is confined beneath the Corcoran Clay where this confining layer exists. The deep aquifer system is conceptualized to be semi-confined in the northeastern portion of the subbasin east of the Corcoran Clay.

In the western portion of the Tule Subbasin and west of the subbasin boundary, CDWR driller’s logs indicate wells that extend deeper than 1,200 ft bgs. This deeper aquifer is herein referred to as the very deep aquifer and is conceptualized to extend from 1,200 ft bgs to 2,300 ft bgs, to include the perforation intervals of the deepest wells observed in the well database.

The Santa Margarita Formation underlying the alluvial sediments of the Tulare Formation forms a localized aquifer in the southeastern portion of the Tule Subbasin. Based on data published in Lofgren and Klausing (1969), the formation dips steeply to the west and is overlain by marine siltstone of low permeability. Until additional data are collected, this localized aquifer is conceptualized as hydrologically separate from the deep aquifer in the rest of the subbasin.

4.3 Aquifer Characteristics The ability of aquifer sediments to transmit and store water is described in terms of the aquifer parameters transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity. The most reliable estimates of these parameters are obtained from long-term (e.g. 24-hr or more constant rate) controlled pumping tests in wells. In the absence of this type of test, estimates can be obtained through short-term pumping tests and/or assignment of literature values based on the soil types observed in driller’s logs. As no long-term pumping test data was available for this report, aquifer parameters were estimated based on short-term pumping test data reported on driller’s logs and literature values from interpretation of sediment types on driller’s logs.

Transmissivity is a measure of the ability of groundwater to flow within an aquifer and is defined as the rate of groundwater flow through a unit width of aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient (Fetter, 1994). Transmissivity estimates was estimated from short-term pumping test data based on Theis et al., 1963 and the following relationship:

푆 푥 2,000 푇 = 푐 퐸

Where:

T = Transmissivity (gpd/ft); Sc = Specific Capacity (gpm/ft); E = Well Efficiency (assumed to be 0.7)

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Transmissivity values at individual wells were converted into hydraulic conductivity (i.e. aquifer permeability) by dividing by the aquifer thickness (in this case the perforation interval of the well). Hydraulic conductivity was used as a basis for estimating subsurface inflow and outflow to/from the subbasin (see Section 5). Hydraulic conductivity values for the shallow aquifer are shown on Figure 11 and range from less than 6 ft/day to greater than 80 ft/day, the higher values indicating more permeable sediments. Hydraulic conductivity values for the deep aquifer are shown on Figure 12 and range from less than 6 ft/day to greater than 50 ft/day. In general, the deep aquifer sediments are less permeable than the shallow aquifer sediments.

For areas where no pumping test data were available, hydraulic conductivity was estimated through a textural analysis of the shallow and deep aquifer as published in Faunt (2009). Textural descriptions describe the percent coarse-grained sediment as inferred from drillers’ logs from boreholes or wells drilled within or immediately outside the Tule Subbasin. Higher percent coarse-grained sediment descriptions are correlated with higher permeability and associated hydraulic conductivity. The data are presented on Figures 11 and 12 as zones of equal percent coarse sediment for the shallow and deep aquifer, respectively. As shown, higher percent coarse-grained sediments are observed in the shallow aquifer through most of the Tule Subbasin with the exception of the southwestern portion. In the deep aquifer, sediments in the eastern portion of the subbasin are generally more coarse-grained than sediments in the western portion.

Another aquifer parameter important for this study was specific yield. Specific yield is the ratio of the volume of water sediment will yield by gravity drainage to the volume of the sediment. Estimates of changes in groundwater storage reported herein were, in part, based on estimates of specific yield for the aquifer sediments in the Tule Subbasin. Specific yield values used for groundwater storage change estimates were based on the texture analysis published in Faunt (2009).

4.4 Groundwater Movement

4.4.1 Groundwater Flow Direction In general, groundwater in the Tule Subbasin flows from areas of natural recharge along the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the eastern boundary towards a groundwater pumping depression in the west-central portion of the subbasin (see Figures 13 and 14; Appendix B). The pumping depression has reversed the natural groundwater flow direction in the western portion of the subbasin, inducing subsurface inflow along the southern and western boundaries.

In the shallow aquifer, the pumping depression is more pronounced in the northwestern portion of the Tule Subbasin and has persisted in this area since at least 1987, even during periods of above-normal precipitation when groundwater levels temporarily recovered. Recharge from the Tule River results in a groundwater flow divide in the shallow aquifer along the northern 16

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

boundary of the Tule Subbasin. As such, shallow aquifer groundwater on the north side of the river flows to the north and out of the subbasin. Groundwater flow patterns in the shallow aquifer have generally not changed significantly since 1990.

In the deep aquifer, groundwater flows to the southwest toward a pumping depression in the southwest portion of the subbasin (see Figure 14). This pumping depression has shifted to the west over time, presumably as a result of increased pumping west of the Tule Subbasin (see Appendix B; Figure B14).

4.4.2 Historical Changes in Groundwater Elevation Groundwater level changes over time can be observed from hydrographs developed from wells monitored in the Tule Subbasin (see Figures 15 and 16). Despite a relatively wet hydrologic period between 1991 and 1999 (see Figure 5), shallow aquifer groundwater levels generally show a persistent downward trend between approximately 1990 and 2010. Groundwater levels in the deep aquifer do not show as great a decline, which may be a result of sustained recharge from the shallow aquifer, capture of water from outside the basin, or both.

Groundwater level change in the shallow aquifer across the Tule Subbasin between 1987 and 2010 is shown on Figure 17. The time period represents the change in groundwater level between a relatively high groundwater condition and the most recent low groundwater condition for which a contour map was prepared for this study (2010). The map shows declining groundwater levels throughout most of the central portion of the Tule Subbasin during this time period with as much as 175 ft of decline occurring in some areas.

Comparisons of hydrographs from wells perforated in the shallow aquifer with wells perforated predominantly in the deep aquifer and in close proximity show that groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer are higher than groundwater levels in the deep aquifer (see Figure 18). This indicates a downward hydraulic gradient and suggests that it is possible that the shallow aquifer is recharging the deep aquifer in some areas of the Tule Subbasin. This is corroborated by depth- specific isolated aquifer zone testing conducted by the City of Porterville in three wells in which the equilibrated groundwater level (i.e. hydraulic head) in the deepest isolated zones, which also correspond to the deep aquifer, were as much as 180 ft lower than the groundwater level in the shallowest isolated zones (Schmidt, 2009). Faunt (2009) has suggested that the recharge of the deep aquifer via wells that are perforated across both aquifers has increased with the number of deep wells constructed in the San Joaquin Valley.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

4.4.3 Historical Changes in Groundwater Storage from Groundwater Level Changes Changes in groundwater storage over time, for any given area, can be estimated using the following equation:

Vw = SyA h

Where:

Vw = the volume of groundwater storage change

Sy = specific yield of aquifer sediments A = the surface area of the aquifer within the Tule Subbasin h = the change in hydraulic head (i.e. groundwater level)

TH&Co estimated the change in groundwater storage in the Tule Subbasin between 1987 and 2010 using the above relationship. The change in storage estimate is specific to the shallow aquifer as the groundwater level in the deep aquifer has never dropped below the top of the aquifer, as defined herein. The calculations were made on a Geographic Information System (GIS) map of the Tule Subbasin that was discretized into 300 ft by 300 ft grids to allow for spatial representation of aquifer specific yield and groundwater level change.

The area of the Tule Subbasin where the shallow aquifer was saturated during the 1987 to 2010 time period was used as the area of the subbasin for the storage change analysis. This area includes all of the Tule Subbasin except for a small, 42 square mile (26,995-acre) area in the southeastern corner where the shallow aquifer is reported to have been dry since at least the late 1960s (Lofgren and Klausing, 1969). The total area used for the storage change calculation was 450,558 acres.

The areal and vertical distribution of specific yield for the shallow aquifer was obtained from the textural analysis published in Faunt (2009). The vertical specific yield distribution included values at 50-ft intervals. Thus, storage changes in any given grid cell were discretized vertically at 50-ft intervals.

For the areal distribution of change in hydraulic head within the Tule Subbasin, groundwater contours for 1987 were digitized and overlain on the grid map of the Tule Subbasin in GIS. Groundwater levels were then assigned to each grid. A contour map with groundwater elevation contours from 2010 were also digitized and overlain on the grid map. Change in hydraulic head (groundwater level) at each grid was calculated as the difference in groundwater level between 1987 and 2010.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

The complete GIS files of specific yield and groundwater levels were exported into a spreadsheet program for the final analysis of groundwater storage change. The change in groundwater storage was calculated for each grid cell by multiplying the change in groundwater level by the specific yield at 50-ft intervals and then by the area of the cell. Summation of the cell-by-cell change in groundwater storage showed a decline of approximately -5,806,000 acre-ft from 1987 to 2010.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

5.0 Estimates of Tule Subbasin Subsurface Inflow and Outflow The Tule Subbasin is not a closed basin and the aquifer is in hydrologic connection with adjacent subbasins to the north, west and south. Groundwater flow into and out of the Tule Subbasin along these boundaries varies over time in accordance with the groundwater level conditions and flow patterns within and outside the subbasin. The only source of subsurface inflow to the Tule Subbasin on along the eastern boundary is mountain-block inflow resulting from infiltration of precipitation in the secondary porosity features (joints and fractures) of the bedrock east of the basin. This recharge enters the alluvial groundwater basin where the alluvium is in hydrologic connection with the fractures in the bedrock in the subsurface.

For this analysis, the subsurface inflow and outflow along the southern, western and northern boundaries was evaluated for the period from 1998 through 2007 and 2010, which is approximately representative of long-term average surface flow conditions in the Tule River. The inflow/outflow was evaluated along these boundaries using a flow net analysis applied to groundwater contours developed for both the shallow and deep aquifers, as defined in this report (see Plates 3 through 5).

For the shallow aquifer, which is conceptualized as being unconfined, subsurface inflow/outflow was estimated using the Dupuit Equation (Fetter, 1994), which is expressed as:

(h − h )2 Q = 0.5K ( 1 2 ) L

Where:

Q = Subsurface flow, (acre-ft) K = Hydraulic Conductivity, (ft/day)

h1 = Initial Hydraulic head, (ft amsl)

h2 = Ending Hydraulic head, (ft amsl) L = Flow Length (ft)

For the deep aquifer, which is conceptualized as being semi-confined/confined, subsurface inflow/outflow was estimated using the Darcy Equation (Fetter, 1994), which is expressed as:

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

dh Q = KA ( ) dl

Where:

Q = Subsurface flow, (acre-ft) K = Hydraulic Conductivity, (ft/day) A = Aquifer Cross-Sectional Area, (ft2) 푑ℎ = Hydraulic gradient 푑푙

The flow net analysis consisted of first developing groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the years 1998 through 2007 and 2010 (see Figures 19 and 20; Appendix C). It is noted that groundwater contours of the deep aquifer were only developed for 1998, 1999 and 2010 due to lack of data for the other years of the period of interest. Flow lines were drawn perpendicular to groundwater elevation contours along the southern, western and northern boundaries. As shown on the contour maps, groundwater flow along the southern and western boundaries is predominantly toward the Tule Subbasin and is inflow. Groundwater flow along the northern boundary is predominantly outflow.

As the groundwater flow lines into and out of the subbasin do not generally occur at right angles to the subbasin boundary, it was necessary to correct the subsurface flow by the angle (degrees) of the flow line relative to the basin boundary (Bear, 1979). This was conducted by multiplying the subsurface inflow value by the sine of the angle of flow relative to the boundary.

A summary of subsurface inflow and outflow values estimated for each of the years of interest is provided in Table 1. As shown, inflow through the southern and western boundary across both the shallow and deep aquifers ranges from 42,936 acre-ft in 2007 to 60,164 acre-ft with an average over the years of interest of 48,296 acre-ft/yr. Outflow ranges from 8,211 acre-ft in 1999 to 24,472 acre-ft in 2010, with an average of 14,772 acre-ft/yr. The average net inflow into the Tule Subbasin along these three boundaries for the time period is approximately 33,524 acre-ft/yr.

For the eastern Tule Subbasin boundary, it was not possible to estimate the subsurface inflow from the bedrock into the alluvium using the flow net analysis. From the available data, it was not possible to construct a groundwater contour map specific to the fractured rock aquifer system east of the alluvial basin. Likewise, there is no available information regarding the hydraulic

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

properties of the fractured rock system or the depth at which the fractures become sealed and impermeable due to lithostatic pressure. As such, the subsurface inflow along this boundary was inferred based on the detailed groundwater budget described in Section 7.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.0 Surface Water Budget In order to better develop estimates of groundwater recharge from water applied at various locations and from various sources at the surface, TH&Co developed a detailed surface water budget to describe and estimate the surface water inflow and outflow within the Subbasin (see Tables 2a and 2b). The surface water budget was developed for the time period from 1990/91 to 2009/10. Inflow terms for the surface water budget include precipitation, stream inflow, imported water, and discharge to the land surface from wells. Outflow terms include infiltration of precipitation, evapotranspiration of precipitation from areas of native vegetation and crops, stream infiltration, canal loss, recharge in basins, return flow, and consumptive use.

Ideally, the total surface water inflow to the subbasin would equal the total surface water outflow, indicating a complete and accurate accounting of water at the surface. In reality, there is uncertainty in many of the surface water budget terms for the Tule Subbasin that does not allow for a perfect surface water accounting. These include estimates for agricultural groundwater production, crop consumptive use, precipitation recharge, surface water outflow to Homeland Canal from Deer Creek, and others. For the Tule Subbasin surface water budget, the percent difference between the average annual surface water inflow (1,515,669 acre-ft) and average annual outflow (1,507,506 acre-ft) is approximately 0.5 percent. This represents a very good match between surface water inflows and outflows and indicates that the water budget is a good preliminary representation of actual conditions. As additional data become available, it is anticipated that the surface water budget will become more accurate with time.

It is noted that many of the surface water outflow terms are also groundwater inflow (i.e. groundwater recharge) terms. Of the surface water outflow terms that become groundwater recharge, many are associated with water diverted in accordance with pre-existing water rights or purchased imported water. The Tule MOU Group has indicated a desire to exclude these sources of groundwater recharge from the subbasin-wide Sustainable Yield estimate. As such, sources of surface water outflow that become groundwater recharge and are associated with existing rights and/or imported water deliveries are excluded from the Sustainable Yield estimate and are indicated with magenta-colored columns in Table 2b. Surface water losses that become groundwater recharge and are used to estimate Sustainable Yield are indicated with blue-colored columns in Table 2b. Surface water losses that do not become groundwater recharge, such as through evapotranspiration, crop consumptive use, or surface water outflow are indicated with yellow-colored columns in Table 2b.

Details of the individual surface water budget terms are provided in the following sections.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.1 Surface Water Inflow

6.1.1 Precipitation The annual volume of water entering the Tule Subbasin as precipitation was estimated for the surface water budget based on the long-term average annual isohyetal map shown on Figure 4 and the annual precipitation data reported for the Porterville precipitation station. As annual precipitation values are not available throughout the entire Tule Subbasin, it was assumed that the relative precipitation distribution for each year was the same as that shown on the isohyetal map. The magnitude of annual precipitation within each isohyetal zone was varied from year to year based on the ratio of annual precipitation at the Porterville Station to annual average precipitation at the Porterville isohyetal zone multiplied by the isohyetal zone average annual precipitation (Appendix D). Using this method, total annual precipitation in the Tule Subbasin between water years 1990/91 and 2009/10 ranged from 169,861 to 728,835 acre-ft/yr with an average of 343,494 acre-ft/yr (see Column A of Table 2a).

6.1.2 Stream Inflow Surface water inflow to the Tule Subbasin occurs primarily via three native streams: Tule River, Deer Creek, and the White River (see Columns B through D of Table 2a). Flow in the Tule River is controlled through releases from Lake Success, which are documented in TRA annual reports. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, annual surface water inflow to the Tule Subbasin via the Tule River ranged from 34,325 to 439,125 acre-ft/yr with an average of 132,249 acre- ft/yr.

Annual inflow from Deer Creek is measured at Fountain Springs by the USGS and has varied from 4,080 to 88,360 acre-ft/yr with an average of 19,728 acre-ft/yr over water years 1990/91 to 2009/10. It is noted that although the Fountain Springs gage is located approximately five miles upstream of the Tule Subbasin, the creek flows over granitic bedrock between the gage and the alluvial basin boundary and losses along this reach are assumed to be limited to evapotranspiration.

Surface water inflow from the White River is based on USGS stream gage data from the White River station near Ducor. The measured data from this station is only available from 1971 to 2005. In order to estimate annual streamflow from 2006 to 2010, it was assumed that the magnitude of flow in the White River is proportional to the magnitude of flow in Deer Creek. TH&Co plotted monthly White River streamflow against monthly Deer Creek streamflow for the period 1971 to 2005. A linear regression through the data resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.91, suggesting that the relationship is applicable (see Figure 21). White River streamflow between 2006 and 2010 was based on the linear interpolation of measured data. Based on the

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

measured and interpolated data, annual inflows from the White River ranged from 739 to 36,764 acre-ft/yr and averaged 6,482 acre-ft/yr from water years 1990/91 to 2009/10.

6.1.3 Imported Water As described in Section 2.4.6, imported water is delivered to eleven water agencies within the Subbasin from the Friant-Kern Canal (see Columns E through O of Table 2a). Data from Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Alpaugh Irrigation District, Atwell Island Irrigation District, and Terra Bella Irrigation District was obtained from USBR Central Valley Operation Annual Reports. Imported water data for the other agencies was provided by the respective agencies. Based on these data, an average of 388,816 acre-ft/yr was imported into the Tule Subbasin for the period from 1990/91 to 2009/10.

6.1.4 Discharge to Crops from Wells Discharge to crops from wells is assumed to be the total applied water minus surface water deliveries from imported water and diverted streamflow (see Figure 22; Appendix E). The total crop demand was estimated based on consumptive use estimates and assumed irrigation efficiency as described in Sections 6.2.8 and 6.2.9. The estimated average annual discharge to crops from wells for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was approximately 580,633 acre-ft/yr and 24,577 acre-ft/yr for the area overlying the Santa Margarita Formation (see Columns P and Q of Table 2a).

6.1.5 Municipal Deliveries from Wells Groundwater pumping for municipal supply is conducted by the City of Porterville and small municipalities for the local communities in the Tule Subbasin (see Appendix F). City of Porterville annual groundwater production data from 1993 through 1997 was obtained from Carollo (2001), data from 2000 through 2005 were obtained from Schmidt (2009), and data from 2006 through 2010 were obtained from the City of Porterville 2010 UWMP. For years with no available records, groundwater production was estimated based on population data from U.S. Census records and an assumed water demand of 260 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). It was further assumed that all municipal water demand was met through groundwater pumping. From water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, municipal deliveries from wells was estimated to average 19,690 acre-ft/yr (see Column R of Table 2a).

It is noted that there are some households in the rural portions of the Tule Subbasin that rely on private wells to meet their domestic water supply needs. However, given the low population density of these areas, the volume of pumping from private domestic wells is considered negligible compared to the other pumping sources.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.2 Surface Water Outflow

6.2.1 Areal Recharge from Precipitation Areal recharge from precipitation falling on the valley floor in the Tule Subbasin was estimated based on Williamson et al., (1989). As part of a regional hydrogeological study of the California Central Valley, Williamson et al., (1989) developed a monthly soil-moisture budget for the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley areas. The soil moisture budget was based on precipitation records for the 50-yr period from 1922 to 1971. The analysis considered potential evapotranspiration, assumed plant root depth, soil moisture-holding capacity, and precipitation. Monthly precipitation that exceeded monthly potential evapotranspiration and soil-moisture storage was computed as net infiltration to the groundwater system. The results were simplified with a linear regression model that estimates net infiltration (i.e. groundwater recharge) from annual precipitation (herby referred to as the Williamson Method). The resulting relationship for the San Joaquin Valley region was:

푃푃푇푒푥 = (0.64)푃푃푇 − 6.2

Where:

PPTex = Excess Annual Precipitation (ft/yr); PPT = Annual Precipitation (ft/yr)

It is noted that the Williamson Method applied to the San Joaquin Valley results in no groundwater recharge if average annual precipitation is less than 9.69 inches per year. Results of the net infiltration analysis from Williamson et al., (1989) were used in the development of the Central Valley Groundwater Model developed by the United States Geological Survey and documented in Faunt et al., (2009).

For each year, annual groundwater recharge from precipitation (i.e. PPTex) was estimated for each isohyetal zone (see Section 6.1.1 and Figure 4) using the above equation from the Williamson Method (see Appendix D). The resulting annual groundwater recharge from areal precipitation for the period 1990/91 to 2009/10ranged from 0 acre-ft/yr to 219,370 acre-ft/yr with an average of approximately 28,800 acre-ft/yr (see Column A of Table 2b) or approximately 8 percent of total precipitation.

6.2.2 Evapotranspiration of Precipitation from Crops and Native Vegetation Evapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water to the atmosphere from free-water evaporation, soil- moisture evaporation, and transpiration by plants (Fetter, 1994). Evapotranspiration of 26

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

precipitation is assumed to be the balance between total precipitation and areal recharge. This value includes evapotranspiration of precipitation from crops as well as native vegetation. From water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, evapotranspiration of precipitation was estimated to average 314,707 acre-ft/yr (see Column B of Table 2b).

6.2.3 Tule River

6.2.3.1 Infiltration (Channel Loss) The Tule River is a losing stream such that infiltration of surface water within the stream channel recharges the groundwater system beneath it. Total channel loss (i.e. streambed infiltration) in the Tule River between Lake Success and Oettle Bridge is based on TRA annual reports. Streambed infiltration in the Tule River between Oettle Bridge and Turnbull Weir was estimated based on LTRID monthly water use summaries and TRA annual reports (see Appendix G). Measured channel loss includes infiltration as well as evapotranspiration (see Appendix G). Therefore, infiltration is equal to channel loss, as reported in TRA reports, minus evapotranspiration (described in Section 6.2.3.6).

It is noted that there are two sources of water in the Tule River channel: 1) native flow associated with releases from Lake Success and 2) imported water from the Friant-Kern Canal. Surface water in the Tule River channel from Lake Success to Oettle Bridge is exclusively native water (Column C of Table 2b). Surface water in the Tule River channel from Oettle Bridge to Turnbull Weir is primarily native flow but periodically includes imported water released to the channel from the Friant-Kern Canal.

As there is no current accounting of Tule River channel loss from Oettle Bridge to Turnbull Weir, it was necessary to estimate it based on available data and an assumed loss factor. The loss factor was based on the assumption that the ratio of streamflow to channel losses upstream of Oettle Bridge is the same as the ratio downstream. Thus, the ratio of streamflow to channel losses observed upstream of Oettle Bridge (the “loss factor”) was applied to measured flow Below Oettle Bridge. The loss factor was applied separately to native Tule River water and imported water releases to develop streambed infiltration estimates specific to both (Appendix G). From water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, average annual streambed infiltration from Success to Oettle Bridge was 18,038 acre-ft/yr (Column C of Table 2b). During the same time period, average annual streambed infiltration between Oettle Bridge and Turnbull Weir was 3,582 acre-ft/yr (see Column D of Table 2b).

6.2.3.2 Canal Loss A portion of the native Tule River water that is diverted into unlined canals is lost through infiltration into the subsurface. For this study, canal losses of native Tule River water are 27

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

specific to the LTRID area downstream of Oettle Bridge. LTRID annual water use summaries report only total district losses, which are a combination of Tule River streambed infiltration, evapotranspiration (ET), and canal losses from both native Tule River water and imported water deliveries. Total canal losses within the LTRID (which include both native river water and imported water) are estimated by subtracting streambed infiltration and ET from the total losses reported in the annual water use summaries (see Appendix G). Canal losses attributed to native Tule River water is based on the ratio of native Tule River water to imported water (Table 2b, Column E). The average annual Tule River canal loss from water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 22,057 acre-ft/yr.

6.2.3.3 Recharge in Basins Artificial recharge (i.e. recharge in basins) of diverted streamflow, imported water, and recycled water is accomplished within the Tule Subbasin via multiple recharge facilities (see Figure 8). Native Tule River water is diverted to basins for recharge by LTRID, DCTRA, Campbell and Moreland Ditch Company, and Vandalia Ditch Company (see Appendix H). All of the water diverted to basins by Campbell and Moreland Ditch Company and Vandalia Ditch Company is native Tule River flow. To estimate the portion of basin recharge attributable to native Tule River water downstream of Oettle Bridge, TH&Co multiplied the ratio of Tule River gaged flow below Oettle Bridge to the total water delivered to the LTRID by the total recharge in basins reported in the LTRID annual water use summaries (see Appendix G1). Using this methodology, the average annual Tule River recharge in basins from water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 11,739 acre-ft (see Column F of Table 2b).

6.2.3.4 Return Flow A portion of native Tule River water that is delivered to agriculture is assumed to become return flow. Return flow from irrigated agriculture was estimated based on an evaluation of metered groundwater production for selected crop types and consumptive use estimates from the Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California (ITRC, 2003). Metered groundwater production data was available for typical dairy support crops (wheat/corn, alfalfa, and wheat/milo), grapes, and nut trees (almonds, walnuts and pistachios) (see Appendix E2). Comparison of the metered production demand with the consumptive use estimates for the crops resulted in irrigation efficiencies ranging from 67 percent for dairy support crops to 94 percent for almonds. Thus, return flow is estimated to range from 6 to 33 percent of applied water. The average return flow factor was 21 percent (see Appendix E2). For this study, 21 percent of applied native Tule River water is assumed to become return flow.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Tule River water is diverted for agricultural irrigation by the Pioneer Water Company, Porter Slough Headgate, Porter Slough Ditch Company, Hubbs and Miner Ditch Company, Rhodes- Fine Ditch Company, and LTRID. In the LTRID, applied water attributed to native Tule River water is based on the ratio of total native Tule River water entering the LTRID to the total water available to the district (including imports) multiplied by the volume of water delivered for irrigation (see Appendix I). Twenty one percent of the native Tule River water applied to crops is assumed to become return flow. Using this methodology, the average annual return flow of native Tule River water for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 11,482 acre-ft/yr (see Column G of Table 2b).

6.2.3.5 Surface Outflow Any residual stream flow in the Tule River that reaches the Turnbull Weir, located at the west (downstream) end of the Tule Subbasin, is assumed to flow out of the subbasin (see Figure 8). From water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, surface water outflow ranged from 0 to 121,019 acre-ft/yr and averaged 14,649 acre-ft/yr (see Table 2b, Column H).

It is noted that additional outflow may occur at smaller canal outlets at the west end of the Tule Subbasin. The data for these outflows is unavailable for this report.

6.2.3.6 Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration of surface water within the Tule River channel is a function of the ET rate and wetted channel surface area. The ET rate was based on published data for riparian vegetation in an intermittent stream (Leenhouts et al., 2005). As the channel width of the Tule River varies, TH&Co identified reaches with similar average channel width using aerial photographs (Google Earth). The ET rate was applied to the surface area of each reach to obtain an estimate of ET. The sum of reach by reach ET estimates between Lake Success and the western Tule Subbasin boundary represents the total Tule River ET shown in Table 2b, Column I (see Appendix J). The resulting average annual ET is 687 acre-ft/yr for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 (see Table 2b, Column I).

6.2.4 Deer Creek

6.2.4.1 Infiltration (Channel Loss) Deer Creek is a losing stream such that infiltration of surface water within the stream channel recharges the groundwater system beneath it. Streambed infiltration (channel loss) is estimated for the stream reaches between the Fountain Springs gaging station and Trenton Weir and between Trenton Weir and Homeland Canal. The difference in streamflow between Fountain Springs station and Trenton Weir is assumed to be total channel loss along this section.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Streambed and canal infiltration in the Deer Creek channel between Trenton Weir and Homeland Canal were estimated based on Pixley Irrigation District monthly water use summaries (see Appendix K1). Measured channel loss includes infiltration as well as evapotranspiration. Therefore, infiltration is channel loss minus evapotranspiration (described in Section 6.2.4.6).

It is noted that there are two sources of water in the Deer Creek channel: 1) native flow and 2) imported water from the Friant-Kern Canal. It is further acknowledged that imported water is introduced into the Deer Creek channel upstream of Trenton Weir. Thus, until a stream gage is established upstream of the Friant-Kern Canal/Deer Creek intersection, the separate accounting of losses associated with imported water and native Deer Creek surface flow will have to be approximated. Deer Creek channel loss from Fountain Springs to Trenton Weir was estimated based on the difference in measured flows between the two stations. The surface flow between these two stations is assumed to be, for this water budget, native Deer Creek water. Average annual infiltration from Fountain Springs to Trenton Weir was 12,677 acre-ft/yr between water years 1990/91 and 2009/10 (see Column J of Table 2b). Flow in the Deer Creek channel from Trenton Weir to Homeland Canal is a combination of native Tule River water and imported water purchased by the Pixley Irrigation District for distribution in their service area. For this water balance, it is assumed that all of the water that flows through Trenton Weir is either delivered to farmers or becomes channel or canal loss (i.e. there is no data available to document surface flow from the Deer Creek channel to Homeland Canal although it is known that this occurs during periods of above normal precipitation). The infiltration of native Deer Creek water in the Deer Creek channel downstream of Trenton Weir is estimated for each month based on Pixley Irrigation District annual water use summaries (see Appendix K1) in the following way:

1. TH&Co subtracted the imported water deliveries to the channel from the total flow measured at Trenton Weir to estimate the volume entering Pixley Irrigation District that is attributed to native Deer Creek flow. 2. Pixley Irrigation District sales and deliveries to basins were subtracted from the total flow through Trenton Weir to determine the volume of water presumably lost as infiltration in the Deer Creek channel and canals. 3. The total loss in No. 2 was multiplied by the ratio of Deer Creek water to total water measured at Trenton Weir to estimate the total losses attributed to native Deer Creek water. 4. TH&Co measured the length of Deer Creek channel and canals downstream of the Trenton Weir and developed a ratio of total Deer Creek channel length to total canal length within Pixley Irrigation District (0.21).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

5. The total loss attributed to native Deer Creek flow, as estimated from No. 3, was multiplied by the ratio of Deer Creek channel length to canal length from No. 4 to estimate the volume of native Deer Creek flow loss estimated to occur in the Deer Creek channel. 6. The volume of native Deer Creek flow lost in canals was estimated as the total loss (No. 3) minus the loss estimated to occur in the Deer Creek channel (No. 5).

Using the methodologies described above, average annual native Deer Creek infiltration from Fountain Springs to Trenton Weir for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 12,677 acre-ft/yr (see Column J of Table 2b). The average annual native Deer Creek infiltration in the Deer Creek channel between Trenton Weir and Homeland Canal was 942 acre-ft/yr (see Column K of Table 2b).

6.2.4.2 Canal Loss For this study, it is assumed that canal losses from delivery of native Deer Creek water occur only within the Pixley Irrigation District. To estimate canal losses within the Pixley Irrigation District, the estimated infiltration and ET within the Deer Creek channel (see Section 6.2.4.1) was subtracted from total losses (see Appendix K2). The average annual Deer Creek canal loss for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 3,619 acre-ft/yr (see Column L of Table 2b).

6.2.4.3 Recharge in Basins Artificial recharge (i.e. recharge in basins) of diverted Deer Creek streamflow is accomplished via multiple recharge facilities (see Figure 8). Native Deer Creek water is diverted to basins for recharge by Pixley Irrigation District and DCTRA (see Appendix K1). Artificial recharge attributed to native Deer Creek water is estimated by multiplying the total recharge in basins reported in Pixley Irrigation District annual water use summaries by the ratio of native Deer Creek water to total water flowing through the Trenton Weir. The average annual Deer Creek recharge in basins for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was estimated to be 630 acre-ft/yr (see Column M of Table 2b).

6.2.4.4 Return Flow The portion of native Deer Creek water delivered for agricultural use within the Pixley Irrigation District is estimated by multiplying the total deliveries reported in Pixley Irrigation District annual water use summaries by the ratio of native Deer Creek water to total water flowing through the Trenton Weir (see Appendix K2). Return flow of applied native Deer Creek water is assumed to be 21 percent of total applied water, as described in Section 6.2.3.4 (see also

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Appendix E). From water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, average annual return flow of native Deer Creek water was estimated to be 335 acre-ft/yr (see Column N of Table 2b).

6.2.4.5 Surface Outflow During periods of above-normal precipitation, residual stream flow left in the Deer Creek after diversions has historically flowed into Homeland Canal, located at the west end of the Tule Subbasin (see Figure 8). The data for this outflow was unavailable for this report (see Column M of Table 2b). As this data becomes available, it will be incorporated into the surface water budget.

6.2.4.6 Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration within the Deer Creek channel was estimated using the same methodology described in Section 6.2.3.6. Average annual ET within the Deer Creek channel was estimated to be 336 acre-ft/yr for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 (see Table 2b, Column P).

6.2.5 White River

6.2.5.1 Infiltration (Channel Loss) All of the surface water flow measured or interpolated at the White River stream gage, after accounting for ET losses, is assumed to become streambed infiltration. Average annual infiltration from White River flow for water year 1990/91 to 2009/10 was estimated to be 6,373 acre-ft/yr (see Column Q of Table 2b).

6.2.5.2 Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration in the White River channel was estimated using the same methodology as described in Section 6.2.3.6. For water year 1990/91 to 2009/10, the average annual evapotranspiration was estimated to be 109 acre-ft/yr (see Column R of Table 2b).

6.2.6 Imported Water Most of the water imported into the Tule Subbasin is from the CVP and delivered via the Friant- Kern Canal (see Figure 8). Angiola Water District also imports water from other various sources including the King’s River and State Water Project. The water is delivered to farmers and recharge basins via the Tule River and Deer Creek channels, unlined canals, and pipelines. Thus, the primary surface water outflows associated with imported water deliveries are river channel and canal losses, recharge in basins, crop consumptive use, and return flow.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.2.6.1 Canal Loss For the purposes of this report, imported water that infiltrates into the subsurface in the Tule River channel, Deer Creek channel, and unlined canals is grouped together. It is also assumed that these losses occur only in the LTRID and Pixley Irrigation District areas. As described in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, imported water losses in channels and canals are estimated by subtracting infiltration losses attributed to native Tule River and Deer Creek water from the total losses estimated to occur in the LTRID and Pixley Irrigation District service areas as documented in their respective annual water use summary reports (see Appendices G, K and L). The resulting estimate of average annual imported water canal loss for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 54,559 acre-ft (see Column S of Table 2b).

6.2.6.2 Recharge of Imported Water in Basins Artificial recharge of imported water is accomplished via multiple recharge facilities within the LTRID, Pixley Irrigation District and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) (see Appendix M). Artificial recharge attributed to imported water in the LTRID is estimated by multiplying the total recharge in basins reported in annual water use summaries by the ratio of imported water to total surface water flow available. Artificial recharge attributed to imported water in the Pixley Irrigation District is estimated by multiplying the total recharge in basins reported in annual water use summaries by the ratio of imported water to total water flowing through the Trenton Weir. Imported water delivered to recharge in basins for DEID was provided by DEID. The resulting estimated average annual imported water recharge in basins for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was 11,349 acre-ft (see Column T of Table 3).

6.2.6.3 Return Flow of Imported Water Used for Agricultural Irrigation The estimate of imported water delivered and applied to crops within the LTRID and Pixley Irrigation District is based on the total imported water delivery minus losses and recharge in basins, as reported in annual water use summaries (see Appendices E, G and K). Return flow of applied imported water is assumed to be 21 percent of total applied water, as described in Section 6.2.3.4 (see also Appendix E). For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, the estimated average annual return flow from imported water was 64,500 acre-ft/yr (see Column U of Table 2b).

6.2.7 Recycled Water

6.2.7.1 Return Flow of Recycled Water Used for Agricultural Irrigation As will be discussed in Section 6.2.8.2, 47 percent of Porterville municipal water use is assumed to be applied to landscaping; therefore, 53 percent is assumed to be used indoors and ultimately

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

becomes treated wastewater (see Appendix F). The amount of recycled water applied to crops was assumed to be the balance between the total available recycled water, the artificial recharge ET (see Section 6.2.7.2), and artificial recharge (see Section 6.2.7.3). Of the applied recycled water, 21 percent is assumed to become return flow. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, the estimated average annual return flow from application of recycled water to crops was 516 acre-ft (see Column V of Table 2b).

6.2.7.2 Agricultural Consumptive Use (Crop ET) Consumptive use of recycled water applied to crops was assumed to be 79 percent of the applied water (see Appendix F). The average annual recycled water consumptive use for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was estimated to be 1,941 acre-ft/yr (see Column W of Table 2b).

6.2.7.3 Artificial Recharge A portion of recycled water from the City of Porterville is delivered to basins for artificial recharge (see Appendix F). Artificial recharge of recycled water was estimated as 75 percent of all available recycled water from 1990/91 to 2003/04 based on California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R5-2008-0034. Artificial recharge was assumed to be 2,000 acre-ft/yr from 2004/05 to 2009/10 based on Schmidt (2009). The average annual recycled water recharge for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was estimated to be 3,556 acre-ft/yr (see Table 2b, Column X).

6.2.7.4 Evapotranspiration of Recycled Water in Basins Evapotranspiration of recycled water delivered to recharge basins was estimated to be 50 acre-ft/yr (see Column Y of Table 2b) based on Schmidt (2009).

6.2.8 Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping

6.2.8.1 Return Flow of Applied Water from Agricultural Pumping The balance of agricultural irrigation demand not met by imported water or stream diversions is assumed to be met by groundwater pumping (see Appendix E). Return flow of applied water from groundwater pumping is assumed to be 21 percent of the applied water. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, average annual return flow from agricultural pumping was 121,933 acre-ft/yr (see Column Z of Table 2b).

6.2.8.2 Return Flow of Applied Water from Municipal Pumping Return flow from landscape irrigation was estimated for the urbanized portions of the Tule Subbasin (see Appendix F). Because the cities within the Tule Subbasin do not have surface 34

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

water rights on the Tule River or Deer Creek and do not purchase imported water, 100 percent of their water demand is met from groundwater pumping. For the City of Porterville, landscape irrigation was estimated to be 47 percent of the total water delivered to each home based on an analysis of the total groundwater production and influent flows to the wastewater treatment plant (City of Porterville draft Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, 2014). Of the water used for irrigation, 25 percent was assumed to become return flow.

For the other smaller communities in the Tule Subbasin, wastewater discharge was assumed to be through individual septic systems. For water discharged to septic systems, it was assumed that 100 percent of the discharge became return flow. As with the City of Porterville, 47 percent of total water use was assumed to be for landscape irrigation and 25 percent of the landscape irrigation is assumed to become return flow.

For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, average annual return flow from municipal production was estimated to be 6,686 acre-f/yr (see Column AA of Table 2b).

6.2.9 Agricultural Consumptive Use Column AB of Table 2b includes agricultural consumptive use of applied water, not including the portion of the consumptive use met by precipitation, which is included in Column B. Historical agricultural crop water demand (i.e. applied water demand) was estimated based on records of the types and areas of crops grown, estimates of consumptive use for each crop, and estimates of the irrigation efficiency (see Appendix E). Information on the types and areas of crops for the LTRID and Pixley Irrigation District were obtained from annual crop surveys from each respective district. The types and areas of crops in other parts of the Tule Groundwater Subbasin within Tulare County were estimated from land use maps and associated data published by the CDWR for 1993, 1999, and 2007 (see Figure 6). For the portion of the Subbasin in Kern County (DEID), land use maps were obtained from CDWR (1990) and Kern County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards (1999 and 2007). Consumptive use estimates for the various crop types were based on crop coefficients published in ITRC (2003). In order to estimate a total agricultural irrigation water demand, the consumptive use estimates for each crop were multiplied by the area of the crop, which in turn was multiplied by a return flow factor reflecting the irrigation efficiency (see Section 6.2.3.4 and Appendix E).

The estimated average annual agricultural consumptive use for the period of the groundwater budget was 745,798 acre-ft/yr (see Column AB of Table 2b).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

6.2.10 Municipal Consumptive Use Consumptive use of landscaping associated with applied municipal groundwater pumping was estimated based on an assumed applied water to landscaping and return flow factor. As discussed in Section 6.2.8.2, it is assumed 47 percent of municipal water use is applied to landscaping. It is assumed that 75 percent of applied water to landscaping is consumptively used by the plants and 25 percent becomes return flow. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, estimated average annual municipal consumptive use was 6,941 acre-ft/yr (see Column AC of Table 2b).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

7.0 Groundwater Budget The groundwater budget describes the sources and estimates the volumes of groundwater inflow and outflow within the Tule Subbasin. The groundwater budget presented herein is based on a previously developed detailed groundwater budget of the subbasin (TH&Co, 2015). The groundwater budget has been expanded and refined to incorporate the results of the surface water budget and is specific to the same time period as the surface water budget (1990/91 to 2009/10) (see Table 3). A fundamental premise of the groundwater budget is the following relationship:

Inflow – Outflow = +/- S

Inflow terms include groundwater recharge to the subbasin including areal recharge from precipitation, recharge in stream/river channels, artificial recharge, canal losses, return flow, release of water from compression of aquitards, and subsurface inflow. It is noted that many of the groundwater inflow terms are surface water outflow terms from Table 2b. Outflow terms include groundwater pumping, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow. The difference between the sum of inflow terms and the sum of outflow terms is the change in groundwater storage (S) (see Table 3).

As with the surface water budget tables, the individual columns in the groundwater budget table are color coded to reflect their role in the Sustainable Yield estimate. Sources of groundwater recharge (i.e. inflow) that are associated with pre-existing water rights and/or imported water deliveries are indicated with magenta-colored columns in Table 3 and are not used to estimate the Sustainable Yield. Groundwater recharge elements that are used to estimate Sustainable Yield are indicated with blue-colored columns. Groundwater pumping is not used in the equation to estimate Sustainable Yield and is shown as yellow-colored columns in Table 3.

7.1 Sources of Groundwater Recharge

7.1.1 Areal Recharge Groundwater recharge from precipitation falling on the valley floor in the Tule Subbasin was estimated based on Williamson et al., (1989) (see Section 6.2.1). The resulting annual groundwater recharge from areal precipitation using this method ranged from 0 acre-ft/yr to 219,370 acre-ft/yr with a 20-yr average of approximately 28,800 acre-ft/yr (see Column A, Table 3).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

7.1.2 Tule River Groundwater recharge of native Tule River water occurs as streambed infiltration, infiltration of water in unlined canals, recharge in basins, and return flow of applied water. Tule River water that becomes groundwater recharge is described in Section 6.2.3 and summarized in Columns B through F of Table 3. Average annual groundwater recharge of native Tule River water was estimated to be 66,898 acre-ft/yr for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10.

7.1.3 Deer Creek Groundwater recharge of native Deer Creek water occurs as streambed infiltration, canal loss, recharge in basins, and return flow of applied water. Deer Creek water that becomes groundwater recharge is described in Section 6.2.4 and summarized in Columns G through K of Table 2b. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 average annual groundwater recharge of native Deer Creek water was estimated to be 18,203 acre-ft/yr.

7.1.4 White River Groundwater recharge of White River water occurs as streambed infiltration as described in Section 6.2.5 and summarized in Column L of Table 3. Estimated average annual groundwater recharge from White River water was 6,373 acre-ft/yr for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10.

7.1.5 Imported Water Deliveries Groundwater recharge of imported water occurs as canal loss, recharge in basins, and return flow of applied water as described in Section 6.2.6 and summarized in Columns M through O of Table 3. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 average annual groundwater recharge from imported water was estimated to be 133,422 acre-ft/yr.

7.1.6 Recycled Water Groundwater recharge of recycled water occurs as artificial recharge and return flow of applied water as described in Section 6.2.7 and summarized in Columns P and Q of Table 3. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 average annual groundwater recharge from recycled water was estimated to be 4,072 acre-ft/yr.

7.1.7 Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping A portion of irrigated agriculture and municipal applied water from groundwater pumping becomes return flow as described in Section 6.2.8 and summarized in Columns R and S of Table 3. For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 average annual groundwater recharge associated with return flow from groundwater pumping was estimated to be 133,780 acre-ft/yr.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

7.1.8 Release of Water from Compression of Aquitards Prolonged lowering of groundwater levels in the Tule Subbasin results in the drainage of water from low permeability subsurface aquitards that occur beneath the potentiometric groundwater surface. Aquitards are low permeability layers with relatively high silt and clay content. As the aquitards are compressible, the release of pore pressure caused by the lowering of groundwater levels also results in compression of the low permeability layers. Within a limited range of groundwater level fluctuation, the compressed aquitard can accept water back into its structure when groundwater levels rise resulting in elastic rebound. However, if groundwater levels are maintained at low elevations for long enough periods of time as a result of groundwater pumping, the compression of aquitards becomes permanent. This permanent compression of subsurface layers results in land surface subsidence, which has been observed in the Tule Subbasin prior to 1970 (Ireland et al., 1984) and between 2007 and 2011 (Luhdorff and Scalmanini, 2014). The slow release of water from the permanent compaction of subsurface aquitards also results in a one-time contribution of water to the aquifer system. However, it is noted that this is not a renewable source of water to the aquifer.

The estimate of the volume of water contributed to the aquifer through compression of aquitards between 1990 and 2010 was based on the premise that this volume is approximately equal to the volume of land subsidence that occurred during this time (see Appendix N). The total volume of water contributed to the aquifer from aquitard compression during this time period is estimated to be approximately 1,706,000 acre-ft with an annual average of 85,300 acre-ft/yr (see Column T of Table 3). Although it is acknowledged that this water contribution to the aquifer would vary from year to year depending on the rate of subsidence, it was applied evenly across the period of the water budget for purposes of accounting.

7.1.9 Subsurface Inflow The subsurface inflow values for the southern and western boundaries of the Tule Subbasin, as estimated from Section 5 of this report, were incorporated into Table 3 (see Column U). For the years in which the inflow was estimated, the values were incorporated explicitly into the table (1998 through 2007 and 2010). The assumed subsurface inflow value for the remaining years of the water budget was the average inflow value for the analysis time period (48,296 acre-ft/yr).

7.1.10 Mountain-Block Recharge Mountain-block recharge represents the infiltration of precipitation into the fractures in the bedrock east of the Tule Subbasin, which eventually flows into the alluvial aquifer system of the Tule Subbasin in the subsurface where the fractured rock aquifer system in in hydrologic communication with the alluvial aquifer system. For the eastern Tule Subbasin boundary, it was not possible to estimate the subsurface inflow from the bedrock into the alluvium using the flow

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

net analysis. Until additional data can be collected, the subsurface inflow along this boundary was given a preliminary long-term average estimate of 20,000 acre-ft/yr (see Column V of Table 3). The long-term average was weighted annually according to annual variations in precipitation (water years 1990/91 to 2009/10) measured at the Porterville Station.

7.2 Sources of Groundwater Discharge

7.2.1 Municipal Groundwater Pumping Groundwater pumping for municipal supply is conducted by the City of Porterville and small municipalities for the local communities in the Tule Subbasin as described in Section 6.1.5 (see Appendix F). For water years 1990/91 to 2009/10, municipal groundwater production was estimated to average 19,690 acre-ft/yr (see Column W of Table 3).

7.2.2 Agricultural Groundwater Pumping Agricultural groundwater production is estimated as the total applied water demand for crops minus surface deliveries (see Appendix E). The estimated average annual discharge to crops from wells for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 is approximately 605,210 acre-ft/yr (see Column X of Table 3).

7.2.3 Groundwater Pumping for Export Out of the Tule Subbasin Some of the groundwater pumping that occurs on the west side of the Tule Subbasin is exported out of the subbasin for use elsewhere (see Appendix O). Angiola Water District and the Boswell/Creighton Ranch have historically exported pumped groundwater out of the Tule Subbasin. Annual groundwater exports have ranged from 0 between 1995 and 1999 to 55,350 acre-ft in the 2007/2008 water year (see Column Y of Table 3). This water is accounted for separately because the water is not applied within the subbasin and there is no associated return flow.

7.2.4 Subsurface Outflow The subsurface outflow value for the northern boundary of the Tule Subbasin, as estimated from Section 5 of this report, was incorporated into Table 3 (see Column Z). For the years in which the outflow was estimated, the values were incorporated explicitly into the table (1998 through 2007 and 2010). The assumed subsurface outflow value for the remaining years of the water budget was the average outflow value for the analysis time period (14,749 acre-ft/yr).

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

7.3 Historical Changes in Groundwater Storage Comparison of the groundwater inflow elements of the water budget with the outflow elements shows a cumulative change in groundwater storage over the period between 1990/91 and 2009/10 of approximately –2,351,000 acre-ft. The average annual change in storage resulting from the groundwater budget is approximately -117,571 acre-ft/yr.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

8.0 Preliminary Estimate of Sustainable Yield The Sustainable Yield estimate developed for this report is based on the definition reported in SGMA:

The maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result.

It is further noted that the Sustainable Yield estimate provided herein is based on the physical water balance of the subbasin after subtracting imported water and accounting for water rights.

8.1 Sustainable Yield Evaluation Approach The Sustainable Yield of the Tule Subbasin is a function of the overall water balance of the area. Changes in surface water/groundwater inflow to the basin and surface water/groundwater outflow from the basin impact the Sustainable Yield. As groundwater management and land use changes impact the water balance, they also impact the Sustainable Yield. A generalized expression of the water balance is as follows:

Inflow – Outflow = +/- Change in Storage (1)

The water balance equation for pre-developed conditions (prior to human occupation) can be further expressed as:

(Ipr + Istr + Iss + Imb) – (Oss + Oet) = S (2)

Where:

Ipr = Inflow from Areal Recharge of Precipitation

Istr = Inflow from Infiltration of Runoff in Stream Beds

Iss = Inflow from Subsurface Underflow

Imb = Inflow from Mountain-Block Recharge

Oss = Subsurface Outflow

Oet = Evapotranspiration S = Change in Groundwater Storage

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Under pre-developed conditions, the groundwater basin would be in a state of equilibrium such that the inflow and outflow would balance and there would be no significant long-term change in storage assuming a static climatic condition. Under this condition, groundwater levels would be relatively stable.

Under developed land use conditions, the water balance changes as groundwater is pumped from the basin for irrigation and municipal supply. Lowering of the groundwater table resulting from pumping reduces the amount of groundwater that would otherwise leave the basin and reduces evapotranspiration losses in areas of shallow groundwater (e.g. Tulare Lake). Some of the pumped groundwater used for irrigation infiltrates past the roots of the plants and returns to the groundwater as return flow. Water imported into the area is applied to crops but some is lost as infiltration in unlined canals and as return flow. Groundwater return flow also occurs as a result of discharges from individual septic systems. Other sources of recharge to the groundwater under developed land use include wastewater treatment plant discharges and artificial recharge in spreading basins.

The water balance equation for developed land use conditions can be modified as follows:

(Ipr + Istr + Ican + Iar + Irfgw + Irfimp + Icom+ Iss + Imb) – (Oss + Oet + Op) = S (3)

Where:

Ican = Inflow from Canal Losses

Iar = Inflow from Artificial Recharge

Irfgw = Inflow from Return Flow of Applied Water from Groundwater Pumping

Irfimp = Inflow from Return Flow of Applied Water from Imported Water

Icom = Inflow of Water Released from Compression of Aquitards

Op= Outflow from Groundwater Pumping

Under developed basin conditions, if the inflow terms exceed the outflow terms, then the groundwater in storage increases (become positive) and groundwater levels rise. If the outflow terms exceed the inflow, then the groundwater in storage decreases (become negative) and groundwater levels drop.

The Sustainable Yield of a developed groundwater basin is the combination of pumping and recharge under a given land use condition that results in no long-term change in groundwater 43

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

storage in the basin. The water balance equation can be rearranged and simplified to estimate Sustainable Yield:

Sustainable Yield = S + Op – Ican - Iar - Irfimp - Icom (4)

Thus, if the change in groundwater storage over the planning period is zero and there is no imported water or release of water from compression of aquitards, then the Sustainable Yield is equal to the pumping. This relationship is valid if the following conditions are met:

1. The Sustainable Yield incorporates a hydrology that is representative of a relatively long period of record that includes multiple wet and dry hydrologic cycles. 2. The land use conditions are representative of the time period.

The Sustainable Yield can also be expressed as all of the components of the water balance not explicitly expressed in Equation 4:

Sustainable Yield = Ipr + Istr + Irfgw + Iss + Imb - Oss (5)

It is noted that the Tule Subbasin MOU Group has determined that the return flow of native groundwater pumped for agricultural irrigation is to be included in the Sustainable Yield estimate.

8.2 Sustainable Yield Estimate The Sustainable Yield estimate based on the water budget and using Equation 5 is presented in Table 4. Elements of the water budget included in the Sustainable Yield estimate include:

• Areal recharge from precipitation • Streambed infiltration from the Tule River, Deer Creek and White River • Return flow from groundwater pumping (agricultural and municipal) • Subsurface inflow • Mountain-block recharge • Subsurface outflow (as a negative)

The Sustainable Yield from Equation (5) does not include groundwater recharge associated with imported water deliveries, surface water diversions from Tule River and Deer Creek, and water contributed to the aquifer system as a result of compression of clay layers and land subsidence. The associated Sustainable Yield for water years 1990/91 to 2009/10 was approximately

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

257,725 acre-ft/yr. Applying the Sustainable Yield over the entire Tule Subbasin of 475,895 acres results in a Subbasin-Wide Sustainable Yield of 0.54 acre-ft/yr/acre.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

9.0 Summary of Findings

As directed by the Tule Subbasin MOU Group, TH&Co conducted an analysis of the subsurface inflow and outflow to/from the Tule Subbasin. This subsurface inflow and outflow is summarized as follows:

Subsurface Subsurface Inflow Outflow (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Net Inflow Year (acre-ft/yr) South and East North West Total Boundary Boundary Boundaries

1998 43,991 20,000 63,991 -11,662 52,329

1999 47,173 20,000 67,173 -8,211 58,962

2000 44,940 20,000 64,940 -13,766 51,174

2001 49,797 20,000 69,797 -17,422 52,375

2002 51,107 20,000 71,107 -13,564 57,543

2003 49,994 20,000 69,994 -19,183 50,811

2004 49,742 20,000 69,742 -8,654 61,088

2005 47,283 20,000 67,283 -16,814 50,469

2006 44,128 20,000 64,128 -16,411 47,717

2007 42,936 20,000 62,936 -12,330 50,606

2010 60,164 20,000 80,164 -24,472 55,692

Average: 68,296 -14,772 53,524

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

In addition to the subsurface inflow/outflow analysis, the following additional findings have been made based on the evaluation of groundwater conditions in the Tule Subbasin and the available data:

• Analysis of groundwater contour maps developed from groundwater levels measured in the shallow aquifer between 1998 and 2007 has indicated a persistent pumping depression in the northwestern portion of the Tule Subbasin. This pumping depression has reversed the natural westward gradient resulting in the capture of water that would have otherwise left the subbasin. • Analysis of groundwater contour maps developed from groundwater levels measured in the deep aquifer in 1998, 1999 and 2010 indicate a more southwestward pumping depression that shifts to the west in 2010. • The cumulative change in groundwater storage between 1990/91 and 2009/10, as estimated from the detailed groundwater budget in Table 3, is approximately -2,351,000 acre-ft. • The Sustainable Yield of the Tule Subbasin based on the water budget reported herein is approximately 257,725 acre-ft/yr (see Table 4). This estimate does not include recharge and losses from the delivery of imported water, recharge and losses associated with Tule River and Deer Creek surface water diversions, or release of water from compression of aquitards. This Sustainable Yield is equal to 0.54 acre-ft/acre when applied equally across the entire Tule Subbasin area.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

10.0 References

Bear, Jacob, 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw Hill, Inc.

California Department of Water Resources, 2016. Final 2016 Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundaries shapefile. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/basin_boundaries.cfm

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2008. Order No. R5-2008-0034 Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility Tulare County. Dated March 2008.

Carollo Engineers, 2001. City of Porterville Water System Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Porterville, dated February 2001.

City of Porterville, Undated. City of Porterville General Plan, Ch. 8 Utilities. www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/communitydevelopment/generalplan.cfm

City of Porterville, 2014. Draft Urban Water Management Plan. Dated August 2014.

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, 2007. Groundwater Management Plan. Dated August 2007.

Diepenbrock, A., 1933. Mount Poso Oil Field: California Oil Fields, v. 19, No. 2. p. 5 – 35.

Faunt, C.C., 2009. Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. USGS Professional Paper 1766.

Fetter, C. W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology. 3rd Edition. Macmillan College Publishing, New York.

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 Vol. 38, No. 11, pgs. 2357 – 2371.

Ireland, R.L., Poland, J.F., and Riley, F.S., 1984. Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1980. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 437-I.

ITRC, 2003. California Crop and Soil Evapotranspiration for Water Balances and Irrigation Scheduling/Design. ITRC No. 03-001, dated January 2003.

Kern County Water Agency, 1991. Study of the Regional Geologic Structure Related to Ground Water Aquifers in the Southern San Joaquin Valley Ground Water Basin, Kern County, California.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Leenhouts, J.M., Stromberg, J.C., and Scott R.L., 2005. Hydrologic Requirements of and Consumptive Ground-Water Use by Riparian Vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5163.

Lofgren, B.E., and Klausing, R.L., 1969. Land Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal Tulare-Wasco Area California. USGS Professional Paper 437-B.

Luhdorff and Scalmanini, 2014. Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California. Prepared in Cooperation with the California Water Foundation.

Provost and Pritchard, 2010. Ag Water Consumptive Use Study on Lower Tule River ID and Pixley ID, Western Tulare County, California. Prepared for Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District. Dated September 2010.

Schmidt, K., 2009. Groundwater Conditions within the City of Porterville Urban Area Boundary. Prepared for the City of Porterville, dated October 2009.

TH&Co, 2015. Analysis of the Hydrogeological Condition of the Tule Subbasin. Prepared for Spaletta Law PC and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District. Dated January 9, 2015.

Theis, C.V., Brown, R.H., Myer, R.R., 1963. Estimating the Transmissivity of a Water-table Aquifer from the Specific Capacity of a Well. USGS Water Supply Paper 1536-1, p 331- 336.

Tule River Association, 1966. Tule River Water Diversion Schedule and Storage Agreement. Dated February 1, 1966; revised June 16, 1966.

United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2006. GIS Shapefile – Federal Water Districts – Mid- Pacific Region, Edition 4.0.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2014. www.wrcc.dri.edu.

Williamson, A.K., Prudic, D.E., and Swain, L.A., 1989. Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California. USGS Professional Paper 1401-D.

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Tables

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 1 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Summary of the Subsurface Inflow and Outflow of the Tule Subbasin

Total Total Annual Inflow Outflow Annual Outflow Year Aquifer Inflow Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr)

Shallow 19,676 -11,662 1998 43,991 -11,662 Deep 24,315 0 Shallow 22,324 -8,211 1999 47,173 -8,211 Deep 24,849 0 Shallow 16,589 -7,906 2000 44,940 -13,766 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 21,447 -11,562 2001 49,797 -17,422 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 22,757 -7,704 2002 51,107 -13,564 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 21,643 -13,322 2003 49,994 -19,183 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 21,391 -2,794 2004 49,742 -8,654 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 18,932 -10,953 2005 47,283 -16,814 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 15,777 -10,550 2006 44,128 -16,411 Deep 28,351 -5,860 Shallow 14,586 -6,469 2007 42,936 -12,330 Deep 28,351 -5,860

Shallow 24,276 -6,891 2010 60,164 -24,472 Deep 35,889 -17,581

Average: 48,296 -14,772

Note: 2000-2007 deep aquifer values are based on 1998, 1999, and 2010 boundary averages.

50 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 2a Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Surface Water Budget

Surface Water Inflow (acre-ft) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Stream Inflow Imported Water Area of Santa Discharge to Municipal Delano- Atwell Margarita Frm - Water Year Precipitation White Porterville Saucelito Tea Pot Alpaugh Terra Bella Angiola Kern-Tulare Crops from Deliveries Total In Tule River Deer Creek Earlimart LTRID Pixley ID Island Discharge to Crops River ID ID Dome WD ID ID WD WD Wells from Wells ID WD from Wells

1990 - 1991 331,713 51,275 7,247 1,362 105,876 71,430 0 11,322 19,848 5,636 0 0 18,725 801 9,326 730,383 29,555 15,786 1,410,286 1991 - 1992 285,661 34,325 4,080 739 90,001 51,949 0 15,569 21,336 6,607 0 0 20,743 1,974 12,092 759,987 26,789 16,178 1,348,030 1992 - 1993 462,864 115,640 15,422 3,623 140,611 321,973 0 12,310 41,261 6,968 11,062 6,431 18,180 4,691 12,496 423,685 26,385 16,702 1,640,304 1993 - 1994 293,336 61,313 6,908 1,148 83,988 71,784 96,890 12,895 22,064 6,526 3,263 2,003 18,740 4,828 13,655 737,076 25,226 17,210 1,478,854 1994 - 1995 611,034 218,480 32,053 10,596 129,338 229,683 7,793 9,455 37,477 6,562 7,480 5,402 16,186 10,020 13,181 474,876 25,700 17,823 1,863,139 1995 - 1996 321,702 174,473 23,095 5,957 145,404 236,845 55,365 13,808 48,924 7,993 10,076 5,274 21,617 14,971 14,022 423,836 22,863 17,782 1,564,006 1996 - 1997 450,183 353,968 58,781 12,920 154,747 192,934 60,931 13,379 40,908 7,298 0 0 20,158 5,573 15,785 481,186 20,827 20,125 1,909,702 1997 - 1998 728,835 439,125 88,360 36,764 117,161 101,180 37,048 10,159 28,221 4,913 0 0 13,165 2,576 12,422 568,334 24,190 18,526 2,230,979 1998 - 1999 373,094 108,466 18,410 7,469 139,754 183,971 41,823 16,107 37,062 9,218 0 0 17,567 13,440 14,779 541,798 21,833 18,918 1,563,708 1999 - 2000 354,740 102,354 15,230 4,878 136,829 177,192 34,736 15,545 39,734 7,191 0 254 19,200 9,417 16,457 583,501 20,155 19,309 1,556,721 2000 - 2001 264,970 55,249 7,016 4,695 116,592 83,405 40,076 15,436 25,252 6,456 0 0 19,194 4,408 17,438 664,475 19,174 19,212 1,363,048 2001 - 2002 252,289 73,206 10,370 6,176 128,383 78,511 9,098 13,628 26,131 6,388 0 0 20,234 3,823 15,007 650,833 21,605 21,053 1,336,735 2002 - 2003 247,283 125,004 15,678 5,875 118,771 131,470 13,588 14,646 33,692 5,844 94 0 18,356 6,570 14,469 593,268 22,143 20,795 1,387,545 2003 - 2004 206,904 51,738 6,882 2,350 127,194 71,472 32,195 14,698 26,988 6,913 0 0 20,352 2,674 15,163 633,826 25,939 21,391 1,266,678 2004 - 2005 395,453 172,558 22,758 6,502 121,589 247,595 9,839 14,748 42,840 5,217 13,117 0 15,266 9,308 14,256 453,484 27,396 21,578 1,593,504 2005 - 2006 401,460 195,667 23,868 7,585 121,249 194,019 59,211 13,251 45,106 6,436 14,586 0 21,763 9,218 14,215 450,185 27,437 21,120 1,626,374 2006 - 2007 169,861 38,587 6,901 1,812 71,995 33,174 60,634 9,775 16,280 5,489 0 0 20,797 8,145 15,402 731,465 26,250 21,828 1,238,395 2007 - 2008 189,217 74,030 8,411 2,362 113,026 71,872 7,200 12,988 24,083 6,894 0 0 18,192 2,221 17,864 617,552 23,788 22,978 1,212,677 2008 - 2009 203,567 54,737 6,620 1,753 109,154 113,189 12,243 18,000 31,282 6,165 1,929 0 19,701 12 15,079 642,845 26,573 22,959 1,285,807 2009 - 2010 325,707 144,778 16,470 5,075 119,497 200,064 23,620 14,335 42,855 5,845 2,418 0 17,574 4,395 13,935 450,066 27,717 22,531 1,436,882

Average: 343,494 132,249 19,728 6,482 119,558 143,186 30,115 13,603 32,567 6,528 3,201 968 18,786 5,953 14,352 580,633 24,577 19,690 1,515,669

A, Precipitation - From California Isohyetal map of average annual precipitation weighted annually with Porterville Precipitation data. B, Stream Inflow, Tule River - From Tule River Association annual reports for releases from Success Reservoir. C, Stream Inflow, Deer Creek - From Deer Creek at Fountain Springs station. D, Stream Inflow, White River - From White River near Ducor station (1990 to 2005) and interpolated (2006 to 2010). E, Imported Water, Delano-Earlimart - From Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District personal communication. F, Imported Water, LTRID - From Lower Tule River Irrigation District annual Water Use Summaries. G, Imported Water, Pixley ID - From Pixley Irrigation District annual Water Use Summaries. H through M, Imported Water - From United States Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Operation Office Report of Operations annual reports. N, Imported Water - From Angiola Water District personal communication. O, Imported Water - From Kern-Tulare Water District personal communication. Estimated imported water for Tule Subbasin portion only. Includes Rag Gulch Water District. P, Discharge to Crops from Wells - Estimated applied water minus delivered water. Q, Area of Santa Margarita Formation, Discharge to Crops from Wells - Estimated applied water minus delivered water. R, Municipal Deliveries from Wells - Metered production from City of Porterville and estimated production based on per capita water use for other communities.

51 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 2b Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Surface Water Budget Surface Water Outflow (acre-ft) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U Precipitation Tule River Native Deer Creek White River Imported Water Deliveries Oettle Bridge Before Trenton Weir to Water Year Crops/Native Success to Areal to Turnbull Canal Recharge Return Surface Evapo- Trenton Homeland Canal Recharge Return Surface Evapo- Evapo- Canal Recharge Return Evapo- Oettle Bridge Infiltration Recharge Weir Loss in Basins Flow Outflow transpiration Weir Canal Loss in Basins Flow Outflow transpiration transpiration Loss in Basins Flow transpiration Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration

1990 - 1991 6,948 324,766 6,275 0 6,883 5,247 6,846 0 585 6,945 0 0 0 0 0 302 1,278 84 24,310 0 43,959 1991 - 1992 1,413 284,248 4,287 0 3,077 3,673 3,004 0 420 3,750 0 0 0 0 0 330 672 67 16,058 0 40,346 1992 - 1993 56,601 406,263 18,493 0 27,124 8,191 10,853 0 695 15,062 0 0 0 0 0 360 3,536 87 184,354 6,272 98,648 1993 - 1994 1,909 291,427 6,037 0 14,255 5,005 6,246 0 580 6,612 0 0 0 0 0 296 1,050 98 35,578 468 41,546 1994 - 1995 143,977 467,057 36,355 10,974 42,741 7,836 23,319 25,337 915 21,248 980 3,766 1,786 822 0 360 10,476 120 93,544 10,585 81,436 1995 - 1996 4,916 316,786 20,703 3,337 28,554 21,164 19,824 6,717 1,025 13,746 724 2,784 659 1,012 0 360 5,844 113 83,790 38,997 92,204 1996 - 1997 50,231 399,952 34,563 15,305 46,552 25,338 18,589 121,019 805 45,099 1,790 6,881 1,946 568 0 360 12,805 115 58,027 14,834 82,539 1997 - 1998 219,370 509,465 41,092 15,459 55,070 32,007 29,206 95,424 970 14,855 12,687 48,757 929 2,565 0 360 36,610 154 42,598 15,959 52,316 1998 - 1999 18,124 354,970 14,268 1,001 19,134 17,564 10,881 0 750 13,280 641 2,465 352 276 0 360 7,315 154 57,994 19,385 78,640 1999 - 2000 12,029 342,711 16,930 2,323 13,056 8,882 11,425 4,740 695 10,079 628 2,413 508 261 0 360 4,764 114 61,613 13,327 77,088 2000 - 2001 338 264,632 12,226 0 6,983 4,992 6,248 0 420 6,695 0 0 0 0 0 321 4,597 98 28,524 2,137 52,328 2001 - 2002 24 252,265 14,802 0 12,864 5,798 6,646 0 475 10,054 0 0 0 0 0 316 6,080 96 24,794 82 55,820 2002 - 2003 2 247,281 19,714 4,851 23,989 12,186 10,286 5,008 695 13,621 108 416 319 179 0 360 5,763 112 51,048 5,013 63,626 2003 - 2004 0 206,904 9,910 442 7,552 3,876 5,125 603 530 6,596 0 0 0 0 0 286 2,266 84 19,214 0 54,708 2004 - 2005 25,957 369,496 24,143 2,640 30,618 19,036 12,408 22,123 815 14,404 389 1,495 2,950 664 0 360 6,390 112 83,074 32,483 83,140 2005 - 2006 28,272 373,188 28,092 7,227 42,131 23,345 18,496 11,203 860 14,352 888 3,413 3,152 358 0 360 7,459 126 74,048 26,337 80,214 2006 - 2007 0 169,861 6,073 1,184 5,299 4,310 3,813 0 530 6,593 0 0 0 0 0 308 1,700 112 15,482 0 33,048 2007 - 2008 0 189,217 11,675 1,536 15,635 6,884 6,736 804 640 8,114 0 0 0 0 0 297 2,264 98 21,636 1,595 49,951 2008 - 2009 0 203,567 9,484 244 7,144 5,154 6,279 0 475 6,322 0 0 0 0 0 298 1,641 112 42,830 9,292 56,895 2009 - 2010 5,622 320,084 25,636 5,116 32,478 14,286 13,414 0 860 16,110 0 0 0 0 0 360 4,949 126 72,659 30,225 71,544

Average: 28,787 314,707 18,038 3,582 22,057 11,739 11,482 14,649 687 12,677 942 3,619 630 335 0 336 6,373 109 54,559 11,349 64,500

Groundwater Inflows to be Included in Sustainable Yield Estimates Groundwater Inflows to be Excluded from the Sustainable Yield Estimates I, Tule River, Evapotranspiration - Estimated evapotranspiration loss within the Tule River channel. Surface Water or ET Outflows Not Included in Groundwater Recharge or Sustainable Yield Estimates J, Native Deer Creek, Before Trenton Weir Infiltration - Estimated Native Deer Creek water infiltration before Trenton Weir. K, Native Deer Creek, Trenton Weir to Homeland Canal Infiltration - Estimated Native Deer Creek water portion of infiltration in the A, Areal Recharge from Precipitation - Based on estimated annual precipitation (see Column A, Surface Water Inflow) Deer Creek channel below Trenton Weir. and Williamson (1989) for infiltration in the San Joaquin Valley. L, Native Deer Creek, Canal Loss - Estimated Native Deer Creek water portion of total canal losses within Pixley Irrigation District. B, Evaporation of Precipitation - Total precipitation (see Column A, Surface Water Inflow) minus Areal Recharge from Precipitation. M, Native Deer Creek, Recharge in Basins - Estimated Native Deer Creek water portion of total basin recharge within C, Tule River, Success to Oettle Bridge Infiltration - From Tule River Association annual reports for Demand Met Channel Loss (Table I-1). Pixley Irrigation District. D, Tule River, Oettle Bridge to Turnbull Weir Infiltration - Product of the ratio of Success to Oettle Bridge Infiltration and flow Below Oettle Bridge. N, Native Deer Creek, Return Flow - Twenty-one percent of applied water from Native Deer Creek. E, Tule River, Canal Loss - Estimated Native Tule River water portion of total canal losses within the Lower Tule River Irrigation District. O, Native Deer Creek, Surface Outflow - No data, assumed to be zero. F, Tule River, Recharge in Basins - Estimated Native Tule River water portion of total basin recharge within Lower Tule River Irrigation District. P, Native Deer Creek, Evapotranspiration - Estimated evapotranspiration loss within the Deer Creek channel Also includes total Tule River Headgate Diversion for Pioneer Water Company and Vandalia Ditch Company from Tule River Association Q, White River, Infiltration - Total White River flow minus estimated evapotranspiration. annual reports (Table I-1). Also includes Tule River Headgate Diversions for Campbell and Moreland Ditch Company and Vandalia Ditch R, White River, Evapotranspiration - Estimated evapotranspiration loss within the White River channel. Company from Tule River Association Annual Reports. S, Imported Water Deliveries, Canal Loss - Estimated Imported Water Deliveries water portion of total canal losses within G, Tule River, Return Flow - Twenty-one percent of Native Tule River applied water. Estimated Native Tule River deliveries within the Lower Tule River Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District. Irrigation District plus Pioneer Water Company, Porter Slough, Porter Slough Ditch Company, Hubbs & Miner Ditch Company, Rhodes-Fine Ditch T, Imported Water Deliveries, Recharge in Basins - Estimated Imported Water Deliveries water portion of total recharge in Company Headgate Diversions from Tule River Association. basins within Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District. H, Surface Outflow - Flow at Turnbull Weir. U, Imported Water Deliveries, Return Flow - Twenty-one percent of applied water from Imported Water Deliveries.

52 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 2b Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Surface Water Budget Surface Water Outflow (acre-ft) V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF Return Flow from Recycled Water Municipal Area of Santa Margarita Formation Groundwater Pumping Agricultural Consumptive Consumptive Return Flow Water Year Agricultural Artificial From From Use Consumptive Return Flow Total Out Agricultural Artificial Use from Consumptive Recharge Agriculture Municipal (Landscape Use from Imported Return Flow Recharge (Crop ET) Groundwater Use (Crop ET) ET Pumping Pumping ET) (Crop ET) Water Pumping

1990 - 1991 239 897 3,358 50 153,380 5,678 768,125 5,565 30,716 6,207 1,958 1,410,601 1991 - 1992 247 928 3,474 50 159,597 5,777 763,466 5,703 30,716 5,626 2,539 1,339,466 1992 - 1993 258 972 3,643 50 88,974 5,891 746,642 5,888 30,716 5,541 2,624 1,727,739 1993 - 1994 270 1,015 3,805 50 154,786 6,004 762,080 6,067 30,716 5,298 2,868 1,384,064 1994 - 1995 284 1,069 4,009 50 99,724 6,129 772,323 6,283 30,716 5,397 2,768 1,912,384 1995 - 1996 280 1,054 3,952 50 89,006 6,177 760,079 6,268 29,139 4,801 2,945 1,567,011 1996 - 1997 343 1,289 4,844 50 101,049 6,505 762,706 7,094 28,923 4,374 3,315 1,857,809 1997 - 1998 295 1,111 4,169 50 119,350 6,370 765,309 6,530 28,923 5,080 2,609 2,165,649 1998 - 1999 303 1,142 4,285 50 113,778 6,469 765,825 6,668 28,923 4,585 3,104 1,552,685 1999 - 2000 312 1,172 4,401 50 122,535 6,568 794,924 6,806 28,923 4,232 3,456 1,557,325 2000 - 2001 306 1,151 4,323 50 139,540 6,610 745,291 6,772 28,923 4,026 3,662 1,331,193 2001 - 2002 353 1,329 4,998 50 136,675 6,901 749,150 7,421 28,923 4,537 3,151 1,333,606 2002 - 2003 342 1,288 4,839 50 124,586 6,946 747,403 7,330 28,923 4,650 3,038 1,393,973 2003 - 2004 355 1,335 5,020 50 133,103 7,091 725,807 7,540 32,470 5,447 3,184 1,239,499 2004 - 2005 994 3,740 2,000 50 95,232 7,188 720,191 7,606 32,905 5,753 2,994 1,611,349 2005 - 2006 927 3,489 2,000 50 94,539 7,209 728,329 7,445 32,905 5,762 2,985 1,629,159 2006 - 2007 990 3,726 2,000 50 153,608 7,367 716,527 7,694 32,905 5,512 3,234 1,181,928 2007 - 2008 1,103 4,148 2,000 50 129,686 7,577 701,118 8,100 32,905 4,995 3,751 1,212,515 2008 - 2009 1,085 4,081 2,000 50 134,997 7,650 745,505 8,093 32,905 5,580 3,167 1,294,850 2009 - 2010 1,034 3,889 2,000 50 94,514 7,616 675,156 7,942 32,905 5,820 2,926 1,447,322

Average: 516 1,941 3,556 50 121,933 6,686 745,798 6,941 30,754 5,161 3,014 1,507,506

Groundwater Inflows to be Included in Sustainable Yield Estimates Groundwater Inflows to be Excluded from the Sustainable Yield Estimates Surface Water or ET Outflows Not Included in Groundwater Recharge or Sustainable Yield Estimates

V, Recycled Water, Agricultural Return Flow - Twenty-one percent of applied water from Recycled Water. W, Recycled Water, Agricultural Consumptive Use - Estimated consumptive use of applied water from Recycled Water. X, Recycled Water, Artificial Recharge - From City of Porterville. Y, Recycled Water, Artificial Recharge ET - From Schmidt (2009). Z, Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping, Agricultural - Twenty-one percent of applied water from Discharge to Crops from Wells. AA, Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping, Municipal - Estimated return flow from landscape and septic return flow. AB, Consumptive Use (Crop ET) - Estimated total crop consumptive use minus Recycled Water Agricultural Consumptive Use. AC, Municipal Consumptive Use (Landscape ET) - Estimated landscape evapotranspiration. AD, Area of Santa Margarita Formation - Consumptive Use (Crop ET) - Estimated crop consumptive use. AE, Area of Santa Margarita Formation, Return Flow - Twenty-one percent of applied water from imported water. AF, Area of Santa Margarita Formation, Return Flow from Imported Water - Twenty-one percent of applied water from groundwater discharge to crops.

53 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 3 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Groundwater Budget

Groundwater Inflows (acre-ft) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S Tule River Deer Creek Imported Water Deliveries Recycled Water Return Flow from Areal Oettle Groundwater Pumping Success to Trenton Weir White Return Recharge Bridge to Before Irrigated Water Year Oettle Canal Recharge in Return to Homeland Recharge Return River Recharge Flow Agricultural Artificial from Turnbull Trenton Weir Canal Loss Canal Loss Agriculture Bridge Loss Basins Flow Canal in Basins Flow Infiltration in Basins (incld S.M. Return Flow Recharge Municipal Precipitation Weir Infiltration (incld S.M. Infiltration Infiltration Frm) Infiltration Frm)

1990 - 1991 6,948 6,275 0 6,883 5,247 6,846 6,945 0 0 0 0 1,278 24,310 0 45,917 239 3,358 159,587 5,678 1991 - 1992 1,413 4,287 0 3,077 3,673 3,004 3,750 0 0 0 0 672 16,058 0 42,885 247 3,474 165,223 5,777 1992 - 1993 56,601 18,493 0 27,124 8,191 10,853 15,062 0 0 0 0 3,536 184,354 6,272 101,272 258 3,643 94,515 5,891 1993 - 1994 1,909 6,037 0 14,255 5,005 6,246 6,612 0 0 0 0 1,050 35,578 468 44,414 270 3,805 160,084 6,004 1994 - 1995 143,977 36,355 10,974 42,741 7,836 23,319 21,248 980 3,766 1,786 822 10,476 93,544 10,585 84,204 284 4,009 105,121 6,129 1995 - 1996 4,916 20,703 3,337 28,554 21,164 19,824 13,746 724 2,784 659 1,012 5,844 83,790 38,997 95,149 280 3,952 93,807 6,177 1996 - 1997 50,231 34,563 15,305 46,552 25,338 18,589 45,099 1,790 6,881 1,946 568 12,805 58,027 14,834 85,854 343 4,844 105,423 6,505 1997 - 1998 219,370 41,092 15,459 55,070 32,007 29,206 14,855 12,687 48,757 929 2,565 36,610 42,598 15,959 54,924 295 4,169 124,430 6,370 1998 - 1999 18,124 14,268 1,001 19,134 17,564 10,881 13,280 641 2,465 352 276 7,315 57,994 19,385 81,743 303 4,285 118,362 6,469 1999 - 2000 12,029 16,930 2,323 13,056 8,882 11,425 10,079 628 2,413 508 261 4,764 61,613 13,327 80,544 312 4,401 126,768 6,568 2000 - 2001 338 12,226 0 6,983 4,992 6,248 6,695 0 0 0 0 4,597 28,524 2,137 55,990 306 4,323 143,566 6,610 2001 - 2002 24 14,802 0 12,864 5,798 6,646 10,054 0 0 0 0 6,080 24,794 82 58,972 353 4,998 141,212 6,901 2002 - 2003 2 19,714 4,851 23,989 12,186 10,286 13,621 108 416 319 179 5,763 51,048 5,013 66,664 342 4,839 129,236 6,946 2003 - 2004 0 9,910 442 7,552 3,876 5,125 6,596 0 0 0 0 2,266 19,214 0 57,892 355 5,020 138,551 7,091 2004 - 2005 25,957 24,143 2,640 30,618 19,036 12,408 14,404 389 1,495 2,950 664 6,390 83,074 32,483 86,134 994 2,000 100,985 7,188 2005 - 2006 28,272 28,092 7,227 42,131 23,345 18,496 14,352 888 3,413 3,152 358 7,459 74,048 26,337 83,199 927 2,000 100,301 7,209 2006 - 2007 0 6,073 1,184 5,299 4,310 3,813 6,593 0 0 0 0 1,700 15,482 0 36,283 990 2,000 159,120 7,367 2007 - 2008 0 11,675 1,536 15,635 6,884 6,736 8,114 0 0 0 0 2,264 21,636 1,595 53,702 1,103 2,000 134,681 7,577 2008 - 2009 0 9,484 244 7,144 5,154 6,279 6,322 0 0 0 0 1,641 42,830 9,292 60,062 1,085 2,000 140,578 7,650 2009 - 2010 5,622 25,636 5,116 32,478 14,286 13,414 16,110 0 0 0 0 4,949 72,659 30,225 74,470 1,034 2,000 100,334 7,616

Average: 28,787 18,038 3,582 22,057 11,739 11,482 12,677 942 3,619 630 335 6,373 54,559 11,349 67,514 516 3,556 127,094 6,686

Groundwater Inflows or Outflows to be Included in Sustainable Yield Estimates Groundwater Inflows to be Excluded from the Sustainable Yield Estimates Groundwater Outflows Not Included in Sustainable Yield Estimates

A, Areal Recharge from Precipitation - See Table 2B, Column A K, Deer Creek, Return Flow - See Table 2B, Column N B, Tule River, Success to Oettle Bridge Infiltration - See Table 2B, Column C L, White River Infiltration - See Table 2B, Column Q C, Tule River, Oettle Bridge to Turnbull Weir Infiltration - See Table 2B, Column D M, Imported Water Deliveries, Canal Loss - See Table 2B, Column S D, Tule River, Canal Loss - See Table 2B, Column E N, Imported Water Deliveries, Recharge in Basins - See Table 2B, Column T E, Tule River, Recharge in Basins - See Table 2B, Column F O, Imported Water Deliveries, Return Flow - See Table 2B, Columns U and AF F, Tule River, Return Flow - See Table 2B, Column G P, Recycled Water, Agricultural Return Flow - See Table 2B, Column V G, Deer Creek, Before Trenton Weir Infiltration - See Table 2B, Column J Q, Recycled Water, Artificial Recharge - See Table 2B, Column X H, Deer Creek, Trenton Weir to Homeland Canal Infiltration - See Table 2B, Column K R, Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping, Irrigated Agriculture - See Table 2B, sum of Columns Z and AE I, Deer Creek, Canal Loss - See Table 2B, Column L S, Return Flow from Groundwater Pumping, Municipal - See Table 2B, Column AA J, Deer Creek, Recharge in Basins - See Table 2B, Column M

54 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 3 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Groundwater Budget

Groundwater Inflows (cont.) (acre-ft) Groundwater Outflows (acre-ft) T U V W X Y Z Groundwater Pumping Release of Water Sub- Mountain- Irrigated Sub- Change in Water Year from Compression surface Block Total In Water Year Agriculture surface Total Out Storage Municipal Exports of Aquitards Inflow Recharge (incld S.M. Outflow (acre-ft) Frm)

1990 - 1991 85,300 48,296 19,314 432,421 1990 - 1991 15,786 759,938 44,745 14,722 835,192 -402,771 1991 - 1992 85,300 48,296 16,633 403,767 1991 - 1992 16,178 786,776 41,120 14,722 858,796 -455,029 1992 - 1993 85,300 48,296 26,950 696,611 1992 - 1993 16,702 450,070 12,159 14,722 493,653 202,958 1993 - 1994 85,300 48,296 17,080 442,411 1993 - 1994 17,210 762,302 11,598 14,722 805,833 -363,421 1994 - 1995 85,300 48,296 35,578 777,329 1994 - 1995 17,823 500,576 9,377 14,722 542,498 234,831 1995 - 1996 85,300 48,296 18,731 597,747 1995 - 1996 17,782 446,699 0 14,722 479,202 118,545 1996 - 1997 85,300 48,296 26,212 695,304 1996 - 1997 20,125 502,012 0 14,722 536,859 158,445 1997 - 1998 85,300 48,296 42,437 933,384 1997 - 1998 18,526 592,523 0 14,722 625,771 307,613 1998 - 1999 85,300 43,991 21,724 544,857 1998 - 1999 18,918 563,631 0 11,662 594,210 -49,353 1999 - 2000 85,300 47,173 20,655 529,957 1999 - 2000 19,309 603,655 7,621 8,211 638,796 -108,838 2000 - 2001 85,300 44,940 15,428 429,202 2000 - 2001 19,212 683,648 33,734 13,766 750,360 -321,159 2001 - 2002 85,300 49,797 14,690 443,366 2001 - 2002 21,053 672,437 44,367 17,422 755,280 -311,913 2002 - 2003 85,300 51,107 14,398 506,329 2002 - 2003 20,795 615,411 28,232 13,564 678,002 -171,673 2003 - 2004 85,300 49,994 12,047 411,230 2003 - 2004 21,391 659,764 36,249 19,183 736,586 -325,356 2004 - 2005 85,300 49,742 23,025 612,018 2004 - 2005 21,578 480,880 16,592 8,654 527,704 84,314 2005 - 2006 85,300 47,283 23,375 627,163 2005 - 2006 21,120 477,621 100 16,814 515,654 111,509 2006 - 2007 85,300 44,128 9,890 389,533 2006 - 2007 21,828 757,715 39,594 16,411 835,548 -446,015 2007 - 2008 85,300 42,936 11,017 414,392 2007 - 2008 22,978 641,340 55,350 12,330 731,997 -317,605 2008 - 2009 85,300 48,296 11,853 445,213 2008 - 2009 22,959 669,418 51,456 14,722 758,554 -313,342 2009 - 2010 85,300 60,164 18,964 570,378 2009 - 2010 22,531 477,783 28,758 24,472 553,543 16,835

Average: 85,300 48,296 20,000 545,131 Average: 19,690 605,210 23,053 14,749 662,702 -117,571

Cummulative Change in Storage -2,351,427

Groundwater Inflows or Outflows to be Included in Sustainable Yield Estimate Groundwater Inflows to be Excluded from the Sustainable Yield Estimate Groundwater Outflows Not Included in Sustainable Yield Estimates

T, Release of Water from Compression of Aquitards - Estimated. See Appendix N W, Groundwater Pumping, Municipal - See Table 2A, Column R U, Sub-surface Inflow - See Table 1 X, Groundwater Pumping, Irrigated Agriculture - See Table 2A, sum of V, Mountain Block Recharge - Estimated long-term average of 20,000 acre-ft/yr. Columns P and Q Long-term average weighted by annual precipitation at the Porterville Station. Y, Groundwater Pumping, Exports - See Appendix O Z, Sub-surface Outflow - See Table 1

55 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Table 4 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Tule Subbasin Sustainable Yield

Groundwater Outflow Groundwater Inflows (acre-ft) (acre-ft) Streambed Infiltration Areal Irrigated Tule River Deer Creek Sub- Mountain- Recharge Agriculture Water Year Before Trenton Trenton Weir to White surface Block Sub-surface Outflow Sustainable Yield from Success to Oettle Bridge to (incld S.M. Weir Homeland Canal River Inflow Recharge Precipitation Oettle Bridge Turnbull Weir Frm) Infiltration Infiltration

1990 - 1991 6,948 6,275 0 6,945 0 1,278 165,265 48,296 19,314 14,722 239,599 1991 - 1992 1,413 4,287 0 3,750 0 672 171,000 48,296 16,633 14,722 231,328 1992 - 1993 56,601 18,493 0 15,062 0 3,536 100,406 48,296 26,950 14,722 254,622 1993 - 1994 1,909 6,037 0 6,612 0 1,050 166,088 48,296 17,080 14,722 232,349 1994 - 1995 143,977 36,355 10,974 21,248 980 10,476 111,250 48,296 35,578 14,722 404,411 1995 - 1996 4,916 20,703 3,337 13,746 724 5,844 99,984 48,296 18,731 14,722 201,559 1996 - 1997 50,231 34,563 15,305 45,099 1,790 12,805 111,928 48,296 26,212 14,722 331,507 1997 - 1998 219,370 41,092 15,459 14,855 12,687 36,610 130,800 48,296 42,437 14,722 546,883 1998 - 1999 18,124 14,268 1,001 13,280 641 7,315 124,832 43,991 21,724 11,662 233,513 1999 - 2000 12,029 16,930 2,323 10,079 628 4,764 133,336 47,173 20,655 8,211 239,706 2000 - 2001 338 12,226 0 6,695 0 4,597 150,176 44,940 15,428 13,766 220,633 2001 - 2002 24 14,802 0 10,054 0 6,080 148,113 49,797 14,690 17,422 226,137 2002 - 2003 2 19,714 4,851 13,621 108 5,763 136,182 51,107 14,398 13,564 232,183 2003 - 2004 0 9,910 442 6,596 0 2,266 145,641 49,994 12,047 19,183 207,714 2004 - 2005 25,957 24,143 2,640 14,404 389 6,390 108,172 49,742 23,025 8,654 246,209 2005 - 2006 28,272 28,092 7,227 14,352 888 7,459 107,509 47,283 23,375 16,814 247,645 2006 - 2007 0 6,073 1,184 6,593 0 1,700 166,487 44,128 9,890 16,411 219,645 2007 - 2008 0 11,675 1,536 8,114 0 2,264 142,259 42,936 11,017 12,330 207,471 2008 - 2009 0 9,484 244 6,322 0 1,641 148,228 48,296 11,853 14,722 211,345 2009 - 2010 5,622 25,636 5,116 16,110 0 4,949 107,950 60,164 18,964 24,472 220,040

Average: 28,787 18,038 3,582 12,677 942 6,373 133,780 48,296 20,000 14,749 257,725

Sustainable Yield = Groundwater Inflows - Groundwater Outflows Basin Area (acres) 475,895 Basin-Wide Sustainable Yield (acre-ft/yr/acre) 0.54 Groundwater Inflows or Outflows to be Included in Sustainable Yield Estimate.

56 1-Aug-17

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Figures

Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Delta-Mendota Madera Groundwater Groundwater Subbasin Subbasin S an J Map Features o ! Fresno S a i q e u Kings r San Joaquin Groundwater Basin i Groundwater r Groundwater Subbasin n a Subbasin Westside V N Study Area a e l v le y a ! Major City d Visalia a

! M Freeway Kaweah Groundwater o u C Subbasin o nta a s Tulare t Kettleman i Note: Groundwater basins from Bulletin 118, Lake Porterville ! n R Groundwater s California Department of Water Resources a Rev. 2016 n Subbasin Hills Tule g e Groundwater s Subbasin

¨¦§5 UV99 Regional Location Sierra Nevada Mountains Sacramento Kern County Nevada Groundwater California San Joaquin Valley Subbasin Groundwater Basin

Bakersfield ! Pacific Ocean

Study Area White Wolf Groundwater Bakersfield Ü Subbasin 05 10 20 Note: Basemap source esri.com Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Regional Map

Figure 1 57 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Map Features

! Visalia Study Area

Tule Subbasin

Tule River Drainage Basin Tulare ! California Hot Springs Drainage Basin

White River Drainage Basin L a k e S Corcoran ! ! City or Community Porterville ! Tipton ! Tule River Major Hydrologic Feature

! Kettleman City UV99 Freeway Deer Creek K e !Pixley ! t tl Terra Bella e m a n Ducor H ! Notes: Drainage basins from California Interagency i Earlimart l ! White River Watershed Map of 1999, California Department l s ¨¦§5 of Water Resources.

Richgrove ! Delano !

Ü 0 5 10 20 Note: Basemap source esri.com Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Tule Subbasin Area Figure 2 58 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Exeter I.D. City of Lindsay City of Corcoran Water Service Area Tulare I.D. ! Tulare

Lindsay-Strathmore I.D. Map Features

Lindmore I.D. Lower Tule River ID GSA

Pixely ID GSA City of Porterville ! Corcoran Service Area Eastern Tule GSA Porterville I.D. Tipton ! Delano-Earlimart ID GSA Lower Tule River I.D. GSA ! Porterville

Lower Tule River I.D. Tri-County Water Authority GSA Tulare Lake Basin W.S.D. Corcoran I.D. UV99 Vandalia I.D. Alpaugh GSA Terra Bella Basin Boundary Tri-County Water Pixley I.D. GSA Pixley Saucelito I.D. Authority GSA Angiola ! Tea Pot Dome W.D. Pixley I.D. ! ! W.D. City or Community

Freeway Alpaugh I.D. Terra Bella I.D. Angiola W.D. Alpaugh GSA ! Ducor ! Earlimart GSA Boundaries from: http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/#gsa Delano-Earlimart I.D. Accessed 18-Jul-17 Atwell Island W.D. Water district boundaries modified from Tri-County Water United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2006. Authority GSA Richgrove !

Delano ! Eastern Tule GSA

Delano-Earlimart ID GSA 5 ¨¦§ Kern-Tulare W.D. Alpaugh I.D. Ü 0 3 6 12 Note: Basemap source esri.com Miles Jurisdictional Areas NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Figure 3 59 10 Hydrogeological Conceptual 14 Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

*# Visalia 1927 - 2013 Five Points 10.0 Inches 1945 - 2013 *# 6.0 Inches Map Features Lindsay 1927 - 2012 11.7 Inches Precipitation Station, Period of Record, Lindsay *# and Average Annual Precipitation 1927 - 2012 *# 18 11.7 Inches 17 Average Annual Precipitation 15 16 14 10 11 12 13 9 Inches Per Year 8 7 Basin Boundary Kettleman City Corcoran 1943 - 2000 1948 - 2012 *# 6.4 Inches Major Hydrologic Feature *# 7.0 Inches *# Porterville Freeway 1926 - 2016 10.4 Inches

Notes: Precipitation station data from Western Regional Climate Center (www.wrcc.dri.edu) and California Irrigation Management Information System.

Isohyetal data from Average Annual 5 UV99 Precipitation Zones from the California ¨¦§ Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1998). Data for 1900 through 1960. Delano 1944 - 2013 *# 6.8 Inches *# Glennville 1952 - 2013 18.6 Inches

Wasco 1926 - 2013 Ü 6.4 Inches*#

0 5 10 20 Note: Basemap source esri.com Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Isohyetal Map

Figure 4 60 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Figure 5 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin Annual Precipitation - Porterville Station

35 60

Porterville Cumulative 30 40 Departure from Mean

25 20

Porterville 20 Average Annual 0 Precipitation 10.4 inches 15 -20 Precipitation (inches) 10 -40

5 -60 Porterville Cumulative Departurefrom Mean(inches)

0 -80 1926 1927 - 1928 1929 - 1930 1931 - 1932 1933 - 1934 1935 - 1936 1937 - 1938 1939 - 1940 1941 - 1942 1943 - 1944 1945 - 1946 1947 - 1948 1949 - 1950 1951 - 1952 1953 - 1954 1955 - 1956 1957 - 1958 1959 - 1960 1961 - 1962 1963 - 1964 1965 - 1966 1967 - 1968 1969 - 1970 1971 - 1972 1973 - 1974 1975 - 1976 1977 - 1978 1979 - 1980 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 2013 - 2014 2015 -

Notes: Data in water years (October 1 to September 30). Data from Western Regional Climate Center (1926-2001), California Irrigation Management Information System (2002-2016).

61 1-Aug-17 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin 99 VU99 VU VU65 VU65 1993 1999

VU43 VU190 VU43 VU190 Map Features

Tule Groundwater Subbasin

Dairy and Dairy Support Crops

Truck Crops

Misc. Field Crops

Grapes

*Kern County from 1990 Cotton

Deciduous & Fruit Trees

Nuts VU99 VU65 2007 Major Road VU43 VU190

Notes: Data from California Department of Water Resources and Kern County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards

Irrigated crops only. Ü Note: Basemap source esri.com 02 4 8 Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Tule Groundwater Subbasin Historical Crop Patterns 62 Figure 6 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Figure 7 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Historical Irrigated Crop Acreage in the Tule Subbasin - 1990 through 2010

400,000

300,000 Nuts Deciduous & Fruit Trees Grapes Alfalfa, Pasture 200,000 Corn, Grain Sorghum, Silage Grain and Grain Hay Cotton 100,000 Misc Field Crops Truck Total Acres (Primary SecondaryandCrops)

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Notes: Within the Lower Tule River Irrigation District, 2002 data was used for 2003 and 2005 data was used for 2004. Within Pixley Irrigation District, 1989 data was used for 1986-1988, 1990 for 1991,1993 for 1992, 2002 for 2003, and 2005 for 2004. For areas outside of Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District, 1993 data was used for 1986-1995, 1999 data was used for 1996-2003, and 2007 data was used for 2004-20010. Includes the area of the Santa Margarita Formation.

63 1-Aug-17 !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! Hydrogeological Conceptual ! ! ! Model and Water Budget

! ! ! 1-Aug-17

! Tule Subbasin MOU Group ! of the Tule Subbasin

! ! ! ! !

! ! Friant-Kern Canal Friant-Kern !

Cross Creek

! ! Map Features

! Oettle

! Bridge ! !( Surface Water Measurement Location

! Porter Slough Headgate

Porter 192 ! and ! Lakeland Canal

! Campbell and Moreland *# Surface Water Diversion Location !

Woods-Central! Ditch Company

McCarthy Check !( ! Major Hydrologic Feature ! ! Turnbull Weir Lake Success

! !( ! Friant-Kern Canal and !!! ! !(

! Porter Slough California Aqueduct ! Rockford Station !( *#! Success Dam

! Tule River ! Friant-Kern Canal to *#!( Canals ! # !( Tule River ! ! * *# Poplar *# ! Basin Boundary

! ! Vandalia Ditch Pioneer Water

! Company Company ! Artificial Recharge Basin ! ! !( Deer Creek !

*#! Deer Creek ! Freeway

! (Terra Bella)

! !( ! Friant-Kern Canal !

! Deer Creek !( Trenton to Deer Creek !

! (Fountain Springs) Weir ! !

! !

! White River Homeland Canal

! !

! White River ! (Near Ducor) ! !(

! !

! California Aqueduct ! !

! !

! ! 5 99 ! ¨¦§ UV

! ! !

! !

Ü !

! 0 2.5 5 10 Note: Basemap source esri.com ! ! Miles Surface Water Features in the

! ! NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4

! ! Tule Subbasin and Vicinity ! ! 64 Figure 8

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU!( Group of the Tule Subbasin !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( Map Features !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( Well !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( Major Road !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( Major Hydrologic Feature !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( Basin Boundary !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( Tule !(River !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 99!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( UV!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( Deer Creek !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( UV65!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(43 !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(UV !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( White River !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( Garces Hwy !( !( !( !( 5 !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ¨¦§ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Ü !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( 0!( !( !(!(2.5 5 10 !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( Note: Basemap source esri.com !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( Miles !( !( Well Database !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Figure 9 65 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

B Map Features

D Cross Sections Lake Success Basin Boundary

E′ Tulare Lake Surface Deposits Tule River Surficial Deposits

E S Tertiary loosely consolidated deposits i UV65 e A A′ r r Non-Marine Sedimentary Rocks a

N Marine Sedimentary Rocks Unconsolidated e Alluvium v a Crystalline Basement Loosely d Tulare Lake Consolidated a

Alluvium M Major Hydrologic Feature Deposits Deer Creek

u Major Road

n s White River 99 Loosely 5 UV ¨¦§ UV43 Consolidated Geologic units modified from USGS Open-File Report 2005-1305 C Alluvium C′ Lake Deposits from California Geological Survey B′ Geologic Atlas of California Map No. 002 1:250:000 scale, Compiled by A.R. Smith, 1964 D′ and Geologic Atlas of California Map No. 005, Ü 1:250,000 scale, Compiled by: R.A. Matthews and J.L. Burnett 0 2.5 5 10 Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Geology and Cross Section Location Map 66 Figure 10 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Map Features 40 Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) Composite Well 0 - < 6 6 - < 16 16 - < 30 30 - < 50 20 50 - < 80 Shallow Well 0 - < 6 6 - < 16 16 - < 30

Tule River Tule River 30 - < 50 40 50 - < 80 99 UV99 UV 1 80 - < 120

20 Deer Creek Shallow Aquifer Percent Coarse " 0 - 15 Deer Creek 65 65 UV " 16 - 25 UV 1 " 26 - 35 " 36 - 45 UV43 " 46 - 55 UV43 20 20 " 56 - 65 60 " 66 - 75 White River White River 60 Major Hydrologic Feature 40 Garces Hwy 20 Hydraulic Conductivity Garces Hwy (ft/day) Ü Ü 20 Percent Coarse data from USGS Note: Basemap source esri.com 40 Professional Paper 1766 60 60 60 Bedrock Basin Boundary Freeway

0 5 10 20 Miles Shallow Aquifer NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Hydraulic Conductivity 67 and Textural Map Figure 11 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Map Features Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) Friant-Kern Canal Friant-Kern Composite Well 0 - < 6 6 - < 16 16 - < 30 30 - < 50 40 50 - < 80 Deep Well 0 - < 6 6 - < 16 16 - < 30 Tule River Tule River 30 - < 50 25 UV99 20 UV99 50 - < 60 Deep Aquifer Percent Coarse

Deer Creek Deer Creek " 0 - 15 10 " 16 - 25 UV65 UV65 10 " 26 - 35 " 36 - 45 " 46 - 55 UV43 UV43 " 56 - 65 10 " 66 - 75 White River White River Major Hydrologic Feature Hydraulic Conductivity Garces Hwy (ft/day) ¨¦§5 Garces Hwy 40 40 10 Ü Ü 20 Percent Coarse data from USGS Note: Basemap source esri.com 25 Professional60 Paper 1766 40 Bedrock Basin Boundary Freeway

0 5 10 20 Miles Deep Aquifer NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Hydraulic Conductivity 68 and Textural Map Figure 12 Hydrogeological Conceptual 376 338 Model and Water Budget 63 109 338 Tule Subbasin MOU Group 292 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin 243 286 246 308 292 323 277 303 324 200 309 400 253 264 238 377 157 197 278 200 157 !( !( 353 !( !( 130 !( 283 !( !( 432 450 Map Features 131 !( !( 176 187 376 79 223 261 !(245 !( !( !( 452 204 !( !( !( 200 251 247 !( 171 !( !( !( !( !( 320 !(339 !( !( 216 214 296 450 Groundwater Elevation Contour, !( 171 !( !(!( !( !( 313 391 585 150 112 187 147 !( !( 229 !( 329 !( !( !( !( 136 !( !( 163 !( !( !(!( !(293 !( 361 413 dashed where approximate (ft amsl) !( 259 274!( !( !( !( 340 !( 186 221 !( !(263 322 321 !( !( !(246 !( 265273!( !( !( !( !( !( !(359 396 148 !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(424 Groundwater Elevation from Well 196 120 148 162 225 294 288 !( 339 !( !( !( !( 176 275!( !(!( !( 338 605 with Perforations in Shallow Aquifer !( !( 239 240 !( 307 !( !( !(!( !( !( 135 !( !( 330 !(!( 343 387 !( 168 168 225 !( !( 227 273 337 364 380 !( !( !( !( !( 313 !( !( !( !( !( 467!( 185 !( 169 206 176 159 205 280 316318 !( 355 !( 449 556 Groundwater Elevation from Well !( 177 !( !( !( !( 393 324 !( !( 180 !( 195 179 !( !( !( 320 345 !( !( !( with Perforations in both Shallow 178!( !( !( !(194 !(!(217 279 291 350 375 !(!( 389 !( !( 187 !(189 !( 186 414 188 189 !( 177 264 344 402 425!( and Deep Aquifer 163 !( 161 161!( !( !( !( !( 167!( !( !(!( !( !( 183 !( 338 370 !( !( 191 164 144 169 !( 400 445 !( !( 199 !(173 !( 168 154 190 224 !( !( !( !( 156 130 !( !( !( !( !( 295 !( !( Groundwater Elevation from Well 164!( !( 180 !( !( 251 !( 332 489 !( 191 168 137 120 209 !( 410 !( !( 522 with Unknown Perforation Interval 140 97 125 !( 115 192 161 238!( 315 336 472!( !(!(481 !( !( !( !( !( 156 !( !( !( !(279 !( !(328 182 86 !( 104 !( !(!( 180 !( 379408 176 89 210 154!( !( !( 306 317 366 !( !( !( !(!(!(85 !( 189 141 !( 216 354!( !( !( 530 149 !(112 !( !( 274 271 !( !(291 !( !( !( !( !(508 Major Hydrologic Feature !( 83 101 138 165 293 !(315 400368 494 !( !(!( !( 144!( !(149144 308!( !( !( !( 312 394 500 190 150 150 !(86 !( 138 !(97 256 343 66 134 Basin Boundary !( 144 !( !(70 100 !( !( !( 351 !( 55 136 75 356!( 408 450 !( !( !( 309 !( 77 !( !( 186 236 !( !( 406 !( !( 191 34 74 !(95 !( !( 348 !(201 !( Major Road 89 67 199 !( 447 !( !( !( !( !( !( 241 500 !( 79 238 90 !( !( 124 146 !( 256 !( 99 350 43 !( UV 163 257 UV !(91 !( !(!(270 175 100 193

!( 157 196 300 !( !( !( !( !( 140 31 !( 144 137 !( 206 !( !(7 111 200 155 !( 131 11 182!( 146 !( !( 37 !( !( 210 149 94 91 186 !( !( 35 !( 56 77 !( 120 !( 88 29 !( 176 152 !(!( !(70 !(!( 13 100 !( !( 80 !( 219 96 !(!( !( 59 !(10 !( !(97 211 249!( 157 !( !( 210 231!(165 247 65 !( 95 !(76 !(9 !( 193 !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(167 207 !(!( 175 !( 222 !( !( !( !(364 243 69 !( 186 174 179!(!(182 240 168 200 !( !(!( !( 93 181 184 97 116 !( 6 !( !( !( 150 272 84 !( !(!(118 64 83 !( 202 215 !( !(97 !( !( !( !( 81!( 94 !( 231 103 23 !( 141 !( 226 !( 119 85 !(87 !( !( 177 203 !( 281 !( !( 247 !( !( 96!( 235!( 310 94!( !( !(79 Note: All groundwater elevations are in 21 -24 100 !( 70 19!( !( !(146 !( feet above mean sea level. 65 170 9 !(8 169 237 218 !( !( 183!(!( !( !( !( 91 168 223 !( 65 3 !( UV 203 25 !( 21!(!(24 Groundwater Elevations are measured 216216 !( 64 5 216 !( !(185 !( from October to December. ¨¦§ 212 235235 218218218 37 218 !( 250 203203 217 UV43Garces Hwy !( 198 !(147 !( 194!( !( 214 !( !( 222UV65 194194216222222 Ü 194 !( !( !( 194216 0 2.5 5 10 Note: Basemap source esri.com Fall 1998 Shallow Groundwater Miles143 133144 206 116 127131 NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 120109 291 Elevation Contour Map 12778112 158 201201 0 37 127 11312694 158 206 61 124 158131 69 Figure 13 376 338 Canal Friant-Kern 236 63 109 338 Hydrogeological Conceptual 104 167 251 292 243 286 Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

110 !(

250 Map Features 150 100 150 Groundwater Elevation Contour, dashed where approximate (ft amsl) 236 !( 238 !( 280 Groundwater Elevation from Well 200 !( with Perforations in the Deep Aquifer

50 172 Groundwater Elevation from Well !( !( with Unknown Perforation Interval 111 40 !( 65 216 UV Groundwater Elevation Interpreted !( !( to be Associated with the 30 Santa Margarita Formation 43 167 UV !( 250 Major Hydrologic Feature

Surficial Deposits UV99 Tertiary loosely consolidated deposits 111 !( Non-Marine Sedimentary Rocks

20 10 43 !( 5 !( Marine Sedimentary Rocks 10 9 !( !( 96 (! Crystalline Basement 30 181 40 !( 103 Basin Boundary 50 !( !(12 (!

161 81 (! Major Road 19 9 !( 68 3 !( 8 100 !( 180 !( !( !( !( 149 !( Note: All groundwater elevations are 35 in feet above mean sea level. !( 35 200 147147 Groundwater Elevations are !( 150 41 47 measured from October to December. !(39 !( 100 !( 3826 55 Ü !( !( 50 !( !( !( !( 0 2.5 5 10 Note: Basemap source esri.com Fall 1998 Deep Groundwater Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Elevation Contour Map 70 Figure 14 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin 21S/24E-35A01 22S/26E-10J01 350 350

300 300

250 250 Visalia 22S/24E-09A01 200 200 Map Features 350

150 150 300 !( Hydrograph Well 100 100 250

50 50 amsl) Groundwater(ft Elevation Level Groundwater Level Elevations (ft amsl) (ftGroundwater Elevations Level Borehole Total Depth 200 Perforation Interval Tule Groundwater Subbasin Tulare 245-302 (ft bgs) 351 ft bgs 0 0 150 -50 Major Hydrologic Feature -50

100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015

50 Groundwater Level Elevation (ft amsl) Groundwater(ft Elevation Level Freeway Borehole Total Depth 350 ft bgs 0 Corcoran Lake Success City or Community -50 Tipton Porterville 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015 !( !( Tule River Kettleman City !( !( !( UV99 !( 5 Pixley ¦¨§ Terra Bella 22S/24E-20A01 350 Deer Creek 22S/26E-13R01 300 350 Borehole Total Depth Ducor 400 ft bgs Earlimart 250 300

200 White River 250

150 22S/24E-23J01 200 350 Richgrove 100 150 300 Delano 50 Perforation Interval Groundwateramsl) (ft Elevation Level 240 - 380 ft bgs 100 250 0 50 Groundwateramsl) (ft Elevation Level 200 Borehole Total Depth -50 170 ft bgs 0

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015 150

-50 100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015

50 Groundwateramsl) (ft Elevation Level

-50 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015 Ü Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 5 10 20 Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Level Hydrographs 71 Figure 15 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

20S/22E-19N01 300

250 21S/23E-36R01 300 200 Map Features 250

150 200

100 !( Hydrograph Well 150

50 100 Major Hydrologic Feature 0

GroundwaterLevel Elevation (ft amsl) 50 Perforation Interval -50 400-1000 (ft bgs) Highway 99 Perforation Interval 0 580-1150 (ft bgs)

-100 Groundwater Level Elevations (ft amsl) -50 Subbasin Boundary -150 -100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015

-150

!( 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015

Lake Success !(

24S/27E-32K01 !( 300 24S/24E-04E02 250 60 300 !( 200 24S/22E-25N01 250 150

200 100

150 50

100 0 Perforation Interval 50 GroundwaterLevel Elevations (ft amsl) 1002-1800 (ft bgs) -50

0 -100 GroundwaterLevel Elevations (ft amsl) -50 Perforation Interval -150 798-1200 (ft bgs)

-100 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015

-150 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Ü 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 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 2013 2014 2015 and the GIS User Community 0 5 10 20 Note: Basemap source esri.com Miles NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Deep Aquifer Groundwater Level Hydrographs 72 Figure 16 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

Map Features Groundwater Elevation Change (ft) 11 to 0

-1 to -25

-26 to -50

-51 to -75

-76 to -100

-101 to -125

-126 to -150

-151 to -175

Area outside of Storage Change Analysis

Basin Boundary

Surficial Deposits

Tertiary loosely consolidated deposits

Non-Marine Sedimentary Rocks

Marine Sedimentary Rocks

Crystalline Basement

Major Hydrologic Feature

Freeway

U99 Ü V 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Groundwater Level Change

NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Fall 1987 to Fall 2010 73 Figure 17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Figure 18 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Groundwater Levels Near Tipton

250

Groundwater Level Groundwater Level (Well Perforations: 245 - 302 ft bgs) (Well Perforations: 250 - 800 ft bgs) 200

150

100 Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl)

Groundwater Level (Well Perforations: 400 - 800 ft bgs) 0 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

21S/24E-35A01 (Perfs 245 - 302 ft bgs) 22S/25E-05R01 (Perfs 250 - 800 ft bgs) 22S/24E-01Q01 (Perfs 400 - 800 ft bgs)

Note: ft bgs = feet below ground surface.

74 1-Aug-17 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

180 200 300 350

210 250 160 230 

200 190 UV137  Map Features



 E8 150 Groundwater Elevation Contour,

E6 E7  dashed where approximate (ft amsl) E5 190 UV Grounwater Elevation, Minor Contour

(ft amsl)

   Major Hydrologic Feature 210  E4 E1 E2 E3 Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)

40 D7    60 D6  Bedrock D5  Flow Net 100 D4  Tule Subbasin Boundary  Major Road D3   150 D2 Note: All groundwater elevations are in 220 feet above mean sea level.

D1  240

70    270 Groundwater Elevations are measured

 



 from October to December.    C7 C6 C4 C3 C2 C1 290

 C9 C5 C8

170

190

UV99 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,UV 65Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, UV43 and the GIS User Community Ü 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 Note: Basemap source esri.com Fall 1998 Shallow Feet NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Groundwater Flow Net 75 Figure 19 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget Tule Subbasin MOU Group 1-Aug-17 of the Tule Subbasin

200 260 240 190 270 250 110 290 170 VU137

150 100  Map Features

E8 150 Groundwater Elevation Contour,

 E3 E4  dashed where approximate (ft amsl)

E9 E10  190

 E11 VU  

E7  Groundwater Elevation, Minor Contour E1 



E6  (ft amsl)  



 E5 E2  280

  Major Hydrologic Feature

Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)  10 D6

 250 20

25  20

D5 40

 Bedrock

D4 Flow Net

 Tule Subbasin Boundary

10 

9 Major Road

D3 30

8  40

D2 80  50

  Note: All groundwater elevations are in D1      C1 feet above mean sea level.  C4  C10  C9 C8  C2 C5 C3 100 C7 Groundwater Elevations are measured C6 from October to December.

30 VU99 VU65 40 VU43 Ü 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 Note: Basemap source esri.com Fall 1998 Deep 40 Feet NAD 83 State Plane Zone 4 Groundwater Flow Net 76 Figure 20 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Figure 21 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Deer Creek versus White River Monthly Streamflow 1971 - 2005

180

160

140 y = 0.3523x - 1.1215 R² = 0.9091 120

100

60 White River MonthlyStreamflow (cfs) 40

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Deer Creek Monthly Streamflow (cfs)

77 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group Figure 22 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin

Applied Water to Irrigated Agriculture by Source

1,200,000

1,000,000

ft) 800,000 -

600,000

400,000 Applied Water (acre

200,000

Deer Creek Delivered Diversions Tule River Delivered Diversions Imported Deliveries Discharge to Crops from Wells

78 1-Aug-17

Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17

Plates

Tule Subbasin MOU Group

400

350 on ti 350 300

300 250 amsl) ft 250 200 on ( West ti 200 150 East A 350 A′ 150 100

300 GroundwaterLevel Eleva 700 700 on 100 50 350 ti 250 50 0 350 300 200 on 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 0 1973 ti 250 150 300 GroundwaterLevel Eleva amsl)

600 ft -50 600 200 100 350 250

on ( 22S/27E-14 22S/27E-13 22S/27E-13A01 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 ti 150 50 300 200 Highway 65 GroundwaterLevel Eleva on 100 0 ti 250 150 500 100 50 -50 22S/27E-16 22S/27E-16 22S/27E-15 500 200 22S/27E-18 GroundwaterLevel Eleva 22S/27E-17N01 0 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 150 50 1973 22S/26E-13R01 22S/27E-17 B - B′ 22S/27E-17 -50

22S/26E-13 Friant-Kern Canal 100 0 22S/26E-14 22S/26E-14 ? S S/C

GroundwaterLevel Eleva 22S/26E-15 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 400 50 -50 1973 S/C S/C 400 22S/26E-18 22S/26E-17C01 22S/26E-17 22S/26E-16C01 ? GroundwaterLevel Eleva S S/C 22S/25E-13 22S/26E-18 C S 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 S/C 0 22S/25E-15 22S/25E-14 22S/25E-13 S/C 1987 S S/C C 380 ft amsl 2014 Highway 99 22S/25E-16 S C S S/C -50 1987 350 ft amsl 22S/25E-18D01 22S/25E-16 22S/25E-16N01 S 1987 S 355 ft amsl 22S/24E-13 22S/25E-18 C S C S/C 1987 22S/24E-23J01* S/C S/C C 345 ft amsl C 1987 335 ft amsl 2014 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 S/C S/C S/C S/C 22S/24E-16 22S/24E-15 22S/24E-15 22S/24E-14 22S/24E-14 ? C 325 ft amsl 2014 S S/C S/C 300 22S/24E-18 S/C S S/C 320 ft amsl 300 22S/24E-17 S S/C S 1987 2014 310 ft amsl Highway 43 22S/24E-20A01* C S/C C S/C C 300 ft amsl 2014 295 ft amsl D - D′ S/C S C 22S/23E-13 22S/23E-13 22S/24E-18 22S/24E-17 S/C S/C C S/C 1987 S/C S/C C S C S S 285 ft amsl C (Kings County) 22S/23E-16 22S/23E-16 (Tulare County) S C 275 ft amsl 22S/23E-18 22S/23E-18 22S/23E-17 22S/23E-16 C S/C S/C 1987 S C S/C T.D. S/C 22S/21E-08R01 22S/21E-16R01 22S/21E-14J01 22S/22E-17 22S/22E-15 22S/22E-13K 22S/23E-15 S/C S C S S S C ? C

Bed Surface Deposits 255 ft amsl

Extent of Tulare Lake S 22S/22E-22R01* C S C S 1987 ? 1987 C C 150 S S/C S S/C C S/C C C C C 242 ft amsl S Tule Groundwater Subbasin S S 240 ft amsl S S/C S/C S/C S S 2014 S/C C S/C C C C C 1987 S 2014 S/C C S C S S/C S/C 225 ft amsl S/C Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin C S/C C 215 ft amsl 200 S/C S S S C S/C S/C C 215 ft amsl 2014 C 200 S/C S C S S S C C S S S/C S/C S/C S C 1987 C C S/C 200 ft amsl S/C C S S/C S S S/C 2014 C 2014 S S/C S C S/C C C S/C C C 1987 S 190 ft amsl C C 1987 1987 C C 1987 S/C C 1987 S/C C C C S S/C S/C 180 ft amsl 180 ft amsl S S/C S T.D. 21 C 1987 S/C S 22S/24E-23J01 S 175 ft amsl S 2014 C S S/C S 170 ft amsl 169 ft amsl 168 ft amsl 167 ft amsl S S S/C S/C S C 1987 1987 C S S S/C S/C S S 160 ft amsl 1987 1987 C 2014 S 165 ft amsl S S/C Perfs 11 - 21 S S C C S/C C 1987 S C C 155 ft amsl S 155 ft amsl S S C S S C T.D. 290 C S/C S 155 ft amsl 150 ft amsl C S 1987 S 1987 C S 160 ft amsl C S S C S S/C C 2014 2014 S 145 ft amsl 1987 S S T.D. 240 Perfs 100 - 120, S/C S 2014 C S S/C S/C 140 ft amsl S C 140 ft amsl C 2014 C C 130 ft amsl 130 ft amsl C C S/C 2014 C S C 135 ft amsl S C C S C 180 - 280 125 ft amsl S/C S/C S/C S/C C C C 125 ft amsl C C S Perfs 112 - 232 S S/C T.D. 400 S 120 ft amsl C C S S 100 T.D. 78 S S 2014 C S S S 2014 C S C S/C Perfs 120 - 390 100 S C C S S S S/C S S C S/C S/C S/C S S/C Perfs Unknown S 100 ft amsl S C C C 100 ft amsl S/C S C S C C ? 2014 C C S/C C C 2014 S C S S C C T.D. 300 S/C S C C S/C S S 80 ft amsl C C C S/C C S 75 ft amsl S/C C C S S/C C S/C S C 2014 T.D. 170 S/C S/C S C S/C C S/C Perfs 52 - 275 C C S S/C S/C C S S/C C S S/C 60 ft amsl Perfs Unknown C C S/C S S T.D. 300 S C S S S 2014 C S C 2014 C S/C S S C S C C C C S/C 2014 2014 C Perfs 231 - 294 S/C 35 ft amsl S 35 ft amsl S C C C S C S/C C 30 ft amsl C C 30 ft amsl C S S/C S S S/C S C S/C S S/C C C C S/C C 0 S C C S/C C S S S S/C C C S/C T.D. 385 0 S S C S C S S S C S/C C C C S S Perfs 240 - 300, C S S/C S/C C S/C S S S/C S/C S S C C S/C S S C C C S S/C 360 - 380 S/C C S C C C S/C S C C S C S C C S/C S/C S S/C S S/C S/C S/C S C S S/C C S S C S/C C C C S/C S/C C S S/C C S S C C S S/C C S S S C C S/C C T.D. 403 C C S S S S C S/C C C C S S/C S S Perfs Unknown S C -100 S/C S -100 S/C S S/C S/C S/C C C C S S C C C S S/C S C C S S S C S S/C C C S S/C C S S C C C C C S/C S/C C S S C T.D. 400 C T.D. 409 S C S S/C Shallow Aquifer S/C C C C S C C S/C S S S Perfs Unknown S/C Perfs Unknown S C S S S S/C S S C S C S C C S S C S T.D. 455 C C S S S/C C C S C S C C S Perfs 230 - 440 S S S S/C C C C S S/C C S C C S/C S C -200 C S C S C S/C C S Granite -200 S C S C C C C S/C S S T.D. 525 C C S/C S/C S/C C S/C S S S/C S/C S/C C Perfs 210 - 510 C T.D. 560 S T.D. 710 C T.D. 445 C S S S C C S C S/C S S Perfs 120 - 560 S/C Perfs Unknown C S Perfs 270 - 430 S/C S C S S/C S/C S/C C C C (Casing to 697) S S C S/C C C S/C C C C C C C C C S T.D. 450 T.D. 450 T.D. 465 C C C T.D 602 C C C S C T.D. 610 Perfs 258 - 438 Perfs 228 - 438 Perfs 250 - 448 S/C S S S/C C T.D. 680 T.D. 480 S/C S C S/C Perfs 202 - 602 Perfs 222 - 610 S/C S/C -300 C C S S/C Perfs 440 - 680 -300 C Perfs 258 - 468 S S/C C C C S/C C S/C S C C S/C T.D. 570 T.D. 600 S/C S S/C S C S T.D. 640 C C Perfs 330 - 570 S/C S S/C S/C S/C C S Perfs 280 - 560 T.D. 600 T.D. 630 Perfs 310 - 620 C C T.D. 620 T.D. 650 C S Perfs 250 - 600 T.D. 620 Perfs 280 - 600 C S S T.D. 620 Perfs 270 - 600 Perfs 272 - 586 S S Perfs 300 - 600 S/C T.D. 770 S Confining Layer S/C S/C T.D. 610 S Perfs 300 - 600 S C C T.D. 600 C S/C C S Perfs 220 - 770 S C S C Perfs 280 - 600 -400 C S Perfs 288 - 558 S/C -400 S C S/C S S S T.D. 620 C T.D. 640 Perfs 280 - 600 S/C S Perfs 370 - 640 C C C S S/C T.D. 685 C C S C S Perfs 270 - 670 C S C S T.D. 725 C C S/C -500 S/C Perfs 400 - 725 S/C S/C -500 C T.D. 820 S/C C C T.D. 740 S Perfs 280 - 520, S S Pefs 380 - 740 760 - 820 T.D. 760 T.D. 1,000 C C T.D. 805 S/C S/C S/C Perfs 380 -760 Perfs 350 - 600, S Perfs 320 - 480, S/C 520 - 800 712 - 1,000 -600 S/C -600

C Elevation (ft amsl) S/C C C

S C -700 S/C S -700 C C S S/C C C S S/C Elevation (ft amsl) S/C S S T.D. 1,200 -800 C Perfs 400 - 1,200 -800 T.D. 1,240 T.D. 1,020 Perfs 800 - 1,200 S/C T.D. 1,012 Perfs 590 - 1,002 Perfs 600 - 1,000 C C

-900 S/C -900 S S/C S/C C S/C

-1,000 S/C -1,000 C T.D. 1,394 S/C Perfs 281 - 1,394

S/C -1,100 C T.D. 1,300 -1,100 S S Deep Aquifer Perfs 560 - 690, S/C C 710 - 720, S/C C 730 - 760, S S 810 - 860, 900 - 930, C S/C 970 - 1,000, -1,200 C -1,200 C 1,020 - 1,050, S 1,060 - 1,080, S/C 1,090 - 1,140, C 1,150 - 1,260 T.D. 1,428 S Perfs 753 - 1,401 -1,300 -1,300 C S S/C C S C -1,400 -1,400 S

S -1,500 C -1,500

S S S

C B -1,600 S -1,600 C D

C C S Tule River S E′ Legend -1,700 -1,700 Vertical Scale State Well Number C E 22S/26E-14 (Township, Range, and Section) 0 S/C A A′ S/C -1,800 T.D. 1,975 T.D. 1,970 50 Land Surface -1,800

Perfs Unknown Perfs 1,472 - 1,970 Horizontal Scale Canal C

99 UV UV99 100 Miles ? C 0 1/2 1 2 UV65 Unknown Lithology T.D. 2,047 C Deer Creek Friant-Kern -1,900 Perfs Unknown Primarily Clay/Silt -1,900 S Perforation Interval Primarily Sand 200 UV45 Feet White River S/C Sand and Clay/Silt Mixture -2,000 S -2,000 Notes: S/C Total Depth of Completed Borehole Lithologic data from Department of Water Resources Well Compeletion Reports. C C T.D. 2,203 ′ (feet below land surface) B T.D. 240 Perfs 1,290 - 2,203 Wells within one half mile from cross section line unless otherwise noted by “ * ”. ′ Perfs 112 - 232 Corcoran Clay from USGS Professional Paper 1766, Perforation Interval(s) http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/pp1766_CorcoranClay.zip D′ -2,100 (feet below land surface) -2,100 ¨¦§5

Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-A′ Tule Groundwater Subbasin Plate 1 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group

400 400 400 400 400 400 400

350 350 350 350 350 350 350 400 on on on 300 on 300 300 300 on 300 300 on 300 on ti ti ti ti ti ti 400 ti 350 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 350

on 300

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 ti

on 300 250 ti 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 North 250 200 B South GroundwaterEleva GroundwaterEleva GroundwaterEleva GroundwaterEleva GroundwaterEleva GroundwaterEleva B′ 100 GroundwaterEleva 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 150 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 150

700 GroundwaterEleva 100 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GroundwaterEleva 100 50 2015 2015 2015 2015 2012 2012 2012 2012 2009 2009 2009 2009 2006 2006 2006 2006 2003 2003 2003 2003 2000 2000 2000 2000 1997 1997 1997 1997 1994 1994 1994 1994 1991 1991 1991 1991 1988 1988 1988 1988 1985 1985 1985 1985 1982 1982 1982 1982 1979 1979 1979 1979 1976 1976 1976 1976 1973 1973 1973 1973 2015 2015 2012 2012 2009 2009 2006 2006 2003 2003 2000 2000 1997 1997 1994 1994 2015 1991 1991 2012 1988 1988 2009 1985 1985 2006 1982 1982 2003 1979 1979 2000 1976 1976 1997 1973 1973 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 50 0 0 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973

600 (Kern County) 600 (Tulare County) 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 Tule Groundwater Subbasin Kern Groundwater Subbasin C - C′ White River 24S/26E-35P01

Subbasin Subbasin 24S/26E-35H02* Avenue 56 24S/26E-26F01 24S/26E-26 500 500 Tule Groundwater E - E′ A - A′ 24S/26E-02P01 24S/26E-11D01 24S/26E-15 24S/26E-15 24S/26E-15 24S/26E-22 24S/26E-34 Authority Boundary Kaweah Groundwater Wood Central Canal Friant-Kern Canal (Avenue 144)

Hightway 190 23S/26E-35H01* 23S/26E-34Q1 24S/26E-02 Deer Creek / Avenue 96 Deer Creek & Tule River 23S/26E-23R01 23S/26E-27* Tule River / Oettle Bridge 22S/26E-10J01 23S/26E-03 23S/26E-11 23S/26E-15H01 23S/26E-34 S/C 21S/26E-27 21S/26E-34 23S/26E-03R01 23S/26E-10 S/C 21S/26E-14N01 21S/26E-34 22S/26E-02 22S/26E-03 22S/26E-11 22S/26E-15 22S/26E-14L01 22S/26E-23G01 22S/26E-27 22S/26E-27R01 22S/26E-34 23S/26E-15P01 21S/26E-15F01 21S/26E-22R01 21S/26E-26 22S/26E-23 22S/26E-35 S C Avenue 208 21S/26E-22A01 21S/26E-26 22S/26E-26F01 S/C 20S/26E-34L01 21S/26E-02 21S/26E-10 21S/26E-15 S/C 20S/26E-27 ? S 400 20S/26E-34 21S/26E-03 Porter Slough C S 400 C S/C C S S/C S S/C S S/C S/C S/C C ? S S/C S/C ? S/C S S S 1987 ? S/C S 1987 1987 S/C S/C 1987 S S S S S 355 ft amsl S S/C S S/C C 1987 C 350 ft amsl 350 ft amsl 350 ft amsl S/C S/C S S S S S S 340 ft amsl C S/C S 1987 1987 S/C S S/C S/C S/C C 1987 S/C S C 330 ft amsl 325 ft amsl S/C C C S/C C S C C S C S 320 ft amsl 300 S/C S/C C C S S/C S/C S/C 300 S S/C 1987 C C S C S 295 ft amsl S S S/C S/C S S S/C C S/C S C S S/C S/C S S S 1987 1987 C S/C S S/C S S S/C C S S 2014 2014 S C S/C C S/C ? 275 ft amsl 275 ft amsl 2014 S 2014 C C C S/C C C S 2014 260 ft amsl C 265 ft amsl S/C Shallow C C 260 ft amsl 2014 S 1987 S/C C S/C C 255 ft amsl C S/C S S C S 1987 S/C S/C S C 250 ft amsl S/C S 245 ft amsl 2014 C S S 2014 S 250 ft amsl S 1987 C 1987 C S/C S 240 ft amsl S/C 240 ft amsl C 1987 S S S 235 ft amsl S/C 235 ft amsl 235 ft amsl S/C S 2014 S S/C S/C C C S 2014 C S Aquifer 225 ft amsl S C S/C T.D. 150 C S/C 215 ft amsl C S 220 ft amsl 200 S S S S/C S S S 200 S/C S Open Hole S/C S S 2014 S S C T.D. 174 S/C C S C S/C 135 - 150 C C C 190 ft amsl 2014 C C S 2014 2014 S S/C S S/C S/C S/C 2014 C S S/C C Perfs 118 - 168 C S 180 ft amsl 175 ft amsl 175 ft amsl S S C S/C S/C 170 ft amsl S 2014 C S/C S/C S/C S/C S C S 160 ft amsl C S S S/C S/C C S C S/C C S C S/C S/C C S S C T.D. 224 C S C C C C C S S S/C S C S S/C C S/C S Perfs 130 - 224 S C C C S/C C C C S 100 ? S C S S S/C C 100 C C S S/C S S S/C S/C S S C S/C S/C C C C S S/C S S/C S S/C C S C S C T.D. 290 C S/C S C C S C S/C C C S/C C S/C Perfs 204 - 290 S/C C C C C C C C S/C S S C S S C C S/C S S S S/C T.D. 372 C S/C S/C T.D. 330 S/C S/C S C C S/C T.D. 320 C S/C S T.D. 351 S/C S/C S/C Perfs 183 - 372 S/C S/C S/C Perfs 210 - 330 C C C S S 0 C Perfs 100 - 148, S Perfs S C 0 S/C C S/C S S C 152 - 312 S/C C Unknown S S S S S/C C S C S/C C S S/C C S S/C C S C C C C T.D. 400 C T.D. 400 C S/C S S/C S S S/C S T.D. 390 S S/C Perfs 120 - 400 S/C S/C C S/C Perfs 297 - 357, S C C C S S/C C C C S/C 377 - 397 C S/C C Perfs 230 - 310, C S/C S S S C S/C S 350 - 370 C S C C C S C S/C S C S/C -100 S/C S/C T.D. 448 S C S/C -100 T.D. 440 C C C S/C S/C C C C Perfs 228 - 236, S S S/C S Perfs 180 - 410 S/C C C S/C C C 248 - 270 S S/C S S/C S S/C C S/C C S C C S C S T.D. 510 S S/C S C T.D. 520 C S/C S/C S/C S S S/C C T.D. 500 C Perfs 300 - 330, S S/C S/C C S Perfs 240 - 520 S/C S/C C S/C Perfs 132 - 487 T.D. 540 T.D. 538 360 - 376, S/C C S S S C C C S/C S T.D. 540 S/C C C Perfs 120 - 520 Perfs 404 - 414 S C C -200 T.D. 560 C Perfs Unknown C S/C S S S -200 T.D. 538 S/C C 140 - 521 C C S C S S C Perfs 120 - 560 S S Perfs 293 - 533 S/C S C C S/C C S C S/C C C T.D. 600 S/C S C S C S C S/C S/C S/C T.D. 604 S/C Perfs 180 - 600 C S S C T.D. 625 S S S Perfs 120 - 604 T.D. 626 ? S C C C Perfs 204 - 626 S/C Perfs 205 - 622 C S/C C C C S S S/C C S C S S S/C T.D. 690 S/C S -300 C S S S C C -300 S/C C C C S Perfs 393 - 681 S/C S S S S/C T.D. 684 S/C C S Deep S/C S C S/C C C S C T.D. 750 Perfs 192 - 684 S/C C C C Perfs 126 - 630 S T.D. 687 T.D. 730 C C S C S S Aquifer S/C S Perfs Unknown C Perfs 440 - 720 S C S/C S S C S S S C (Casing to 677) C C S/C C S -400 C S C C C C -400 S S C S/C C S S T.D. 864 S/C S/C S T.D. 804 S/C S S/C C Perfs T.D. 800 C S S C Perfs 304 - 804 S/C T.D. 861 350 - 852 S S Perfs 280 - 800 S S/C C S S Perfs Unknown C C C C S S C C S -500 S/C C S/C S S S -500 S C C S/C S S C C C C S/C S ? S S S C S S T.D. 1,000 S C S/C C C S S C C Perfs 300 - 1,000 C S S/C T.D. 1,010 S C -600 S/C Perfs 405 - 1,010 C S -600 T.D. 1,000 C Elevation (ft amsl) C T.D. 1,008 Perfs 250 - 1,000 T.D. 1,020 S S C S/C S Perfs 400 - 600 Perfs 300 - 990 C C C S S/C S/C S C C S T.D. 1,069 C C -700 C S S -700 Perfs 567 - 1,011 C S C S C T.D. 1,125 C T.D. 1,100 S Perfs Unknown C Perfs Unknown C S/C S

Elevation (ft amsl) T.D. 1,125 C S/C S Perfs 360 - 1,120 S -800 S/C S C -800 T.D. 1,215 C C S Perfs Unknown S C C S (Casing to 1,215) T.D. 1,248 S Perfs 310 - 1,040 C C C C S S -900 C C -900 S S S C C C S/C T.D. 1,400 S/C C Perfs 600 - 1,400 T.D. 1,402 S/C -1,000 Perfs 550 - 1,400 -1,000 T.D. 1,400 S Perfs 375 - 1,400 S C T.D. 1,500 Perfs 600 - 1,500 -1,100 -1,100 S C

S/C -1,200 -1,200 S S/C

S/C -1,300 S -1,300 S/C

T.D. 1,720 Perfs 600 - 1,700 B S -1,400 D -1,400

Tule River E′ -1,500 -1,500 S/C E Legend A A′

-1,600 State Well Number -1,600 Vertical Scale Canal 22S/26E-14 (Township, Range, and Section) T.D. 2,020 0 99 UV UV99 Perfs 720 - 800, 820 - 2,000 UV65 S/C 50 Deer Creek Friant-Kern Land Surface -1,700 Horizontal Scale C S -1,700 Miles 100 UV45 ? 0 1/2 1 2 Unknown Lithology White River C Primarily Clay/Silt -1,800 S -1,800 Primarily Sand C Perforation Interval 200 C′ T.D. 2,225 Feet B′ S/C Perfs 600 - 2,225 Sand and Clay/Silt Mixture D′ S -1,900 Notes: -1,900 5 S/C Total Depth of Completed Borehole Lithologic data from Department of Water Resources Well Compeletion Reports. ¨¦§ T.D. 240 (feet below land surface) Wells within one half mile from cross section line unless otherwise noted by “ * ”. Perfs 112 - 232 Perforation Interval(s) (feet below land surface) -2,000 -2,000

-2,100 -2,100

Hydrogeologic Cross Section B-B′ Tule Groundwater Subbasin Plate 2 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group

C′ East 900

West C 24S/28S-33N01

Basin Boundary 800 800

24S/28E-31

700 700 Soil 24S/27E-34 24S/27E-34 24S/27E-35 Highway 65

S B-B′ 600 24S/27E-32K01 600 C ? 24S/26E-34 24S/27E-31 Friant-Kern Canal Richgrove Drive S/C

24S/26E-26 24S/26E-35H02 S S 24S/26E-27R01 500 24S/26E-34 S 500 S/C 24S/26E-33F02 S S S 24S/26E-32G01 S C S/C S S/C S/C S C S C S/C S/C S/C 400 C S S 400 S/C C C 24S/25E-35D01 S/C Highway 99 S 6th Ave 24S/25E-33 S S/C S C S/C S/C 24S/25E-32J01 S/C S 24S/24E-32H01 S S S 1987 S/C 1987 S/C 1987 325 ft amsl 300 D-D′ Highway 43 24S/24E-27L01 S/C S/C 300 1987 S/C 310 ft amsl S C 310 ft amsl S S/C 300 ft amsl S 24S/22E-34 24S/24E-32K 24S/22E-33 24S/22E-35E1 24S/22E-25N01 24S/23E-32N1 24S/23E-33G01 Road 40 24S/23E-33 24S/23E-34 ? S/C County Line 24S/23E-31N1 ? S/C S S/C S C 1987 S/C S/C Soil 250 ft amsl C 2014 C 1987 S S/C S 2014 1987 235 ft amsl C S 230 ft amsl 2014 230 ft amsl 225 ft amsl C S S S 200 S C S 220 ft amsl 200 S S S 2014 C S/C S S 200 ft amsl S S S/C C S/C C 2014 S/C S 2014 S C 2014 C 180 ft amsl C S/C 165 ft amsl 170 ft amsl S S/C S C S S C S/C S C S S S C S C C C S/C C S/C 100 S C C 100 S/C C S/C S S/C S S S C S S/C C S S/C Shallow Aquifer S S C S S/C S/C S S C C C C S S C S C S/C 0 S C 0 S/C C C S/C S S/C S Bedrock S S/C S C S S/C C S S/C S/C T.D. 845 S C S S/C C C Perfs 605 - 845 S C C C T.D. 470 S S S/C -100 C S Perfs S C S/C -100 C S S S/C 23 - 315 S C C C S 335 - 460 S/C S/C C C S C C S/C Confining Layer S S S C C S/C S/C S/C C S/C S/C S S/C S S T.D. 800 -200 S/C S Perfs 480 - 760 -200 S/C C C S S/C S C C S S/C C C S C C C S/C S C C S/C S S/C S/C S C S S/C S/C -300 S/C C S C S/C S -300 S S/C S S/C C S/C C S/C S C C S C S S C C S C T.D. 600 C S S/C S S/C S/C S Perfs 150 - 600 T.D. 850 C S S C S S S T.D. 800 C Perfs S S/C C C S Perfs 400 - 800 C 480 - 510 T.D. 864 -400 C S C 560 - 720 -400 C S Perfs 350 - 852 C S/C C 760 - 830 C S S S C C S/C C S/C S T.D. 900 C S C C Perfs 350 - 900 S S S C S/C C T.D. 925 S/C C S S S/C -500 S Perfs S -500 S S C S/C C S S 312 - 516 C T.D. 805 522 - 912 C S/C S Perfs 200 - 800 S/C S/C S/C S/C S T.D. 1,000 T.D. 780 S C S/C Perfs 300 - 1,000 Bedrock Perfs 301 - 751 C -600 C -600 T.D. 870 T.D. 1,301 Elevation (ft amsl) T.D. 820 Perfs 150 - 600 T.D. 830 C Perfs 452 - 1,301 T.D. 840 Perfs 347 - 801 S/C C Perfs 300 - 805 S S/C S Perfs 309 - 800

S C S/C C -700 C -700 T.D. 948 C S/C Perfs 320 - 925 S/C C Elevation (ft amsl)

-800 C -800 T.D. 1,206 Perfs 324 - 1,195 C S S/C C S C -900 C S/C Deep Aquifer T.D. 1,200 C -900 Perfs 294 - 1,200 T.D. 1,520 T.D. 1,114 C C Perfs 600 - 1,448 Perfs 241- 1,114 S/C C C S/C -1,000 -1,000 T.D. 1,200 T.D. 1,200 T.D. 1,200 T.D. 1,190 T.D. 1,200 Perfs 500 - 1,200 Perfs 500 - 1,200 Perfs 500 - 1,200 Perfs 490 - 1,190 Perfs 500 - 1,200

S/C

-1,100 -1,100

S/C T.D. 1,750 Perfs 600 - 1,750 -1,200 -1,200

T.D. 1,800 -1,300 Perfs 1,002 - 1,800 -1,300

-1,400 -1,400 B D -1,500 -1,500

Tule River E′

-1,600 -1,600 E

A A′ -1,700 Legend -1,700

Vertical Scale Canal State Well Number 22S/26E-14 0 99 (Township, Range, and Section) UV UV99 -1,800 -1,800 50 UV65 S/C Horizontal Scale Land Surface Deer Creek Friant-Kern C 100 Miles 0 1/2 1 2 ? 45 Unknown Lithology -1,900 UV C -1,900 Primarily Clay/Silt White River S Primarily Sand 200 Perforation Interval Feet S/C -2,000 Sand and Clay/Silt Mixture -2,000 C C′ S Notes: Lithologic data from Department of Water Resources Well Compeletion Reports. B′ S/C Total Depth of Completed Borehole Wells within one half mile from cross section line unless otherwise noted by “ * ”. T.D. 240 (feet below land surface) Well locations are denoted as purple dots on the map. D′ Perfs 112 - 232 Perforation Interval(s) -2,100 -2,100 ¨¦§5 (feet below land surface)

Hydrogeologic Cross Section C-C′ Tule Groundwater Subbasin Plate 3 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group

North D D′ South

800 800

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

Tulare - Kern County Line 21S/23E-6P1 E-E′ Basin Boundary Tule River 22S/23E-30 A - A′ 300 21S/23E-19 Basin Boundary C - C′ Garces Highway 300 21S/23E-18 21S/23E-19 21S/23E-30 Hwy 43 22S/23E-06 22S/23E-07 Avenue 54 24S/23E-32N1 21S/23E-31 22S/23E-06 22S/23E-07 22S/23E-07 22S/23E-18 22S/23E-30J01 22S/23E-30 Basin Boundary Avenue 192 21S/23E-7 Avenue 176 Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, not in Tule Subbasin

S/C 200 S ? ? S 200 1987 C C S/C S/C S/C S 1987 S 1987 S/C S 195 ft amsl 1987 C 1987 C C S S 190 ft amsl 190 ft amsl C S S/C S C 185 ft amsl C S 185 ft amsl 1987 S/C C S C 1987 C C S S 175 ft amsl 170 ft amsl C 1987 S/C S/C S ? S/C C S C ? S C C S/C C 160 ft amsl S/C C S C C C C 2014 C C S C C 2014 S 2014 C S 2014 S/C 2014 S S/C 2014 125 ft amsl 120 ft amsl S 120 ft amsl 2014 S 2014 S 120 ft amsl 100 S C 115 ft amsl S S/C C 115 ft amsl S S S 100 S/C C S C 110 ft amsl S/C 110 ft amsl S C 80% sand S/C S/C C S C C S C C S S C S S/C S S S/C S/C C S/C S S C C S C C C C C S C S/C C C S/C C S C S S S C C S S/C S C S C S/C C S S C S S/C S/C S S C S 0 S/C C C S/C S/C S/C S/C 0 S S C S/C S/C S S/C Shallow Aquifer S S S/C C C S S S/C S/C S S C S C S S C S/C S S S C C C S/C S/C C C C C S/C S/C S C S/C S S/C S/C S/C C S/C C C S S S/C C C C C S/C C S/C C C S/C S/C S C C C C S/C S S/C S S/C -100 S/C S S C S/C -100 S/C S S S/C S S S S C S/C C S C S/C C C S S S S C S C S/C S S/C C S C S S S/C S C S S S S/C S C C C C C S S/C C S S/C S/C S S/C C S S/C S S C C S S S S S C S S/C C S S/C C C C S/C C S S/C C S/C S S -200 S S S S/C C C S -200 C C C C S C S/C C C C S/C S T.D. 430 T.D. 430 S/C S/C C C S/C T.D. 430 S C S S Perfs 210 - 420 Confining Layer Perfs 210 - 420 S/C Perfs 210 - 420 C S C S/C S/C C C C S C T.D. 455 T.D. 460 C C C T.D. 456 C T.D. 470 Perfs 210 - 420 T.D. 470 Perfs 240 - 450 T.D. 460 T.D. 470 Perfs 0 - 200 T.D. 470 C T.D. 450 Perfs T.D. 480 Perfs 260 - 460 Perfs 210 - 450 -300 S Perfs 260 - 460 Perfs 248 - 458 -300 T.D. 510 C Perfs 238 - 448 Perfs 258 - 468 C Perfs 217- 467 S 258 - 438 T.D. 460 Perfs 210 - 450 S C C S/C S C S/C S/C S -400 S/C -400 C C S S S/C C T.D. 640 S Perfs 280 - 640 C S S/C T.D. 680 S/C -500 C Perfs 300 - 660 -500 S

S S/C C

-600 S S -600 C S Elevation (ft amsl) C

S S S/C S -700 -700 C

S/C C

Elevation (ft amsl) S -800 -800 S/C T.D. 1,020 Perfs 415 - 980 T.D. 1,020 Perfs 660 - 1,000

-900 -900

C Deep Aquifer -1,000 S T.D. 1,200 -1,000 Perfs 500 - 1,200

S/C

-1,100 -1,100 C

T.D. 1,350 Perfs 515 - 1,000

-1,200 -1,200

-1,300 -1,300

-1,400 -1,400

B D -1,500 -1,500

Tule River E′ -1,600 -1,600

-1,700 A A′ -1,700

Legend Canal Vertical Scale 99 0 UV UV99 State Well Number -1,800 22S/26E-14 (Township, Range, and Section) -1,800 UV65 50 Deer Creek Friant-Kern Horizontal Scale S/C Land Surface C 100 Miles -1,900 -1,900 0 1/2 1 2 UV45 ? Unknown Lithology White River C Primarily Clay/Silt S 200 Perforation Interval Primarily Sand -2,000 Feet -2,000 C C′ S/C B Sand and Clay/Silt Mixture Notes: ′ S Lithologic data from Department of Water Resources Well Compeletion Reports. S/C Total Depth of Completed Borehole Wells within one half mile from cross section line unless otherwise noted by “ * ”. D′ (feet below land surface) -2,100 Well locations are denoted as purple dots on the map. T.D. 240 -2,100 Perfs 112 - 232 5 ¨¦§ Perforation Interval(s) (feet below land surface) Hydrogeologic Cross Section D-D′ Tule Groundwater Basin Plate 4 1-Aug-17 Tule Subbasin MOU Group

E′ East 900 West E

800 800

700 700

Basin Boundary 600 600

Friant-Kern Canal 500 Hwy 65 500

21S/27E-15 B - B′ Rd 208 21S/27 E-08 21S/27E-10 21S/27E-07 20S/26E-35 400 20S/26E-34 21S/27E-06 400 20S/26E-33 21S/26E-01 S/C 1987 North Bend 385 ft amsl Rd 152 ? 1987 C Hwy 99 1987 D - D′ S/C 365 ft amsl C S/C 20S/25E-25 20S/26E-30 1987 360 ft amsl C C C 350 ft amsl C 21S/24E-11 20S/25E-27 S 21S/23E-13 21S/24E-01 21S/25E-06 20S/25E-33 1987 S/C Basin Boundary Hwy 43 325 ft amsl S 21S/24E-16 21S/24E-09 21S/24E-10 20S/25E-31 20S/25E-32 S/C C 2014 300 6th Ave S/C 310 ft amsl S/C 300 21S/24E-17 S/C 1987 21S/23E-24 21S/24E-18 C 1987 S/C S S C 21S/23E-23 295 ft amsl C 2014 C C C 290 ft amsl 2014 21S/23E-32 21S/23E-29 21S/23E-28 21S/23E-27 1987 S 1987 S/C 280 ft amsl C 21S/23E-31 C 1987 S C 2014 C 275 ft amsl 1987 270 ft amsl 275 ft amsl C S C 22S/22E-10 22S/22E-03 21S/22E-35 22S/22E-02 S 1987 S/C 265 ft amsl S/C C 265 ft amsl C S 1987 260 ft amsl C S/C 2014 C C 1987 C 1987 250 ft amsl C 253 ft amsl S/C 2014 S/C C C C S S 2014 240 ft amsl T.D. 170 T.D. 185 C 1987 235 ft amsl 240 ft amsl S 235 ft amsl S S/C 1987 S S S S 2014 2014 C 230 ft amsl S S/C Perfs 120 - 160 S 225 ft amsl 2014 2014 S/C Perfs 100 - 160 S 1987 S 217 ft amsl C S S/C C 220 ft amsl C 220 ft amsl 200 C S C 2014 210 ft amsl 215 ft amsl S 200 S/C 1987 210 ft amsl C S S/C S/C S S/C C C C 2014 200 ft amsl S C 195 ft amsl S S S/C S S/C 1987 C S C C S 190 ft amsl S/C C ? 1987 ? S C C C C C S/C 180 ft amsl S S C S/C S 2014 C S/C T.D. 200 170 ft amsl S/C 170 ft amsl S S C C S 2014 C C S S C S Perfs 96 - 176 2014 S C C 2014 157 ft amsl S S/C 2014 2014 C S S S C C S S/C 145 ft amsl C 2014 C 145 ft amsl S/C C C 140 ft amsl S 142 ft amsl S C C S/C C S/C C S S/C 2014 135 ft amsl S S C S S S 125 ft amsl C C S C S S/C 100 S/C C C S/C S C S/C C S C S/C C 100 S S C S/C S S/C S C S C S C S/C S S/C S/C S/C C C C C S/C C C C S C S S/C C S/C S S/C S S S/C C S S S S C S C C C S C S S S S S/C C S/C C S C S C S C C S S/C C S/C S C S/C S S/C S C S S/C S/C S C S/C S C C S S S S/C S/C S/C C C C C 0 S/C S/C S C C C S/C C 0 C S S S S S/C S S S C C C S S/C S/C C C C C S S S C S C S S S/C S S S/C C C S/C S/C S/C C S S C C C S/C S C S S/C C T.D. 400 T.D. 420 C S C S S/C S S/C C S S S C C C S C Shallow S S C C Perfs 135 - 396 Perfs Unknown C S/C C S/C S/C C S/C S/C Test Borehole S S S/C S S C C S/C S/C S T.D. 390 S/C S C S C S -100 C C C S/C S/C S/C S/C Perfs 275 - 375 -100 S S/C C S C S/C T.D. 388 C T.D. 440 S S/C Aquifer C S S/C C S S/C C S C S/C C S Perfs 193 - 384 S/C Perfs 180 - 410 S/C S C T.D. 515 C C C C S S/C C C C C S C T.D. 460 S/C S/C C S/C S C S/C Perfs 90 - 515 S S S Perfs 180 - 450 S/C S/C S/C S S C S C C S/C S S/C S/C C C T.D. 385 S/C S S -200 C C S S C S/C C C S -200 S Perfs 180 - 378 S T.D. 430 S/C C S/C S S S/C S S C S S S C C Perfs 210 - 420 C S C C S C C S/C C C C C T.D. 460 T.D. 470 S S/C T.D. 465 S S/C S/C ? S/C Perfs 240 - 440 Perfs 260 - 460 C S C S T.D. 450 Perfs 240 - 450 S/C C C C C S/C T.D. 550 Perfs 240 - 440 C S C C S T.D. 540 C Perfs 300 - 510 T.D. 602 C S/C S S S S/C Perfs 240 - 510 -300 T.D. 530 S Perfs 122 - 592 S -300 S C S/C C C S/C C Perfs 270 - 510 S/C S/C C C S T.D. 580 S Confining S S S/C C C Perfs 260 - 580 C T.D. 580 C S T.D. 700 C Perfs 270 - 570 C S C C S/C T.D. 615 Perfs Unknown S Perfs 270 - 600 C Layer T.D. 610 S/C -400 C S/C S -400 S/C Perfs 280 - 600 C C T.D. 615 S C C T.D. 675 Perfs 300 - 600 S/C C S Perfs 270 - 660 S C T.D. 715 Perfs 300 - 700 T.D. 680 C -500 S -500 Perfs 300 - 660 T.D. 730 S S/C Perfs 204 - 730 S/C S C S/C C -600 S/C C -600 S/C Elevation (ft amsl) S/C C T.D. 825 C Perfs 522 - 792

C S/C -700 -700 C Deep S/C C C

Elevation (ft amsl) S/C S/C Aquifer -800 -800

C C

S/C -900 S/C -900 C S/C S/C C C S/C S/C C -1,000 S/C -1,000 C C S/C S/C

S/C C C -1,100 -1,100 S/C S/C C T.D. 1,338 S/C C Perfs 782 - 1,323 C -1,200 S/C S -1,200 C C S/C C S S/C S/C S C S/C S/C C -1,300 C -1,300 S/C S/C C C T.D. 1,520 S Perfs 890 - 1,490 C -1,400 T.D. 1,570 -1,400 Perfs 810 - 850 880 - 1,240 1,260 - 1,300 S/C 1,320 - 1,360 B 1,400 - 1,480 -1,500 D -1,500

Tule River E′ -1,600 -1,600

E S -1,700 Legend -1,700 A A′ Vertical Scale State Well Number

0 22S/26E-14 (Township, Range, and Section) Canal

99 -1,800 T.D. 1,971 UV 99 -1,800 50 UV S/C Perfs 676 - 1,932 Horizontal Scale Land Surface C UV65 Miles 100 Deer Creek Friant-Kern 0 1/2 1 2 ? Unknown Lithology -1,900 C -1,900 Primarily Clay/Silt 45 UV S 200 Perforation Interval Primarily Sand White River Feet S/C -2,000 Sand and Clay/Silt Mixture -2,000 S Notes: Lithologic data from Department of Water Resources Well Compeletion Reports. C C′ S/C Total Depth of Completed Borehole Wells within one half mile from cross section line unless otherwise noted by “ * ”. B T.D. 240 (feet below land surface) Well locations are denoted as purple dots on the map. ′ Perfs 112 - 232 Perforation Interval(s) -2,100 -2,100 D′ (feet below land surface)

¨¦§5

Hydrogeologic Cross Section E-E′ Tule Groundwater Basin Plate 5 1-Aug-17 1260 N. Hancock St. Suite 109 Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 779-3875 [email protected]