Department o Water Resource . Bulletin 132-8 The California State Water Project­ Current Activities ·and Future Management Plans .. October 1980 uey D. Johnson, Edmund G. Brown Jr. Ronald B. Robie ecretary for Resources Governor Director he Resources State of Department of . gency California Water Resources - ,~ -- performance levels corresponding to holder of the water rights. if the project capabilities as facilities are Contra Costa Canal should be relocated developed. Briefly, the levels of along a low-level alignment in the dt'velopmentcomprise: 1) prior to the future, the question of ECCID involve­ operation of New Melones, 2) after New ment will be considered at that time. Melones is operational but before operation of the Peripheral 'Canal, and SB 200, when implemented, will amend the 3) after the Peripheral Canal is oper­ California Water Code to include provi­ ational. sion that issues between the State and the delta water agencies concerning the The SDWA has indicated that the pro­ rights of users to make use of the posal is unacceptable. In March of waters of the Delta may be resolved by 1980, the Department proposed to reop­ .arbitration. en negotiation such that any differ- ·ences remaining between the Agency and WATER CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT the Department after September 30 be submitted to arbitration. The SDWA Thirty-one water agencies have entered also rejected that proposal. Before into long-term contracts with the State negotiations resume, SDWA wants to for annual water supplies from the State complete its joint study with WPRS. Water Project. A list of these agen­ The study concerns the CVP and SWP im­ cies, along with other information con­ pacts on south Delta water supplies. cerning each water agency and their ser­ vice areas, is shown in Figure 5. As o Central Delta Water Agency and Contra noted in Figure 5, cumulative deliver­ Costa County Water Agency. ies (Column.2 of the .Figure) include both Project and nonproject water deliv­ No current negotiations are in prog­ eries from SWP facilities. (Annual ress with either entity. water entitlement deliveries through 1979 are shown for each agency 1n Table B-5B of Appendix B.) o Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) Project water supplies in 1979, were The Department has drafted a pre 1 imin­ sufficient to meet all water contractor ary contract based on the North Delta requests for SWP water deliveries. Water Agency contract. The draft con­ Although runoff in the Sacramento and tract is presently being reviewed by Feather River basins during the 1979 BBID. water year (October 1, 1978 through Sep­ tember 30, 1979) was somewhat below nor­ o East Contra Cost~ Irrigation District mal, storage in SWPreservoirs was above (ECCID) . normal asa result of a large holdover from the wet year of 1978. Actual use During late 1979 and early 1980, meet­ of Project water by contractors in 1979 ings were held with ECCID to determine was below September 1978 projections of mutually acceptable contract qual- use in 1979 for Southern California, 1t1es. Substantial agreement has been South Bay, and Feather River servi.ce reached,and it is anticipated that a areas but slightly greater in the San contract will be completed during Joaquin Valley. Overall, 1979 Project 1980. This contract will assure ECCID .water deliveries, totaling over 2.9 mil­ of specified qualities at their pres- • lion cubic dekametres (2.36 million ent intake in Indian Slough. The con- acre-feet) .during the year, were highest tract will not require landowner rati­ of record since the SWP began operations fication,' since the Districti"l th-E> in 1962. 70 Table 3 of this and previous Bulletins ation and po~ulation served by the SWP. ,in the 132 series shows annual delivery The population totals, when compared to amounts of Project and nonproject water statewide amounts, show that the SWP to both long-term contractors and all accounts for a substantial part of the other agencies Which received water de­ statewide totals. liveries from facilities of the State Water Project. Actual and projected Water Deliveries in 1979 annual deliveries of both Project and nonproject water to contractors and non­ During 1979, the SWP provided water ser­ contractors are summarized in Table 1. vice to 36 agencies. These agencies in­ Column 2 of Figure 5 shows that seven cluded 23 long-term contractors and 13 contractors have yet to receive water noncontractors. Monthly deliveries to frQm Project water facilities. An each of the 36 are shown in Table 3 and ,eighth contractor, Napa County Flood summarized as follows: Control and Water Conservation District, has received only nonproject water, o 1 728 494 cubic dekametres which was pumped and delivered through (1,401,292 acre-feet) of 1979 entitl the SWP facilities. The water contract ment water to 23 long-term of one of the eight contractors, Palm­ contractors. ?'a1e Water District, calls for deliver­ ies of Project water beginning in 1972. o 247 455 cubic dekametres (200,604 ,H ever, the District has elected not to acre-feet) of entitlement makeup take water deliveries at this time. water, under Article 12(d) of the Contracts of the other seven specify long-term contracts, resulted from initial deliveries to be made after reduced water deliveries during the 1979. 1977 drought. Several contractors have obtained far 08 635 cubic dekametres (7,000 acre­ less water than the amount contracted feet) of entitlement makeup,~ater for, because current needs are less than under Article 14(b) of the long-term those projected at the time their con­ contract. tracts were signed in the early and mid- 1960's. Differences betwe~n contracted o 62 908 cubic dekametres (51,000 acre­ amounts (annual entitlements) and actual feet) of entitlement water to two con­ deliveries through 1979 may be deter­ tractors under delivery rights ac­ mined by comparing the annual entitle­ quired pursuant to the "wet weather" ment values shown in Table B-4 to the provisions in Article 45 of their actual delivered amounts shown in long-term contracts. Table B-5B. In 1979, fourteen contrac­ tors took less Project water than their o 799 788 cubic dekametres contracted 1979 entitlement amount (see (648,389 acre-feet) of surplus water Table 3). Overall cumulative State de- to six long-term contractors and two liveries of all types of water since noncontractors. 1962, including deliveries of SWP sur­ plus water to the 31 contractors, exceed 24 732 cubic dekametres {20,050 acre­ the cumulative total of all annual con­ feet} of emergency relief water to one tract entitlements through 1979. long-term contractor and one noncontractor. Figure 5 also contains maximum annual entitlement amounts for each contracting o 6 285 cubic dekametres {5,095 acre­ agency, total payments by agencies feet} of preconsolidation repayment through 1979, gross area assessed valu- water to Belridge Oil Company. o 33 862 cubic dekametres (27,452 acre Therefore, the need for pro; ec t wa ter in· feet) of local water to three long­ that area;" especially· for maintain ten~ contractors and two ground water basins, was well below that noncontractors. anticipated in the fall of 1978. State­ wide, 12 contractors in 1979 took a o 37 005 cubic dekametres (30,000 acre total of 533 138 cubic dekametres feet) of 1978 exchange water conveyed (432,216 acre-feet) less entitlement to Southern California storage in water than they had been initially sche­ ground water basins within the Metro­ duled to receive. politan Service area. o 129 588 cubic dekametres Makeup Water DeZiveries. Each of the (105,033 acre-feet) of Federal CVP contractors scheduled to receive Proj~ct water wheeled for eight San Joaquin entitlement water during 1977, with the Valley agencies. exception of Butte County and Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conserva­ EntitZement Water DeZiveries. Every tion District, acquired rights under f~ll the State obtains from each con­ Article 12(d) of the water supply con­ tractor an estimate of its future re­ tract to the future delivery of Project quirements for Project water. Estimates water. The future delivery amount received in the fall of 1978 showed that equalled the reduction in the initially 23 contractors projected need for . scheduled 1977 entitlement delivery 2 288 746 cubic dekametres (1,855,003 amounts made due to the drought. In ad­ acre-feet) of entitlement water in 1979 dition, two contractors, Antelope plus substantial quantities of surplus Valley-East Kern Water Agency and The and entitlement makeup water. The ap­ Metropolitan Water District of Southern proved report, entitled "Operational California, acquired future delivery Criteria for the State Water Project in rights to 5 905 cubic dekametres 1979" (The Rule Curve), showed that on (4,787 acre-feet) pursuant to Art- the basis of water supply conditions as icle 14(b); and 32 872 cuhic dekametres of December 1, 1978 "and Project water (26,649 acre-feet) pursuant to then in storage, all requested entitle­ Article 12(b) of their water contract as ment and entitlem~nt makeup water could a result of a" 1976 nondelivery. be delivered in 1979. Based on this, schedules approving the 1979 delivery of 2 261 632 cubic dekametres During 1979, 5 contractors (shown in (1,833,508 acre-feet) of entitlement Column 3 of Table 2) took delivery of a water were issued on December 15, 1978. total of 247 455 cubic dekametres Approved scheduled amounts were the sam (200,604 acre-feet) of Article L2(d) as the amounts requested in the fall, water. In addition, Kern County Water except for two schedules that were re­ Agency took delivery of the 8 635 cubic duced at the water contractors' request dekametres (7,000 acre-feet) of Article 14(b) water.