NOTF - ERICINTRODUCTORY LESSON The California Water Map OBJECTIVES Students will be able to: 1....

ED 362 380

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTF

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 053 437

Wheatley, Judy; Sudman, Rita Schmidt, Ed.California's Water Problems.Water Education Foundation, Sacramento, CA.California State Dept. of Education, Sacramento.89112p.

Water Education Foundation, 717 K street, Suite 517,Sacramento, CA 95814.Guides Classroom Use Instructional Materials (ForLearner) (051) Guides Classroom Use TeachingGuides (For Teacher) (052)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.*Controversial Issues (Course Content); CooperativeLearning; *Environmental Education; InstructionalMaterials; Intermediate Grades; Junior High Schools;Maps; Middle Schools; *Problem Solving; Role Playing;Small Group Instruction; *Social Sciences; StudentResearch; *Water Pollution; Water Quality; *WaterResources; Worksheets

IDENTIFIERS *California; Environmental Issues; EnvironmentalProblems; Hands on Experience; Posters; WaterDistribution; Water Rights

ABSTRACT

This packet of instructional materials is designed togive social science students in grades 6-9 a first-hand experience inworking out solutions to real-life problems involving the managementof California's water. Students work in groups on one of threeproblems presented in the packet: (1) the management of theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta that empties into the San Francisco Bay;(2) the clean-up of the Kesterson Reservoir; and (3) the cut-back oEwater resources that California receives from rights to water fromthe Colorado River. Each student in the group is given a specificrole to play in the problem, fact sheets with background informationabout their controversy, a list of players, details about the rolethey are to assume, and research questions relevant to the problem.After the research is completed, students work together to find asolution to the problem. Additional resources include a CaliforniaWater Hap to familiarize students with California's water geography;a chart indicating California's water system; a Colorado River WaterMap; a Layperson's Guide to the Colorado River; a Layperson's Guideto the Delta; a Layperson's Guide to Agricultural Drainage a

vocabulary list; and a bibliography of 40 references of books,reference resources, videos, and other materials related to thetopic. The maps are poster-size and have not been reproduced by ERIC.(MDH)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document.******************************************************************

\a . ".fth

10...0.0k.

A.A.A.A.A..A.A.*

..4.4L

A.A

_0.00-

u S. OsPARTANENT Of !DUCATS:*OeFic Ot Educationel Regrowth of* ImproeornentEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORW.T1ON

CENTER (ERiC)

This document nee been nututuneeroolNkNIO from Ilve with or 0")111102111,041009olating it.

Minor eland** nevd boon mode lo Improvemwoduction Quante

'N .04.Am° Pointed VNIW 0011110011staloO this dome.mom do not nethwerey roOggelleml onkelORI palito0" Or (20"Cy

1

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Valerie Holcomb

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

.....A-.A.$140.0.000"=0,"Ad. Aos

-0

AN.0N...vArA"

/sr../A ...A.A....4.A

.490.

444

A.A.4./..A.A.Is

PEST COOlf AVAILABLE

Editor:Rita Schmidt Sudman

Author:Judy Wheatley

Design:Design Resource

Photos:California Department of Water

ResourcesU.S. Bureau of ReclamationWater Education FoundationMetropolitan Water District of

Southern California

Artwork for seals:State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Department of Water

ResourcesU.S. Bureau of ReclamationCalifornia Department of Fish

and GameMetropolitan Water District of

Southern CaliforniaState Water ContractorsKcrn County Water AgencyThe Bay Institute of San FranciscoEnvironmental Defense FundCentral Valley Project Water

AssociationWestlands Water DistrictFresno County Farm BureauU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUniversity of CaliPrniaU.S. Geological SurveyImperial Irrigation DistrictRepublic of MexicoLos Angeles Department of Water

and PowerState of California

TEACHER INTRODUCTION 2

THE CAI:IFORNI: WATER MAP 3

PART 1: THE DELTA DILEMMA

PART III: THE COLORADO RIVER CUT-BACK 31

This project was jointly funded by the Water Education Foundationand the California Department of Education, Environmental/EnergyEducation Grant Program

Some additional funding was supplied by the state Departmentof Water Resources

The Water Education Foundation's booklet included in this packetmay be duplicated by teachers

The Water Education Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization.Its mission is to broaden pi.hblic understanding of current water resourceissues by fairly and accurately presenting information and the views ofresponsible persons and organizations

1989

For more information on watu and otherinformational materials contact:

Water Education Foundation717 K Street, Suite 517Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 444-6240

alifornia haslived up to the

4frterMark Twainmaxim: "Whis-

key is for drinking. Wateris for fighting." Datingback to when the padresirritated the Indians bydiverting streams to irrigatemission lands and to the49ers' arguments oversloughs for their sluiceboxes, water has been afocal point for controversyin California.

In the three scenarios inthis program, students willget first-hand experiencetrying to work out a solu-tion to a real-life probleminvolving the managementof California's water. Theclass may be divided intotwo or three small groups.The groups may work onthe same controversy or adifferent controversy in theset. Each student in thegroup will be given a roleto play. Students will

2

receive fact sheets withbackground informationabout their controversy, alist of the players, anddetails about the role theyare to assume. Then theteacher can give them oneor more problems to workon and suggestions abouthow to get more in-depthinformation. Students willbe expected to research andwrite a short report on aspecific topic that willprepare them for their partsin the discussion. Theresearch topics are listed atthe end of each playerdescription.

4

Approximately a weekshould be allowed forstudents to write theirresearch papers. Duringthis time, the teacher shoulduse some class time toconduct a lesson on theCalifornia Water Map tofamiliarize students withCalifornia's water geogra-phy (see "IntroductoryLesson"). When the re-search papers have beencompleted, each personpresents the best sugges-tion for the solution ofthe problem from his orher role's point of view.Then the group mustreach a consensus on thebest approach by debatingthe merits of each proposi-tion and reaching a com-promise.

"Whiskey is for drinking. Wateris for fighting."

Mark Twain

This material is structuredto comply with the cur-riculum organizationestablished by the statehistory/social scienceframework. Thiscooperative learning ex-ercise meets the needexpressed in theframework fat. id lifeproblem solving bcrategies.

The teacher should makethe students aware thatthese water issues continueto be problems debatedthroughout California. Forthis reason, some of theinformation will be es-tablished fact, while othermaterial will be still open todebate. Encourage studentsto think about the source ofreference material andwhether or not it is likely tocontain a bias.

410:01A,117

LA'

4424. 11,765,4SA41:715:1,!:;

tj

11 *Is741."

INTRODUCTORY LESSON

The CaliforniaWater Map

OBJECTIVES

Students will be able to:

1. Explain the relation-ship of California'sgeography to its watersupply.

2. Trace the drainagepattern of rivers inthe Central Valley.

3. Be able to use thetext, scale, and legendof the map to obtainuseful information.

WA

TEACHER INST UCTIONS

Hang the California WaterMap in a location where allstudents can observe it. Thefollowing questions (withanswers in parentheses) aremeant to be only a guidefor discussion.

What do the differentcolored lines indicate?

(Water courses like riversand canals. Have a studentidentify the meaning of thedifferent colors.)

Where do most rivers inCalifornia start?

(In the mountains)

Most of the rivers inCalifornia drain into onelarge area, what is it?

(The Central Valley)

What are the two mainrivers which run northand south?

(The Sacramento and SanJoaquin Rivers)

What area do these tworivers drain into?

(The Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta)

About seventy-fivepercent of the rain and.snow in California fallsin the northern part ofthe state, but overseventy-five percent ofthe people live in thesouthern part of Cali-fornia. How is watermoved to the places it isneeded?

(In aqueducts andcanals)

Clair Engle Lake0

Whiskeytown Res.

SACRAMENTO RIVER

A A146

110 01111=111111111 0

Shasta Lake

Lake Oroville

I

Folsom Lake

Sacramento-San Joaquin DeltaNew Melones Res.

Contra Costa Canal

Existing and AuthorizedMajor Features of theState Water Project andCentral Valley Project

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

Delta Mendota CanalNSan Luis Res.

California Aqueduct

Colorado RiverAqueduct

LEGEND

State Water Project

Central Valley Project

Joint Use Facilities

4 6

r

mumwakb_1immia01,z

The following worksheetcan be assigned as groupor inchvidual class work.

1. List the sources ofwater shown on themap that are within50 miles of yourschool.

2. What federal watersource is nearestyour school?

3. Locate theSacramento-SanJoaquin Delta anddescribe where itbegins and ends.

4. How many ofCalifornia's riversare classified "Wildand Scenic?"

5. What is the largestreservoir in the StateWater Project (SWP)system?

6. Trace the path ofwater from thenorthernmost part ofthe SWP to thesouthern end.

5 ri EST COPII AVA

7. What Californiaindustry is the singlelargest user ofCalifornia'sdeveloped water?What percent is thisof the state's totalwater runoff?

8. The Sacramento-SanJoaquin Valley andthe Imperial Valleyare two major agri-cultural areas inCalifornia. How dotheir water sourcesdiffer?

9. Where does the cityof San Francisco getits water?

10. What water sourcedo San Diego and theImperial Valley havein common?

11. How far does theOwens Valley waterflow from its sourceto Los Angeles?

12. What are somebenefits Californiansreceive from ourwell-managed watersupply?

,

6

a

1. Answers will vary.

2. Answers will vary.

3. The 'Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta begins wherethe Sacramento Riverbranches out north and eastof San Francisco and endssouth of Stockton. It emp-ties into San FranciscoBay.

4. There are ten wild andscenic rivers in California:all of the Smith, parts of theKlamath, Trinity, VanDuzen, Scott, Eel, Salmon,Feather, American andTuolumne Rivers.

5 . The largest reservoir inthe SWP is Lake Oroville.

6. The SWP flows fromLake Oroville souththrough the Feather Riverto the Sacramento, throughthe Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta, splits toform the South Bay Aque-duct and the CaliforniaAqueduct which terminatesat Lake Perris east of LosAngeles.

7. The largest user ofCalifornia' s developedwater (in canals and reser-voirs behind dams) isagriculture (85%). Agricul-ture uses 31% of the state' stotal runoff.

8. The Sacramento-SanJoaquin Valley is richlysupplied with water frommany rivers draining intothe valley. The ImperialValley must import water

from the Colorado River.

9. San Francisco gets itswater from the HetchHetchy Reservoir in theSierra via the Hetch HetchyAqueduct.

10. San Diego and theImperial Valley both getwater from the ColoradoRiver.

8

11 . The Los Angeles Aque-duct is approximately 240miles long.

12. Californians benefit byhaving water managed for:irrigation, flood control,fish and wildlife support,improvement of naviga-tional watenvays, drinkingwater, water quality con-trol, recreational opportu-nities, generation of cleanhydroelectric power.

Aerial view of theSan Joaquin Delta

,

lowing south,fed by thenorthern SierraNevada, the

Sacramento River meets thenorthbound San JoaquinRiver to form the Sacra-mento-San Joaquin Delta inthe Central Valiey. The tworivers mingle with smallerrivers to form a 700-mile-long maze of rivers andsloughs surrounding 57islands, many of themagricultural.

Their combined freshwater flows then roll onthrough the CarquinezStrait, a narrow break in theCoast Ranges, and on intoSan Francisco Bay'snorthern arm. Suisun Marshand adjoining bays are thebrackish transition betweenthe freshwater flowing fromthe rivers and the salt waterof the Bay.

7

The area has always beenat the mercy of river flowsand tides. Even beforehumans changed the Deltaenvironment, salty oceanwater from San FranciscoBay crept up Delta

channels during drysummers, when mountainrunoff slowed down. Then,during the winter, heavyrunoff from the mountainskept the sea water out ofthe Delta. Upstream dams,including giant Shasta, helpcontrol this problem today.

OBJECTIVES


1. Collect informationabout the problem,organize it, state theirposition, listen to thepositions of others, andreach a compromise

agreement.

2. Conclude thatwater is a resource of allthe people of California

and must bemanaged for thelIgnefit of all.

3. Discover that decisionsabout the environmentare difficult and thatmany viewpoints andinterests must beconsidered.

4. Describe the complexenvironment of anestuary.

5. Explain where thewater in their communitycomes from.

6. Describe how toxicpollutants endangerCalifornia's water supply.

The Delta. as we know it,is largely a human inven-tion. Early explorers founda vast mosquito-infestedtidal marshland coveredwith bullrushes called tules.Later, trappers took advan-tage of the abundant wild-life. They were followed byfarmers, some of them un-successful gold-seekers,who discovered wealth ofanother sort: fertile soil.Progressively higher leveeswere built to keep the sur-rounding waters out, landswere pumped dry, and whatonce was uncontrolledmarshland was transformedinto productive farmland.

Continued

7-

No other single area isquite as crucial to thestate's overall water pictureas the Delta - it forms thecornerstone of California'stwo largest water projects.Its existing channels areused to transport water tothe federal and state pumpsin the southern Delta. Fromthere water is channeledsouth and west throughcanals and aque-ducts to thesouth Bay area, A.

agriculture-rich SanJoaquin Valleyand an esti-mated 18 millionurban Californians,mostly in SouthernCalifornia.

Water also flows westthrough the Delta and SanFrancisco Bay to the ocean,holding back the salt watersof the Bay and protectingwater quality for consump-tion, recreation, and fishand wildlife. With brackishmarshes and San FranciscoBay. the Delta forms part ofan estuary and an importanthabitat for millions ofmigrating wildfowl, fishand other fauna and flora.

The Delta has gainedconsiderable notoriety overthe years as conflictinggeographic areas andinterests vie for more water.Setting quality and flowstandards for the Delta and

issuing water right permitshave been ongoing

responsibilities of theState Water

ResourcesControl Board

cp (SWRCB). Asknowledge and

understanding ofthis complex region

have increased, thesedecisions have been chal-lenged, updated, andmended. For severalyears, starting in 1987, theSWRCB will be conduct-ing hearings to deal withproblems exactly like theones proposed in this unit.

8

1. Director of theCalifornia Departmentof Water Resources

2. Regional Director ofthe U.S. Bureau ofReclamation

3. Director of theCalifornia Departmentof Fish and Game

4. General Manager ofthe MetropolitanWater District ofSouthern California

S. General Manager ofthe State WaterContractors

6. Manager of the KernCounty WaterAgency

7. Senior Researcher forthe Bay Institute ofSan Francisco

8. Attorney for theEnvironmentalDefense Fund

9. Director for theCentral Valley ProjectWater UsersAssociation

Recreationin the Delta

How muchmore of thewater flowinginto the Delta

could be diverted foragriculture, for instanceinto Kern County, whichproduces over $1.6 billionyearly?

Salmon andstriped bass

404feed in the Bayand migrate to

the rivers and streamsflowing into theDelta tospawn.What wasonce a $7.5millionsportfishingindustry in the1960's is now greatlyreduced. Scientists areunsure whether it ispollution or water diver-sion that is responsible forthe loss of young fish.What can be done?

The Departmentof Water Re-sources estimatesthat the popula-

tion of California willclimb from the present 28million to over 36 millionby 2010. Over five millionmore people are expectedto be in the South Coastarea, the coastal regionextending from VenturaCounty south tothe

City of San Diegouses Delta water

Tomatoes grownwith Delta .water in theSan Joaquin Valley

9

Mexican Border.This area is expected torequire over 604,000additional acre-feet ofwater to meet the needs ofits expanding population.Where will this extra water_

come from?

he CaliforniaDepartment ofWater Resources(DWR) serves

two principal functions:statewide water planning,and developing and man-aging the State WaterProject (SWP). The Direc-tor's job is to balance theneeds of the different areasof the state. DWR feelsthere will be an increasingdemand for water, bothabove and below the Delta,for urban use and to correctgroundwater overdraft. Ingeneral, DWR is opposedto increasing the flow ofwater out through the Baybecause less water wouldbe available in SWP serviceareas. The Director mustalso plan for future statewater needs.

10

111 A II

California Aqueductof the State Water Project

w

The State Water Project

How large is it? Whereare its reservoirs? Howmuch water do theyhold? Who does the SWPsupply with water? Howmuch? How does thewater get to the serviceareas? How is the waterdivided up? Are therelaws about this?

EST OK MIMI

-11Ij he Bureau ofReclamationoversees thefunctions of the

federal Central ValleyProject (CVP). The CVPsupplies over 7 millionacre-feet of water tofarmers both above theDelta and below it in theCentral Valley. The Bureaunow has about one millionacre-feet of extra wateravailable, but has requestsfor over four times thatamount from wildlife,agricultural, municipal andindustrial water users. TheBureau is also interested inmaintaining water quality.Its primary customer isagriculture, but the Bureauis moving toward more

Shasta Darn at the topof the Central Valley

involvement with urbanusers. The RegionalDirector would like to seethat all beneficial uses ofCalifornia's water arebalanced: agricultural,urban, industrial andenvironmental.

0111111.111111

Whiskeytown Damon the Trinity River

RESEARCH

The Central ValleyProject

What is it? Where areits dams and reservoirs?How much water do theystore? Who is entitledto buy this water? Howdo the rates for CVPwater differ from SWPwater? How does thewater get to the buyers?How much water iscurrently being supplied?

Delta CrossChannel helpsmove water inthe Delta

le A

?tohe job of theDepartment ofFish and Game(DFG) is to

protect the wildlife ofCalifornia and their habi-tats. The Director hopesthat the SWRCB will findthat it is in the publicinterest to protect fish andwildlife from certainadverse effects of waterdevelopment. DFG believesbeneficial uses of theDelta's water, includingproviding a good environ-ment for fish and wildlife,should be given a higherpriority than exportingDelta water for other pur-poses. DFG also believes

12

that increased water export-at cntical times from theDelta have had a negativeinfluence on fish popula-tions, particularly stripedbass. The Director wouldlike to see the minimumspring and summer waterflows be kept high enoughso the bass and salmon canswim upstream and spawn.

aro iliwor

-

, r2,,c;:ig; .

, -

Salmon move upfish ladder tospawn in ponds

RESOURCES AGENCY

Salmon and Striped Bass

What are the life re-quirements for anadro-mous fish that hatch infresh water, swimdownstream and out tosea, and then return tothe streams where theywere spawned to repro-duce? How do reverseflows in the Delta affectfish? What do fishscreens at the pumpingplants do?

a

a

he MetropolitanWater District ofSouthern Cali-fornia (MWD) is

the major water supplier ofthe urban and industrialareas on the southerncoastal area of the state. Itsservice area includes over13 million people and itssales of water importedmostly from the ColoradoRiver and the SWP totalnearly $250 billion annu-ally. MWD estimates thepopulation of its servicearea is expanding at the rateof 180,000 people a ylar.The area's needs are in-creasing and MWD isworking hard to use effi-ciently what water it hasand to look for othersources of water besides theSAT.

MWD is also concernedabout the quality of water itreceives from the SWP.Delta agricultural dischargewater causes the formationof trihalomethanes (THMs),which are suspected ofcausing cancer. Treating

13

ID ;

this water to meet futureanticipated U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency(EPA) standards could costMWD millions of dollars.MWD feels the solution tothis problem lies in eithercontrolling and treating theproblems at the source, orbuilding facilities to isolatedrinking water from Deltaagricultural drainage.

,

''

,

4'1 '

Water quality is oneof the concerns of MWD

--GRA.

RESEARCH

Trihalomethanes

What are they? How arethey formed? Why arethey dangerous? Howcan they be removed?

A

k

he State WaterContractors is anassoc. ,ation rep-resenting 28 of

the 30 public agencies thatcontract with the state foralmost all of the total watersupply of the State WaterProject (SWP), and is re-sponsible for repaying theproject's costs. Its twolargest members are theMetropolitan Water Districtof Southern California andthe Kern County WaterAgency. The group wasformed to monitor theadministration of the SWPand assure sufficient highquality water supply tomeet its member agencies'needs. The Contractors feelthat effective management

Dams take many years toplan and build

is the key to successful useof the Delta's resources.They do not feel theirclients should be deprivedof water they currentlyhave the legal right to use,and believe new facilitiesshould be built to captureand store more water.

state watercontractors

16

Orovdle Dam,northernmost partof the State Water Project

RESEARCH

Dams

How long does it take tobuild a dam? Where aresome possible sites fordams in California? Whopays for the building ofa dam? Is there anotherway to store water inCalifornia?

BEST tJY MAUI):

A A

A

ern County is alarge agriculturalirirOarea dependent

on a constantwater supply from theSWP. The Manager of thewater agency fears that ifthe water supply from theDelta through the SWP isreduced by 60% by the year2010, as some groups pro-pose, the area's agricul-tural economy will loseclose to one-half billiondollars per year and nearly10,000 jobs. For this rea-son, the KCWA wants to beable to count on the samesupply of SWP water, andwould like to see the SWPcompleted. They do notwant water quality stan-dards for the Deltachanged, as they fear itwould lessen the amount ofwater available for them.

.zig-fgya4"`

Th

`,.. ,ii.vo-x- 4t .5fi. zlitair.I, 7 c 1 lo

4;4.-": 4-.?,,,,lisi,

Cotton isgrown in theSan Joaquin Valley

RESEARtH

Agriculture in California

What kinds of cropsare grown in the south-ern part of the CentralValley? How muchmoney is earned by thesale of these cropsannually? What riversare in this region? Whydon't these rivers supplyenough water forirrigation?

15

1.9

he Bay Instituteis a non-profitenvironmentalorganization

focusing on the needs ofthe Bay-Delta estuary. Itsponsors, produces, andpublicizes scientific, legal,engineering and economicinvestigations concerningthe Bay's problems. TheInstitutealso rep-resentsthePacificCoastFederation of Fishermen'sAssociations. The SeniorResearcher feels that thehealth of the Delta-Bayestuary has decreased asCalifornia's water re-sources have beendeveloped. The Instituteclaims the wildlife of theSan Francisco Bay areabrings in between

A as A

$932 million and $1.5billion annually and isresponsible for 73,000 to118,000 jobs. They wantspring flows of water to behigh to promote phyto-plankton production and toflush toxics out of the Bay.

RESEARCH

What is an estuary?

Why is phytoplanktonimportant to the rest ofthe wildlife in anestuary? What kinds offoods come from SanFranciso Bay and thePacific Ocean just out-side the Bay?

fr, The Bay InstituteOF SAN FRANCISCO

Aerial view ofpan of San FranciscoBay Estuary

-e A

he Environmen-w tal Defense Fund(EDF) is anational environ-

mental legal group with8,000 California members.It tries to look for solutionsto environmental problemsthat will protect the envi-ronment while satisfyingsocial and economic needs.EDF also wants the waterflow increased through theDelta and Bay to protectwildlife. EDF feels thatwater marketing would helpincrease the efficient use ofwater and thus requirefew er diversions of thewater flowing into the Bay.

17

Water marketing means thesale, transfer or leasing ofwater from existing uses toother uses. EDF does notwant more diversions fromrivers upstream untilstandards can i arreedupon for the am ofwater that shouldallowed to flow out throughthe Bay and maintain thehealth of its environment.

-f-

EDF is concernedabout protecting theenvironment of the Delta

Salinity

How much salt is in seawater, as compared towater in an estuary?How does salt affectdifferent forms of wild-life? Does the area wherefresh water begins tobecome salt water stay inone place in the Delta ordoes it move? How doessalt affect agriculturalland? How can theamount of salt water inthe Delta be controlled?

19

A Ok

4 his group'w(CVPWUA) rep-

resents all waterusers who have

long-term contracts forwater from the federalCVP. Most are associatedwith agriculture, but somerepresent municipal andindustrial users from northof the Delta, throughout theCentral Valley, and in theEast Bay area. Because eproject is a federal one, theCVPWUA feels federal lawmay be the controlling oneover regulations handeddown by the CaliforniaState Water ResourcesControl Board. Theybelieve decisions abouthow much water flows outinto the Bay should takeinto consideration theeconomic and social needsof the whole state, not justthe area surrounding theBay and Delta. Rather thanflushing taxies out throughthe Bay with increasedwater flows, this groupbelieves pollution problemsshould be dealt with at thesource.

18

W

&DotWafts.

we'Wff,w,...

Shasta Dam on theSacramento River controlsflow to the Delta

C0410V.N1

P.A.VtS

OLONt0

\NOY.NSSOCO,ANOS

a.

RESEARCH

Toxics in water

Where do toxic pollutantscome from? Whatpollutants are present inCalifornia river water?What are some methodsof preventing toxicsgetting into our watersupply?

20


1. Explain how salts andminerals get into thewater supply and howa build-up of theirconcentrations affectsthe environment.

2. State the relationship ofground water to surfacewater.

3. Describe how agricul-tural drainage watercollects and harmscrops, and the need fora disposal plan.

Ground waterin the CentralValley

gricultural landon the west sideof the SanJoaquin Valley

contains many salts, miner-als, and small quantities ofelements, such as selen-ium. "Salts" are a group ofchemicals with certaincharacteristics. Table salt,sodium chloride, is oneexample. Large parts ofthis area also have imper-meable layers of claywhich stop the downwardmovement of water whenthe land is irrigated. Thiscan result in salty groundwater building up beneath

the surface and eventuallyrising into the root zone cithe crops. Two problems aretherefore created forfarmers. Without adequatedrainage, a field canbecome waterlogged, like aflowerpot without a hole,stunting plant growth andreducing agriculturalproductivity. Also, whileminerals are beneficial insmall amounts, most plantscan only stand limitedamounts of them, so waterbeyond that required tomeet the crop's needs isapplied to saline (salty) soilto wash, or leach, excesssalts from the root zone.

21

ft *,1:11-

So farmers must drainwater from their lands sothey don't become water-logged and also removeexcess water used to leachout excess salts and min-erals. They put pipes withholes in them under thesurface of their lands tocollect and drain away thisexcess agricultural water.The federal governmentbegan to build the San LuisDrain in 1968 to removethe drainage water, butsome people were con-cerned about what wouldhappen to the Sacramento/San Francisco Bay aadDelta if the water wasdischarged there. As aresult, the Drain was nevercompleted and instead thewater was drained into theKesterson Reservoir, whichwas to be used jointly forirrigation drainage andwildlife habitat.

Continued

es drainage watercollected underground, manyminerals in-

cluding an element calledselenium were concen-trated. Selenium is neces-sary for life, but only intiny amounts. Larger con-centrations of selenium arepoisonous. This contam-inated drainage watereventually flowed throughthe San Luis Drain to theKesterson National Wild-life Refuge, where it settledin marshy ponds. In 1982,the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService discovered un-usually high concentrationsof selenium in fish atKesterson, and in 1983 and1984 they found an alarm-ing incidence of deformity

and death among youngwaterfowl. Scientistsconcluded that seleniumpoisoning was the probablecause.

In 1985 the federalgovernment was ordered toclean up the ponds, the SanLuis Drain was plugged,and farmers were facedwith the problem ofdealing with excessdrainage water to preventwaterlogging and saltdamage to their crops.

,4

JOAQUI

Amu

GUSTINE

20

KESTERSON RESERVOIR AND VI INITY1

1111012ms 141

CCOSED

1. Chairman of the StateWater ResourcesControl Board

2. Hydrologist for theBureau of Reclamation

3. Attorney for theEnvironmental DefenseFund

4. Director of the Boardof West lands WaterDistrict

5. Head of the FresnoCounty Farm Bureau

6. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService biologist

7. Land owner/farmer ofland adjacent toKesterson

8. Scientist, University ofCalifornia's Salinity/Drainage Task Force

g4ZIP DK !,'VAIIARti

21

A microbe hasbeen discoveredthat will slowlyremove

selenium from the soil.Should the federalgovernment be allowed topostpone their cleanupdeadline to conduct furtherinvestigations about thepossibility of using thismicrobe?

Land surround-ing the Kester-son reservoirhas been posted

as contaminated. Shouldthe land owner be able tocollect damages fromsomeone? Who?

Many peoplefeel there are avariety of waysto deal with the

Kesterson problem. Thefollowing is a partial list ofsolutions, which yourgroup should prioritize(put the solut:71 yourgroup favors most first,then put the others indescending order ofpreference). You must beable to explain the advan-tages and disadvantages ofeach choice.

a. Take the farm landwhere the selenium-bearingsoils are found out ofirrigated agricultural use.

b. Complete the San LuisDrain and identify an outputlocation, possibly in SanFrancisco Bay.

c. Scoop out the contam-inated land at KestersonReservoir and bury itsomewhere.

d. Pump up more groundwater to dilute the salts andminerals on the farm landwhen it is irrigated.

e. Drain off the contam-inated water and inject itdeep under the surface ofthe ground.

2 3

f. Only grow crops whichcan tolerate the high saltcontent.

g. Use a reverse-osmosisunit to filter out the harmfulsalts after the water is usedfor irrigation.

h. Improve farmer'sefficiency in irrigating theircrops so less water is used.

Atrstrtppingcan removetoms fromground water

he State WaterResourcesControl Board(SWRCB) and

its nine Regional WaterQuality Control Boards,regulate water quahty andthe quantity allocated itottoriTuroURCe.,

for each of the com-peting uses. The q-

Board has to try 3 -to manage the

dcdo.

withdrew and asked theU.S. Bureau ofReclamation, a division ofthe Department of theInterior, to go ahead andbuild the drain for the San

Luis section inthe westernco

45, San Joaquino Valley.

Whenilet)o federal

ozy funding ranout because

of thecontroversy, the

SWRCB, the Departmentof Water Resources, andthe Bureau formed anInteragency DrainageProgram to study alterna-tives and plan for a state-wide drainage system.While studies went on aboutthe possibility of drainingthe water into the Bay,

state's water tobest satisfy all thecompeting needs forwater with the supplyavailable and to protectwater quality. They alsohave the responsibility forplanning to meet futurewater needs throughout thestate.

The water managementprogram the SWRCB hasthe goal of meeting pro-jected water demandsthrough the year 2000. Theplan stresses the importanceof overall management ofall water, includingwastewater. It combines allof the managementalternatives available.including balancing the useof surface water and groundwater to reduce groundwater overdraft, new watersupply development, andincreased conservation andreclamation.

At first, the state plannedto help build the statewidedrainage system, but then

22

agricultural drainage waterran into the Kesterson area,creating a wetland wildlifehabitat.

When the deformedwildlife began to show up,the SWRCB declared thedrainage discharge intoKesterson, whichevaporated and concentra-ted salts and selenium, wasa "hazardous waste"because of its threat tohuman health and theenvironment. The SWRCBordered the federal Bureauof Reclamation to close thereservoir and clean it up.

0(d-fashioned wind powert., Amps gt wind water

Ground Water

What is an aquifer?Where is ground waterlocated in the SanJoaquin Valley? Howmuch ground water hasbeen pumped out of theground in this region todate? What is over-draft? Are toxics a prob-lem in ground water?Can toxics be removedfrom ground water?

I IA

he U.S. Bureauof Reclamation,a branch of theDepartment of

the Interior, was created in1902 under the leadershipof President TheodoreRoosevelt to carry out thereclamation of westernlands. This included seeingthat agricultural lands wereprovided with water sopeople could farm. In Cali-fornia, that meant the build-ing of the dams and reser-voirs of the Central ValleyProject.

According to the USBR,about 2.8 million tons ofsalt per year come to thewest side of the San Joa-quin Valley with irrigationwater. This salty water be-comes even more salty as itis used for irrigation andmust be removed to preventcrop damage. In 1960,Congress called for theconstruction of the SanLuis Drain. By 1975, 85miles of the drain werebuilt and drained into theKesterson Reservoir. TheBureau wanted to constructan extension of the drain toSuisun Bay and empty thedrainage water there.

23

After the toxic effect ofthe selenium on birds wasdiscovered, the state or-dered the Bureau to closeKesterson or make it ahazardous waste impound.The Director closed thereservoir and threatened todiscontinue irrigation waterdeliveries to the 42,000acres from which the bulkof the drainage wateroriginated.

The Bureau is stillstudying ways to clean upthe site. Original estimatesof the cost to scrape out theponds and dispose of theselenium-contaminatedsoils ran between $37million to $144 million.

4.1s

Legal hazardouswaste sue

RESEARCH

Hazardous wastes

What are some hazard-ous wastes? How do theyget into the water supply?What are some ways theycan be cleaned up? Arehazardous wastes harm-ful if they are diluted ina large body of water?

P.771(I

';-

he EDF is anational environ-mental legalgroup with 8,000

California members. Thegroup's goal is to look foralternative solutions thatprotect the environmentwhile satisfying socialand economic needs.Their staff includesscientists and economists aswell as attorneys.

EDF wants to see theKesterson Reservoircleaned up so it isn'thazardous to humans orwildlife. The group is alsointerested in seeing thatground and surface water isnot contaminated in thefuture with toxic levels ofselenium or other chem-icals. To accomplish this,they are helping farmersseek ways to irrigate theirlands which reduce theleaching rate and thevolume of agriculturaldrainage water.

In addition, the EDF isconcerned about the loss ofwetland habitat forwildlife. They want tosee 1,200 acres ofwetlands created Al?'elsewhere in the Astate to make up torthe fact that Kestersonhas been drained in theclean up process.

9

IA.

24

r ,

26

RESEARCH

Wetlands

Why is this an importantecosystem? What kinds ofplants and animals arefound in a wetlandsenvironment? How dowetlands affect otherenvironments?

DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF THEWESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

he largestsingle waterdistrict affectedby this agricul-

tural drainage problem isthe 600,000-plus-acresWestlands Water District,which has the largest irri-gated acreage in the UnitedStates. The district is locat-ed in the federal San LuisUnit Service Area on thewest side of the San Joa-quin Valley and is withoutdrainage access to the SanJoaquin River.

Approximately 207,000acres of land in this districthave a shallow saline watertable between five and 10feet from the surface. Atdepths of less than 10 feet,saline water begins to seri-ously affect crop producti-vity.

The Director was verypleased when the San LuisDrain began to be builtbecause he felt that herewas an answer to thefarmers' problem of how to

get rid of the drainaeewater coming from theirfields. The San Luis Sys-tem drained 42,000 acresof farmland in Westlands.But once the selenium-laced water was draininginto Kesterson Reservoirand the environmentaldangers of selenium wererecognized, the districtrealized something had tobe done.

In 1985 Westlandsentered into an agreementwith the Interior Depart-ment to phase out drainageflows by 1986 with anintensive waterconservation program,diluting and recyc lingdrainage water. They alsoplugged their drainagecollector system. West-lands has been a leader inresearch into this problem.

We

irrigation

OR:OEMAWater District Air

Ar

Cotton andpomegranatesare grown onthe west sideof the valley

2

RESEARCH

Irrigation

How are crops wateredin California? Whatdifferent systems areused? What does"leaching" mean? Whenis this process used? Howmuch extra water does ittake for leaching? Howmuch of California'sdeveloped water goes toagriculture?

a

A

arming isCalifornia'snumber oneindustry. In

1987, California'sfarmers sold $15.6billion worth of foodand fiber. Agriculture isalso a major employer, withmore than 80,000 familiesand as many as 400,000workers growing andharvesting crops. Accordingto the California FarmBureau Federation, one outof every three people em-ployed in California worksat an agriculture-related job.

When a farmer's soil issalty, as it is in FresnoCounty, in the western SanJoaquin Valley, farmershave to think carefullyabout their irrigation prac-tices. If the soil retains toomuch water, not allowingsufficient air to reach theroots of the crop, artificialmethods for draining theexcess water from the rootzone often are employed.Farmers bury pipes withholes in them below theground's surface to carryoff excess water. If the soilis salty, the farmer usuallymust apply about 10 to 25percent more water than thecrop needs in order to getuniform irrigation coverage

26

IIsoolommil

TM

over the entire field and atthe same time leach saltsfrom the root zone - some-times leading to chargesthat the farmer is wastingwater.

When the water table isshallower than 10 feet, cropproductivity can be severe-ly affected. This area hadcrop production losses ofnearly $150 to $415 peracre, or approximately $35million in 1987.

The Farm Bureau isconcerned that much of the

.41PNir3

Drip irrigation

land in the area suppliedby the Westlands WaterDistrict will have to betaken out of productionunless the drainage prob-lem can be solved. Becausethis is such productive land,the Farm Bureau wants tohelp farmers learn alterna-tive methods of irrigatingthat use less water and de-crease the amount of agri-cultural drainage that has tobe managed.

Agriculture in the SanJoaquin Valley

What crops are pro-duced there? How muchmoney is earned fromthe sale of these crops?Do these crops require alot of water? Are thereother crops that could begrown here? Would dripirrigation be effectiveand affordable?

1111iiii, 28

17

kr^ '

.1k a-;,

-

AAA n 1982, the U.S.ish and Wildlife

Service kFSW)discovered unu-

sually high concentrationsof selenium in fish at Kes-terson Reservoir and in1983 and 1984 turned up analarming incidence of de-formity and death amongyoung waterfowl at Kester-son. Scientists concludedthat selenium poisoningwas the probable cause.

Testing of the drainagewater flowing into the res-ervoir revealed that selen-ium levels ranged from 85to 440 parts per billion(ppb). The U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agencyindicates thatlevels of 5 ppb orless are necessaryfor the protec-tion of fresh-water aquaticorganismsin flowingstreams. with lower

levels necessary whenaquatic life is exposed tostanding water, such asthat in a marsh or pond.

Although selenium intrace amounts is essentialto all animal life, it haslong been known to beharmful and even lethal inhigh concentrations. Fishand wildlife may becomeexposed to harmful con-centrations of the elementwhen it accumulates in thebody tissues of a plant oranimal and then that or-ganism is eaten by anotherorganism. When many of

these organisms are eatenby a species higher in

the food chain,their stores ofselenium arepassed on. This

process is knownas bioconcentra-

tion. Eventuallyselenium can attain

levels in the tissuesand organs of complex

27

organisms which limitreproduction and causedeformities and possiblydeath among waterfowl,other birdlife and fish.

To reduce the number ofbirds exposed to the con-tamination at Kesterson, theFSW began a hazing pro-gram which involved firingblanks from guns to makenoise and scare birds fromlanding at the reservoir.

The FWS would like tosee agricultural drainagefrom selenium-bearingsoils halted because of theharmful effects of bio-accumulation and theKesterson Reservoircleaned up. Becausewetlands are an impor-tant area for wildlife,especially migratorybirds, the FWS wouldlike to see land else-where dedicated towetlands and providedwith a secure supply ofhealthy water.

29

-

Migratory birds

Where do they comefrom and go to? Whatkinds of birds needmarshy areas? What dothese birds eat? Whatkinds of nests do theymake? What wouldhappen if all the marshyareas or wetlands inCalifornia wereeliminated?

U.S.FISH &WILDLIFE

SERVICE

AREABLIND 1.141,2

1,THIS I 4/5161

CeOSED

41it.n March 15,1985, Secretaryof the InteriorDonald Hodel

ordered immediate steps tobegin closure of KestersonReservoir and threatened todisccntinue irrigation waterdeliveries to 42,000 acresof Fresno County landsupplied by Westlandswhich was draining intoKesterson. He stated thatcontinuing to operate thereservoir could cause De-partment of Interioremployees to be in viola-tion of the Migratory BirdTreaty Act, a criminalstatute. Landowners andmerchants feared that tensof thousands of acres offarmland might be put outof production.

,

The fanner, whosedrainage water emptiesinto the San Luis Drain,was allowed to continue toget water for his cropsbecause the Department ofthe Interior agreed to agradual phase-out of drain-age flows. He is still ableto get water, but his land isbecoming waterloggedbecause the drain wasplugged. The WestlandsWater District helped himdesign a plan to recycle hisdrainage water, reusing itfor irrigation after diluting

it with fresh water. But heis concerned that no perma-nent solution has beenfound.

One option explored byWestlands and other dis-tricts, is deep well injection.This injection of wastewater into the earth ispromising for disposal, butthis does not solve thetreatment problem. It justdisposes of salty, butpotentially valuable waterthat could be reused. So thisfarmer is concerned abouthis future if the drainageproblem is not solved.

Sally soil isunproductive soil

30 4.

RESEARCH

Salt tolerance

What are some cropsthat can stand increasedamounts of salts? Can afarmer make as muchmoney growing thesekinds of crops as onesthat are sensitive to salt?

AJ

Cully MAILikati

I. A

I A

.4fAhe Universityof California'sSalinity/Drain-age Task Force

was established to develop,interpret, and disseminateresearch knowledge ad-dres3ing salinity, drainage,selenium and the toxicelement problems in theSan Joaquin Valley.

Scientists are findingways to accelerate the vola-tilization of selenium byadding amendments such asorange peels or cottonseedmeal to soil. Chemical reac-tions between the amend-ment and selenium causethe rate at which seleniumtransforms from a solid to agas to increase. Eventuallysoil scientists hope to dis-cover a means to ventselenium to the atmosphereat a rate fast enough tomake possible the restora-tion of Kesterson Reser-voir. Other scientists worrythat ground water may con-tinue to supply the surfacesoils with selenium, frus-tratirm the effectiveness ofthe volatilization process.

29

Aerial view ofKesterson Reservoirand San Joaquin Drain

AG/7"Irr-/Vt(pV

<te

1.44 e

UC DAVIS

Selenium

What is selenium? Wheredoes it come from? Howdoes it get into soils?How does it hurt birds?At what concentration isselenium hazardous tohumans and wildlife?

;

mac

GEOLOGIST, U.S. GEOLOGICALSURVEY

cientist, U.S.Geological Sur-vey, assignedto the San

Joaquin Valley DrainageProgram. The San JoaquinValley Drainage Programwas created in mid-1984 tostudy the drainage problem,the toxic effects of selen-ium, and to propose somesolutions. The U.S. Bureauof Reclamation, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, U.S.Geological Survey, Cali-fornia Department of Fishand Game, and CaliforniaDepartment of Water Re-sources are all participatingagencies.

The Drainage Programscientists have determinedthat the area affected byshallow groundwater willcontinue to increase if thecurrent practice of applyingas much as one acre-footper acre per year of waterin excess of plant needs is

30

h

.,\

AVERAGEPRECIPI'TP:TION IN

\ \VALLEY LESSTNAPER YEAR

WtsrElltio"CONTAINS

4

EVAPORATION ANDTRANSPIRATION ANuREMOVE VIATERLEAVE SALTS WIND

tm4teit w:LtittitiALT our 5!1;:?...t;!' 1:PERIODIC igir:Oc.. sAILD,T

oi

*4

7ATEvAtitaz7

tux:vaWt1,11,7f"" sm-riltf.t'L'ilTVatliatag!"^"

not changed. Intensivewater management to re-duce the volume ofsubsurface drainage isneeded. Alternatively, suchlands may be retired fromirrigation.

The Drainage Programhas devised a multiplewater-use plan tomaximize the beneficialuse of irrigation water andminimize the cost andharmful effects of manag-ing drainage water. Waterfrom a supply canal isapplied to salt-sensitivecrops, just like today'sirrigation. However, underthe multiple-use plan, thedrainage water from thesalt-sensitive crops iscollected and used to irri-gate more salt-tolerantcrops, such as cotton andbarley. Drainage waterfrom the salt-tolerant crops

DRAINS EMPTYINTO A

COLLECTOR SYSTEMVOUCH TRANSPORTS

THE DRAINAGEWATER TO A DISCHARGE POINT.

LEGEND

;: INOICAT es &kola

=fa; fl-°"

is then collected and usedfor a third time to irrigate atree crop such as eucalyp-tus, which can eventually beharvested and used or soldfor fuel. Drainage waterfrom the tree crop would besent to an evaporation pond.The sludge left over afterevaporation would have tobe disposed of in a safeway.

Salts in soil

What are salts? How dothey get into soils? Whydo salts build up inirrigated areas withpoor drainage? How dosalts harm crops? Areevaporation pondsharmful to the environ-ment? How can thesludge be disposed of?

32 dE

:


1. Explain the differentsources of water forSouthern California.

2. Suggest alternativesfor obtaining water forSouthern California'sgrowing population.

3. Describe agriculturaland urban water conser-vation techniques.

he turbulentColorado Riveris one of themost contro-

versial and heavily regu-lated rivers in the world.The waters of the 1,440mile-long river are sharedby seven states, severalIndian tribes and theRepublic of Mexico. TheColorado supplies water to17 million people ard morethan one million acres ofonce-desert farmland. Mostof Southern California'selectricity is a product ofthe Colorado River.

31

After 11 years of litiga-tion, in 1964 the U.S.Supreme Court made aruling on how the Colo-rado's lower watersshould be divided upbetween California andArizona. Now the CentralArizona Project has beencompleted and Califor-nia's water contracts of5.3 million acre-feet peryear have been cut backto 4.4 million, with theMetropolitan WaterDistrict of SouthernCalifornia losing half ofits current entitlement ofmore than 1.2 millionacre-feet. MWD includesthe urban south coast fromSanta Barbara to SanDiego.

The loss of close to amillion acre-feet of watera year has caused southernCalifornia to look tonorthern California formore water, to be trans-ported down through theCalifornia Aqueduct. Ithas also caused southernCalifornia to considersome innovative watermanagement techniquesand to stress conservationto farmers and city-dwellers alike.

Parker Dam onthe Colorado River

1. Director, CaliforniaDepartment of WaterResources

2. Secretary, U.S.Department of theInterior

3. General Manager,Imperial IrrigationDistrict

4. General Manager,Metropolitan WaterDistrict of SouthernCalifornia

33

5. Farmer, insouthwestern Arizona

6. Governmental wateragent, Republic ofMexico

7. Director, Los AngelesDepartment of Waterand Power

8. Attorney,Environmental DefenseFund

ID

The ColoradoRiver is a verysalty river. Thisis because the

force of the water againstthe steep gradient and thecomposition of the rockformations in the Coloradobasin contribute to theriver's excessive amount oferosion. The river carriesmore silt than most rivers,and has a high concentra-tion of dissolved mineralsin the water. The farther theColorado flows, the saltierit becomes.

In 1922, a nationalcommission divided up thewaters of the ColoradoRiver between the upperand lower basins. Usingrecords of the previous 30years (which had actuallybeen unusually wet ones),the commission believedthat there would be plentyof water left in the river forMexican users. In 1944 theUnited States signed atreaty with Mexico guar-anteeing them 1.5 millionacre-feet a year in ColoradoRiver flow.

32

During the years whenLake Powell was fillingbehind Hoover Dam, verylittle water went beyond thedam. Most of the waterflowing into the river wasvery saline agriculturaldrainage water from theWe llton-Mohawk Projectnear Yuma. Arizona. Thequality of the water in thelower river was so salty thatit was unusable even forirrigation purposes for theMexican farmers, and wasthe cause of aninternational disagreementbetween Mexico and theU.S. In 1973, the twocountries reached anagreement that said thewater delivered to Mexicofrom Morelos Dam wouldcontain no more than 115milligrams per liter totaldissolved salts.

The U.S. is building anexpensive desalinizationplant to meet salinityrequirements agreed uponwith Mexico. The plant isto be completed in the early1990's and will be veryexpensive to operate.Should this plant becompleted or should somefarmland be purchased andretired from use to savewater and thus reduce thesalinity level'?

04:- AMIN

Where shouldthe water forsouthern Califor-nia come from to

replace what they are losingwhen Arizona starts takingits full entitlement? Thefollowing are some pro-posed alternatives. Yourgroup should prioritizethem, with your favoritealternatives listed first, andleast favorite last. Be ableto explain the advantagesand disadvantages of eachalternative.

a. Import more water fromnorthern California via theCalifornia Aqueduct.

b. Increase urban andagricultural water conser-vation.

c. Import more water fromthe eastern side of theSierra.

d. Line all canals andaqueducts bringing waterinto southern Californiawith cement to preventwater seeping into the soiland being lost.

e. Arrange for watertransfers between agri-cultural communities withexcess water and majorurban areas.

f. Pay farmers to take landout of production and usethe water from theirentitlements for urban use.

g. Increase pumping ofground water to meet urbanand agricultural needs.

h. Build more dams to storewater in reservoirs.

1*he CaliforniaDepartment ofWater Resources(DWR) serves

two principal functions:statewide water planning,and developing and man-aging the State WaterProject (SWP). DWR feelsthat reduction of southernCalifornia's Colorado Riverwater supply will createincreased demands on theSWP, and will mean themoving of more water southfrom northern California.

DWR investigated theclaim of a farmer who livednext to the Salton Sea, andfound that the ImperialIrrigation District waswasting water, about438,000 acre-feet annually.DWR made a report to theState Water ResourcesControl Boardwhich thenordered IID tocome up witha watercon-servationprogramwhich wouldreduce the in-flow to the SaltonSea by 100,000 acre-feet per year.

State law directs theDWR to encourage watertransfers between agenciesand to offer technical help

A is

"

to districts like IIDand MWD who areconsidering tradingwater for resources neces-sary to accomplish a con-servation program.

RESEARCH

Salts in water

How do salts (dissolvedminerals) get into rivers?How much salt is in theColorado River? Howdoes this compare toother California rivers?Why is this salt a problemfe- farmers who use thiswater for irrigation?

33 35

A

e11 the dams onthe Colorado

- River are oper-Ivy ated by theBureau of Reclamation, anagency of the U.S. Depart-ment of the Intenor. TheSecretary of the stst_ppInterior makesthe decisions # ' .1. _

which control Q/0 . .

111

There has been a long-standing conflict betweenCalifornia and Arizona overhow much Colorado Riverwater each was entitled to

distributionof the waterfrom these

use. In a 19641,9,1/4 decision the

N- Supreme- Court ruled.

projects. TheInterior Sec-.retary's dec-isions are to be in CHaccordance with allthe documents that make up"The Law of the River.""The Law of the River" ismade up of interstateagreements, contracts, aninternational treaty, stateand federal legislation, aSupreme Court decisionand federal administrativeactions.

The main dams andreservoirs that affectsouthern California areHoover Dam and its LakeMead, Davis Dam and itsLake Mojave, Parker Damand its Lake Havasu, andImperial Dam. The All-American Canal begandelivering water from theImperial Dam to theImperial Valley in 1942.

ily,"74140"fi,to

34BEST COPY

el that theXI Secretary0 of the42 Interior has

the powerto determine

how theColorado River

water would beapportioned among thestates bordering it. Eventhough Arizona had notparticipated in earlieragreements dividing theriver's waters, this decisionmeant Arizona wouldreceive its entitlement,which meant California'sentitlement would be cutback.

AVAILATO

LA

3

4 -1.

-

Hoover Dam onthe Colorado River

RESEARCH

Hoover Dam

When was it built? Howlarge is it? How muchwater is stored behind it?Why was its buildingcontroversial? Who paysfor the building of dams?How is the electricitygenerated by hydro-electric plants by damssold?

Hydroelectric powerbeing generated

GENERAL MANAGER, IMPERiALIRRIGATION DISTRICT

he ImperialIrrigation Dis-trict (IID) en-compasses over

one million acres, nearlyhalf of which is underirrigation. The valley'swarm temperatures andmineral-rich soils make i tan agricultural wonderland,producing over $700million annually, making itthe world's sixth largestagricultural producing area.Agriculture uses 98% of thevalley's waterwhich comes fromthe ColoradoRiver, diverted bythe Imperial Dam,carried over 80miles through theAll-AmericanCanal.

The ColoradoRiver is extremelysalty, carrying ten milliontons of salt annuallydownstream. In the agri-culturally rich ImperialValley, one ton of saltaccumulates each year peracre-foot of Colorado Riverwater used. Salt damagecould double by the year2020, with an annual loss toCalifornia farmers of morethan $75 million.

To deal with the highlysaline Colorado Riverwater, farmers periodicallyleach their fields, or apply

Canal ltningproject

more water than is neededby crops, to wash salts(dissolved minerals) out ofthe root zone. As early asthe 1920s, accumulatingsalts and a rising watertable threatened produc-tivity and drove some lands

out of production.In 1929, under-

DISTRICT

WATER

POWER

35

ground tile drain-age systems wereintroduced tocarry salty drain-age waters intothe now more than1.457 miles of

surface drains andon into the Salton Sea.

Since the tiling programbegan, more than 31,551miles of tile have been laidin 90 percent of the valleyfarms.

The Imperial andCoachella Valleys andMexico produce agricul-tural drainage water thatgoes into the Salton Sea.The rising level of theSalton Sea threatensagricultural land around itsedges and law suits haveresulted.

IID has an ongoingconservation programwhich includes liningcanals to prevent waterseepage (a very expensiveprocess), pumpback sys-tems to reuse agriculturaldrainage water, and stiffpenalties for water wasters.IID will be selling the waterit is conserving to the Met-ropolitan Water District ofSouthern California(MWD). MWD will pay forthe lining of IID's canals,in exchange for which, IIDwill give MWD the amountof water saved, water whichwould otherwise sink intothe ground.

RESEARCH

Agriculture in theImperial valley

What crops are grownthere? How much moneydo they bring in an-nually? Could cropsrequiring less water begrown here? Can a far-mer earn as much fromcrops requiring lesswater? Can more salttolerant crops be grownhere? Can a farmer earnas much from salttolerant crops?

he Metropoli-tan Water Dis-

jA

cr.tnct of SouthernCalifornia

(MWD) serves an area of5,200 square miles cover-ing six counties: LosAngeles, Orange, River-side, San Bernardino, SanDiego and Ventura. The$220 million ColoradoRiver Aqueduct was com-pleted in 1941 and withrecent expansions has beendelivering more than 1.2million acre-feet a year tosouthern California, carry-ing water 242 miles fromthe C-Yrado River.

also buys waterfrom the State WaterProject. This water istransported south from theSacramento-San JoaquinDelta through the 444-mile-long California Aqueduct.MWD has contracted withthe state for delivery ofmore than 2 million acre-feet a year (1.8 billiongallons a day).

36

0

11111.11.

Now that the CentralArizona Project is taking itsentitlement of ColoradoRiver water, Southern Cal-ifornia's water allotmentwill be cut to 550,000 acre-feet per year. This haswater officials worried,since MWD estimates thepopulation of its servicearea is expanding at the rateof 180,000 people a year.

MWD has several plansto provide water for itsgrowing popu-lation, espec-ially in timesof watershortage.MWD isofferingmoney tofarmers in thePalo Verde Valleyfor taking their land out otproduction, thus savingwater for urban needs.MWD also has agreed topay for concrete lining forsome of the canals belong-ing to the Coachella ValleyWater District in exchangefor the water now lost topercolation into the ground.And it has establishedunderground water banks inChino, Coachella Valleyand Kern County to "bank"water in wet years for useduring dry years. They planto inject water into under-ground aquifers during wet

--1111111.

..._

The State WaterProject flows intosouthern California

years and then beable to pump it outfrom wells duringdry years.

MWD has alsoagreed to finance a water

conservation program forthe Imperial IrrigationDistrict. Studies bygovernmental agencies andengineering companiesindicate as much as300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of water per year couldbe conserved by the IIDand used elsewhere withoutsignificantly harmingfarming within the area.Most of this excess irriga-tion water now flows intothe Salton Sea or is lost byseepage from irrigationcanals.

33

v

Ground water andreclamation

What is an aquifer? Howis it formed? How doeswater get into an aquifer?What happens whenwater is pumped out? Canwater be pumped backin? How can water bereclaimed? How canwaste water be treated soit can be used again?What is a saline sink?

FARMERz IN SOUTHWESTERNARIZONA

hen the sevenstates that sharethe ColoradoRiver's waters

met in 1922 to reach anagreement on how thewaters were to be dividedup, part of the plan was thatArizona would develop itsown water. The CentralArizona Project (CAP)originally was supposed tosupply farmers in Arizonawith water for their crops,but eventually the CAPincluded growing urbanareas in its plan. Eventuallyabout 1.2 million acre-feetof water will be carriedhundreds of miles acrossthe desert.

.211121"4;

Iigatingarid lands.

37

Arizona is currentlypumping out 2 million acre-feet of ground water morethan nature puts back eachyear. Some people fearedthat more water in Arizonawould mean that agriculturewill expand and requiremore water, although lawshave been passed to controlthis. About 60 percent ofthe agricultural supplycame from the groundbefore the CAP, and it waseven saltier than theColorado River water.

This farmer lives andworks in the Wellton-Mohawk area. This was thearea where the salty ag-ricultural drainage waterwas causing a problem forMexico when it was putback into the ColoradoRiver. As a result, theWelton-Mohawk projecthad to drain its water by aseparate canal directly intothe Gulf of California.Unfortunately, this meanshundreds of thousands ofacre-feet of salty, butvaluable water are beingdumped instead of reused.The average amount ofdrainage is equal to aboutone fourth of MetropolitanWater District of southernCalifornia's annualColorado River allotment.

This farmer is concernedabout economic groupsand environmentalinterests which arepushing for governmentalchanges in federal watersupply contracts. Thiscould force him tochange his farmingpractices, or even takehis land out ofproduction.

-10

*441116?

/. isle??

35

A

RESEARCH

Agriculture in Arizona

What crops are grownthere? How much landis under cultivation?How important is ag-riculture to the economyof Arizona?

GOVERNMENTAL WATER AGENT,REPUBLIC OF MEXICO

he ColoradoRiver carries tenmillion tons ofsalt annually.

The fiver flowing into theImperial Dam containsabout 2,000 pounds of saltsper acre-foot. Salinityincreases downstream aswater is lost throughevaporation and removedfor irrigation. Mineralsincrease in concentrationbecause they are carried inless water. Extreme salinitycan damage soil and cropsand can corrode pumps,household plumbing andmachinery. Highly-salinewater is not suitable formunicipal water supply orindustrial and agriculturaluses without treatment toremove minerals.

California's first irriga-tion of the Imperial Valleywas by a canal, an oldoverflow channel ofthe river that wentthrough Mexico.Mexico allowedAmerican settlersto use the diver-sion in exchangefor half the water.A flood in 1905and the Mexican

38

Revolution in 1910 con-vinced Americans that theywanted their own canalwith no influence fromMexico, so they built theAll-American Canal. In1944, the United Statesagreed to deliver 1.5million acre-feet of Colo-rado River water to Mexicoannually. This agreement isone of the documents thatmakes up "The Law of theRiver."

As water is used for ir-rigation along the ColoradoRiver and agriculturaldrainage is returned to theriver, it becomes saltier.Gradually, the water left inthe Colorado River forMexican use became saltierand saltier. Eventually thewater reaching Mexico wasunsuitable for irrigation.

In 1973, the UnitedStates made an agreement

with Mexico toimprove the

%DOs

otstoy4,416

41 a..-

4144,0;0111:Zil'AN

quality of water that wasdelivered to Mexico. Tomeet this agreement, a largedesalination plant nearYuma, Arizona, will bebuilt at a cost currentlyexpected to be $470million. This Bureau ofReclamation plant willproduce 73 million gallonsa day of reclaimed irriga-tion water. With most ofthe salt removed, the waterwill be blended back to theColorado flowing toMexico at a salinity levellow enough for Mexicanfanners to use again. Noneof the water will be used inthe United States but willfulfill our treaty obligationwith Mexico. Critics sayretiring nearby land fromirrigation by buying outsome local farmers wouldbe cheaper than construct-ing the desalination plant.

Because this waterirrigates some of Mexico'sbest agricultural areas thewater official is concernedthat the U.S. live up to itsagreement.

4 0

Desalination

How does it work? Howis the salt removed? Whathappens to the salt? Howmuch energy does thisprocess require? Hownear completion is theplant in Yuma? Is theprocess effective?

211

A A

he agency re-sponsible forobtaining waterand energy for

the city of Los Angeles isthe Los Angeles Depart-ment of Water and Power(LADWP). In the early1900s Los Angeles rnlizedit was rapidly outgrowingits local water supplies andrecognized the need to seeksupplies far away. In 1905,the city of Los Angelesfiled for water rights on theOwens River. The city builtthe 233-mile-long aqueductfrom the Owens Valley, inthe eastern Sierra Nevada,to Los Angeles. The aque-duct, capable of deliveringfour times as much water asthe city then required,began service in 1913.

Today Los Angelescontrols almost all the landon the valley floor, and 80percent of the 600,000 acre-feet of water it delivers toits more than 3 millionresidents comes from theOwens Valley and adjacentMono Basin. The restcomes from local groundwater supplies and a smallportion is provided byMetropolitan WaterDistrict's Colorado Riverand State Water Projectsupplies.

39

Los AngelesAqueduct in theOwens Volley

itiemagaihe

When MWD'sColorado Riverallotment is cutback, Los Angel- _--es will also have _reduced watersupplies. So ittoo must lookfor additionalwater. Los Angeles wasgiven permits in 1940 todivert water from four ofthe five tributaries feedingMono Lake. As water hasbeen diverted to LosAngeles, the level of MonoLake has dropped. Thisnaturally saline lake istwice as salty as the PacificOcean. Its Negit Island isan important nesting sitefor California gulis. In

recent years the lake hasdeclined by up to two feetper year in dry years,creating access to islandswhere coyotes have killedor driven off nesting gulls.The declining lake level hasalso exposed alkaline soilwhich has caused local airpollution.

In 1979 the NationalAudubon Society joined theMono Lake Committee andfiled a suit in state courtagainst the Department ofWater and Power for theCity of Los Angeles.Eventually the CaliforniaSupreme Court ruled thatthis area was to beconsidered under thedoctrine of public trust,which holds that certainresources are the propertyof all citizens.

This means thatLADWP's water rights inthe Owens Valley andMono Basin are coming upfor reevaluation. Becausethey are going to bereceiving less ColoradoRiver water, LADWPhopes they will be allowedto keep and perhaps in-crease their water importsfrom the east side of theSierras. Their only othersource would be to buymore water from the StateWater Project, an equally ifnot more expensiveproposition.

RESEARCH

The Owens Valley

How did the city of LosAngeles Jbtain the waterrights to the OwensValley? How is the landin this region usedtoday? Is there continu-ing controversy aboutLos Angeles importingwater from this area?Why? What compromi-ses have been reached?How is LA and theOwens Valley tied to theColorado River?

he Environ-mental Defense

A Fund (EDF) is anational environ-

mental legal group with8,000 California members.It tries to look for solutionsto environmental problemsthat will protect the envi-ronment while satisfyingsocial and economic needs.

EDF feels that watermarketing, for example theexchange of financing ofconservation programs byMWD in return for the HDwater saved, would helpincrease the efficient use ofwater. It also would pre-clude the need to divertmore water from northernCalifornia to southernCalifornia. EDF believesconservation is a cheaperand less environmentallydamaging way to get morewater than building newdams. The attorneys alsofavor increased efficiencyof irrigation to save water

40

and slow down the increasein agricultural drainagewater. They also believethat agricultural land whichis only marginally produc-tive should not be culti-vated or irrigated, both tosave water and to reducethe salt build up in agricul-tural drainage.

EDF opposes the import-ing of more water from theOwens Valley and MonoBasin for Los Angeles.They feel the environmen-tal cost to these areas ofdiverting more tributarywaters is too great.

k :he

Drip irrigation

Agricultural conservationof water

What are some waysthat farmers can reducethe amount of water theyuse? How can agricultur-al drainage be reduced?Can water be reclaimedand treated for otheruses?

42

estuary - the mouth of ariver, in which the river'scurrent meets the sea's tide

brackish - a mixture offresh and salty water

marshland a tract of low,wet land

aqueduct - a canal orconduit for carrying waterfor a distance

reservoir - a place wherewater is collected andstored for use, frequentlybehind a dam

habitat - the natural envi-ronment of an animal orplant

toxic - poisonous

phytoplankton - micro-scopic plant organisms, atthe base of aquatic foodchains

aquatic - having to do withwater, as an aquatic envi-ronment

salinity - the amount of saltin water

41

THE KESTERSONCLEANUP

salts - combinations ofcommon earth elementsdissolved in the water andsoil. The amount of saltsdissolved in water is re-ferred to as salinity.

ground water - water thatis stored underground insandy or porous soils calledaquifers

surface water - water thatis found along the surfaceof the earth in streams, riv-ers, lakes, etc.

agricultural drainage - theamount of irrigation waterthat does not soak into theground, but is collectedafter the field has beenwatered

contaminated - not pure,not suitable for use becausetoxins (poisons) have beenmixed in

water allocation - theamount of water set asidefor or assigned to a certainagency or individual

aquifer - sandy soil thatstores water underground

overdraft - to draw orpump more water out of anunderground aquifer than isbeing replaced by waterseeping in

selenium - an elementcommonly found in soil.Selenium is necessary forlife in tiny amounts, buttoxic in larger amounts.

wetlands - low-lying wetareas, marshes, usuallysurrounding fresh water, orformed as water evaporatesfrom lakes

bioconcentration, bioac-cumulation - concentrationof a substance such as sele-nium as it moves up thefood chain until it reacheslevels which limit repro-duction and causes deathand deformities; usuallyfirst observed in birdpopulations.

migratory - going fromone area to another, usuallyin large groups at certaintimes; as in migratory birds.

volatilization - the processof rapid evaporation atordinary temperatures

43

THE COLORADOCUTBACK

litigation - a law suit orlegal battle

entitlement - a certainamount of water designatedby law as belonging tosomeone for their usageconservation - the wise useof natural resources, likewater

desalinization - the processof removing salt from waterpercolation - the slowpassage of water throughporous soils

)31131.1 GRAPHY

This partial list of educational materials is to help you get started on your research topics. Manyof them can be found in public or school libraries. Some can be ordered by teachers. The WaterEducation Foundation's booklets included in this packet may be duplicated by teachers.

BOOKS

A River No More: The Colorado River and the Westby P. Fradkin, 1981

America's WaterConservation Foundation, 1984

Aqueduct Empireby Erwin Cooper, 1968. California water development

The Bureau of Reclamationby William Warne, 1973

The California Water Atlasedited by William Kahrl, 1979. Basic sourcebook for allwater facts

California Water: Looking to the FutureDepartment of Water Resources book 160-87, 1987

P.G. & E. of Californiaby Charles Coleman, 1952

The Salty Coloradoby T. Miller, G.Weatherford and J. Thorson, TheConservation Foundation, 1986

They Would Rule the Valleyby Senator Sheridan Downey, 1947 Classic historyof the C.V.P.

The Thirsty Landby Robert De Roos. 1948 History of the C.V.P.

Waterby Bill Guston, 1982

Waterby Leopold and Davis, Time Inc., 1972

Water, A Primerby Luna Leopold. 1974

Water and Politicsby Vincent Ostrom, 1953

The Water Crisisby D.S. Halacy, 1966

The Water Naturalistby Heather Angel and Pat Wolesely

Water Pollutionby McCaull and Crossland, 1974

Water Resourcesby John Mather. 1984. Use and managementof water

Water ScarcityEdited by El nest Engelbert. 1986. Water and agriculture

Water, The Vital Essenceby Peter Briggs, 1967

Water, The Web of Lifeby Hunt and Gerrels, 1972

42

I

Barnstead Series: WaterMcGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and TechnologySocial Issues Resources Series (SirS)

reprinted articles organized by topicsThe New Book of Popular Science

GrolierUnderstanding Science Series

Sampson-Low

PAMPHLETS, VIDEOS, ANDOTHER MATERIALS

Waterquest, a 28-minute videoAvailable from the Water Education Foundation(916) 444-6240

Project Water Science - a series of water labs for high schoolWater Education Foundation(916) 444-6240

Western Water Magazine Reprint: "Where Your WaterComes From"

Available from the Water Education Foundation(916) 444-6240

Layperson's Guide to California WaterAvailable from the Water Education Foundation(916) 444-6240

H20 TVWastewater TreatmentSurface Water

All available from the Water Pollution Control Federation(703) 684-2400

Wildlife Habitat Conservation Series(Freshwater Marshes, Rivers & Streams . WetlandConservation and Uses, Migrating Birds, Estuaries &

Tidal Marshes) - Available from the National Institute forUrban Wildlife, 10921 Trotting Ridge Way, Columbia. ML 21044

Admiral Splash and Water for UrsaAvailable free to teachers in the Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California. In-service training required.(213) 250-6739

The California Water Works, And Why It Does...Department of Water Resources(916) 322-3070

Profile of the Imperial Irrigation District, with water transport map.Available free from the Imperial Irrigation District(619) 339-9416

44

Regional Teacher's Guide SupplementAvailable free from the Department of Water Resources(916) 322-3070

Water Lifelines for Los AngelesAvailable free to teachers in the Chy of Los Angeles from the Los

Angeles Department of Water and Power(213) 481-4169

Water: Where it Comes From and Where it GoesAvailable from the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland(495 )835-3000

The Water Goes Round and RoundAvailable from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose(408) 265-2600

Many other valuable resources are listed in the Water Education Curricula: ACompendium, available from the California Department of Water Resources(916) 322-3070

For more information on water and otherinformational materials contact:


43

Western Water MagazineBack Issues

1989January/FebruaryMay/JuneJu Iv/AugustSeptember/OctoberNovember/December

1990January/FebruaryMarchlApnlMay/JuneJuly/AugustSeptember/OctoberNovember/December

English California Water MapSpanish Version California Water Map

(100 or more $6.00 each)Waterquest Video 1/2" VHSLayperson's GuidesLayperson's Guide Set

(10 or more of the same S2.50 each)

ORDER FORM

$20.00 yearly$2.50 each

TitleFlood ControlWater MarketingWater ConservationContract ControversiesWetlands IssuesTitleGrowth ManagementConjunctive UseThe Drought ContinuesSacramento River FkheriesBriefing on California Water IssuesThe Endangered Species Act

$7.50 each$7.50 each

S75.00 each$3.50 each

$30.00

Agricultural Drainage Drinking WaterAmerican River Flood ManagementCalifornia's Water Ground,Water & ToxicsColorado River New Melones DamDelta

Guidebook: "Where Your Water Comes From"New Homeowners Landscape BrochureLandscape Renovation Brochure

Qty.Ordered

San Francisco BayWater ConservationWater QualityWater ReclamationWater Rights Law

$3.00 each$1.00 each$1.00 cach

(250 or more .75 each)(500 or more .50 each)

$0.25 per sheet$2.00 each$1.00 each$1.00 each$2.00 each

S200AX) Purchase

Water Awareness Stickers - 12 to a sheetHydrologic Cycle PosterEnglish Version Trivia GameSpanish Version Trivia Game"I'm Water 'Aware" PinSlide Show

"Making California's Water Work"School Programs

"California Water Story" - Upper Elementary Unit S15.00/set

"Project Water Science" - Secondary Level S15.00/set

"California's Water Problems" - Middle School Level S15.00/setSubtotal

Be sure to add 6.75% California sales tax to your order +6.75% TaxShipping & Handling: $0-$50 $1.50 $51-$100 $5.00 $101 & over $10.00

TOTAL

Amount

Name:

Address:

City/State/Zip

Mail to: Water Education Foundation 717 K Street, Suite 517 Sacramento, CA 95814

4 6

aEST COPY AVAILABLE

Water EducationFOUNDATION

717 K Street, Suite £17Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 444-6240

47

rfthe.111./.111

TY2 OddN[TveTed

Prepared by the Water Education Foundation

1,

Tal4

-

A

REST COPY AVAIL4r" 48

C fAente

Introduction

History

Dividing the Waters

Chronology

The Lifeline

Negotiations

The Law of the River

The Painted River

Unresolved Issues

Reprinted with agrant from the Hansand Margaret DoeCharitable Trust

1991On the CoverHoover Dam on the Colorado River.

Printer: Paul Baker Printing

2

4

5

6

11

12

13

14

16

43

The Layperson's Guide to CaliforniaWater is prepared and distributed by theWater Education Foundation as a publicinformation tool. It is part of a series ofLayperson's Guides which explorepertinent water issues in an objective,easy-to-understand manner.

For information on the Foundation'sother information and educationprograms contact:


President: Robert M. Hagan, Ph.D.Executive Director: Rita Schmidt Sudmal

LaidAuthors: Jeanne Duncan

Rita Schmidt Sudman

Editor: Rita Schmidt Sudman

Editorial Assitance: Merle FraserValerie Holcomb

Photo Credits:

Coachella Valley Water DistrictMetropolitan Water District

of Southern CaliforniaUS Bureau of Recldmation

Art: J.K. Hartshorn

Graphics:

California Department of WaterResources

ncraduc%1

The steep and turbulent Colorado isone of the country's most dramaticrivers. It falls more than 10,000 feetin its course from the Rocky Moun-tains to its natural outlet in the Gulfof California. From where it beginsas a small stream northwest ofDenver to where, most years, it dieson broad dry lands before reachingthe Gulf, the river has carved someof the world's most magnificentgorges, including the awesome, mile-deep Grand Canyon. Since water isso precious in the arid lands itpasses, rifts of disagreement almostas deep as the canyon have had tobe spanned in a century of efforts toagree on division of the water.

The Colorado supplies water to 17million people and more than onemillion acres of once-des. / farmland.Part of the food Wester! rs consumeand much of southern California'selectricity is a product of the Col-orado River. The river's hydroelectricplants generate about 12 billionkilowatt-hours of electricity eachyear, more than half the amountneeded to supply the city of LosAngeles. Besides water for man'suse, the river provides stretches ofwilderness which offer a spiritualresource for many people. Six na-tional parks and recreation areasprovide entertainment for millions ofvacationers who fish, raft, boat andswim in the river and its reservoirs.They also camp along its banks, hikeits wilderness areas and tour itsaams and canyons. Whitewaterrafting attracts thousands of visitorseach year, and the river's turbulentrapids are considered by many to bethe ultimate kayak trip.

Balancing the water, power andrecreational demands on the Col-orado Riverassuring needed floodcontrol and protecting waterqualityhas become critical in recentyears. As mountain springs andmelting snow form rivulets at thesources of the river, each drop isalready planned for by a water userdownstream. The Colorado is one ofthe nation's first major rivers to

reach the point where its entire flowis fully apportioned. As such, it hasbecome a focal point of debate forwater supply and environmentalissues throughout the nation and theworld. How we manage the Coloradomay hold solutions for future balanc-ing of our finite water resourcesagainst ever-increasing demands andneeds. In this decade, California willlose part of its entitlement to theColorado River, (from 5.3 to 4.4million acre-feet) because of a 1963Supreme Court decision. Coastalsouthern California will lose abouthalf of its supply, about 600,000 acre-feet. It will have to make up this losswith northern California water, asource of controversy, and vigorousconseryation programs. Competitionfor the Colorado River affects deci-sions concerning the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the north coastrivers and Mono Lake.

For the developing West, the Col-orado was a promising frontier inwater development. The river couldbring life and prosperity to any aridland its water reaches by canal oraqueduct. Now it is a frontier of adifferent nature. The challenge todayis to limit the demands, or to extendthe resource to serve more needswith the same amount of water. Theonly other possibility is to increasesomehow the amount of wateravailable.

The Colorado River has a hugedrainage basin that covers 244,000square miles of the country's hottestand driest lands. The river is 1,440miles long and passes through partsof seven states (Wyoming, Colorado,Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevadaand California) and the Republic ofMexico. These seven states arecalled the basin states. The basin in-cludes about one-twelfth the area ofthe mainland United Statesalmostthe entire southwest corner. Formuch of this area, the ColoradoRiver is the only reliable source ofwate;. It is aptly called "the lifeline ofthe Southwest."

5 0

This lifeline cannot be extended to allthe areas that are dry. Some landwill remain a barren plain oruninhabitable desert. Despite itslength and the size of the watershed,the Colorado ranks only about sixthamong the nation's rivers in volumeof flow. Its long-term dependableaverage annual flow is onlY about 14million acre-feet, less than theSacramento River. By comparison,the Delaware River is only 390 mileslong and drains a basin of 12,400square miles. The Columbia River'sdrainage basin is of comparable sizeto the Colorado's, but its flow isabout 12 times greater than the flowof the Colorado.

Demands on the Colorado are notlimited to needs in its basin. In fact,more water is exported from the Col-orado's basin than from any otherriver basin in the United States.Water is diverted over the Continen-tal Divide into eastern Colorado andon to supply the city of Denver.Water is diverted in Utah to the SaltLake Valley and in New Mexico tothe Rio Grande River basin to serveAlbuquerque and the central part ofthe state. In California, ColoradoRiver water is diverted to servesouthern coastal and desert areas ofthe state from north of Los Angelesto the Mexican border. By the end ofthe century almost every drop of theColorado River will be accounted for.If there are droughts or large-scaledevelopments or tranSfer of rights,that day could come sooner. Theriver has been called the mostapportioned and institutionalized inthe United States.

This guide traces the history ofdevelopment of the Colorado Riverand summarizes the difficult barteringand compromising that have resultedin dividing the waters among the _

basin states and Mexico. Theconcluding section explains theproblems and decisions faced todayin managing the Colorado to providefor the use, protection and preserva-tion of this essential resource.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

\ 44,

New Mexico11.25%

UPPER BASIN ENTITLEMENTS

Colorado51.75%

Arizona 1

50,000 acre-feet

"t

(II .S.4110 W/t.t,

,/'

i

I

1 1

' 1

/

fUPPER BASIN

i

5,..ti\ f Ili 1

g P141tot\

\ ----

-": ....,,,,,0

oillittoitiv,,),60,...:\ ...::

I.- .-2--.1. . -._. ,..Z.

\ i LEE'S FERRYI ..,, 00

\ 04, thr.o. I 00" I 17:

\1

r 1;e

0 *r 5

7

LOWER BASINIll%sIttittirtiorj.

f 11114,,,-..

N.%% .

tt 6/ti

_

51'LOWER BASIN ENTITLEMENTS

The earliest development of the Col-orado to serve man's needs was byancient Indians. The Anasazi Indiansof the Chaco Canyon, in the desertof northwestern New Mexico, werean advanced culture dating from 600A.D. By the 12th century, they had awell-developed civilization with acomplex water distribution system. Atthe height of their civilization, it hasbeen estimated that five to tenthousand people occupiedcommunal dwellings in the canyon.

Contemporaries of the Anasazi in thelower basin, the Hohokam Indians ofArizona, are believed to have had aneven older civilization. Though not asadvanced in their water system, theHohokam Indians also built extensiveditches and canal systems io divertwater from the Colorado. At theMontezuma Well in central Arizona,canals built by the Hohokam arepreserved in almost original conditionbecause of their lime linings createdfrom the calcium content in thewater.

There was some exploration andsettlement of the Southwest by theSpanish in the sixteenth century. Theearly Spanish explorers wereprimarily interested in treasure andwere discouraged by the ruggednessof the terrain and the failure to findriches. A few Spanish settled areasof Arizona and New Mexico. TheSpanish introduced livestock andbuilt dams and reservoirs, as well asdiversion ditches and canals.

The Colorado River basin was thelast major area of the 48 mainlandstates to be explored by Anglo-Americans. It appeared on UnitedStates maps in the 1850's as an areamore than 500 miles long and 200miles across marked "unexplored."Eastern Congressmen called thisomission "inexcusable ignorance of

54

our own country." They could nothave imagined the height andruggedness of the Rocky Mountains,the turbulence and steepness of theriver, nor the depths and inaccessi-bility of its canyons. This terrain wasvastly different from the basins of theMississippi or the Ohio, where navi-gation of the rivers aided exploration.

Much of the California coast wasexplored by ships, but ships couldnot travel up the Colorado River,even if they managed to get safelyinto the channel. Spanish explorers,and those who followed them, en-countered a severe tidal bore thatendangered and sometimes capsizedtheir ships. The rising tide enteringthe narrow channel from the Gulf ofCalifornia caused sudden surges ofwater that moved up the river. Theseverity would depend on the lunarinfluence. There were reports that thelarge wave traveled at high speedup the river with a loud roar. Thisphenomenon, which occurs in wide-mouthed bays with narrowingchannels, cannot be confirmed todaybecause no water from the Coloradohas reached its natural outlet in theGulf in more than 20 years, exceptduring floods in 1980, 1983 and1984.

The U.S. Army-Ives Expedition of1857-58 traveled 420 miles up themouth of the Colorado River;however, it was 1869 before the Col-orado basin had been fully explored.In that year, the geologist, JohnWesley Powell, a one-armed CivilWar major, floated down theColorado through the Grand Canyon,proving for the first time that it couldbe done. He published a detailedaccount of his exploration in 1875and achieved the notoriety to laterbecome director of the U.S.Geological Survey. Based on his ex-ploration, Powell believed large-scaledevelopment of the Colorado wasimpractical because there was notadequate water to serve the aridlands of the region. But he believeda limited amount of development,under federal auspices, was feasible.

.._

(Top) Lt. Ives' SteamboatExplorer 1858. (Middle) TheWreck of the No Name duringPowell's first expedition. (Bottom)Powell rescued via a companion's"underdrawers" while exploring acanyon.

v°d[ng Wei2eTe

The Colorado is often described asthe most controversial and regulatedriver in the country, perhaps theworld. Considering the importance ofwater to all of the Southwest, it is notsurprising that there wasand stillis controversy over how this singlemajor river is to be shared by sevenarid states, several Indian tribes andthe Republic of Mexico. What isperhaps more surprising is that it hasbeen possible to come to anyagreement at all.

There are vast deserts and aridplains in all of the seven states. With-out water, this land cannot bedeveloped. Some of the states couldmake, ultimately, full use of most ofthe water in the Colorado River bythemselves. In Arizona, for example,the available land resources exceedwater resources by at least ahundredfold. The land in all thestates which could benefit from waterfor in'igation far exceeds availablecapacity of the Colorado River.

Because of the tremendous waterneeds throughout the basin states,_building any large project on the Col-orado has always involved barterand compromise. When the firstprojects were built, it was in theatmosphere of a developing countryanxious to settle its wilderness. Today,the dominating influence is the fearof overdevelopment. But throughoutthis century, one factor has remainedconstant: Mexico and each state andeach Indian tribe wants to assure itsown share of the water.

In view of the scarcity of water andthe political realities of the West in itsdeveloping years. it is hard to im-agine how this controversy and litiga-tion over the Colorado could havebeen avoided. A stronger federalrole is unlikely to have beenaccepted. The western states havetraditionally fought federal controlover the states' resources,particularly water. The West's fierceindependence and strong convictionsregarding states' rights were evenmore extreme at the turn of thecentury than they are now.

I11

Apportionment of the water andagreements to support projects werehammered out by determined,desperate people, because eachconcession of more wateror aprojectfor one area meant depriva-tion for another. No state's represen-tative could go home from thebargaining table with less than whatit was thought possible to obtain andexpect to survive politically. Most ofthe agreements were worked outthrough a balancing of mutual self-interest and bargaining.

Concern over development of theColorado began with the develop-ment of the American West. Becauseof the 1849 gold rush, California wassettled more rapidly than otherwestern states. As developmentprogressed, settlers began to think ofthe farming that would be possible inthe rich desert lands. In some areasof the Rocky Mountains, the growingseason between frosts was as shortas two months while in the southernCalifornia desert there was a longgrowing season conducive to grow-ing as many as three consecutivecrops a year, if water could bebrought to the land. The only sourcewithin a feasible distance was theColorado River.

Hoover Dam, a monumentalproject built after years ofnegotiation and compromise,backs up the Colorado for floodprotection, water storage for

,Imunicipal and agricultural uses,a hydroelectric power generation andother uses.

Ch

Year Action or Event

1849 Dr. Oliver Wozencraft conceives idea of irrigatingImperial Valley

1857 Lt. Joseph C. Ives, U.S., in the Steamboat"Explorer" begins exploration of Colorado River fromits mouth to present site of Hoover Dam 420 miles

1865 Lower Cclorado lands first set aside for Indians

1869 John Wesley Powell explores the Colorado throughthe Grand Canyon by wooden boat

1875 Powell issues his report on exploration of theColorado

1877 Thomas Blythe secures 40,000 acres in the PaloVerde Valley and files for one of the first diversionsfrom the Colorado

1888-89 Extreme drought and cattle losses hit the West

1892 Grand Ditch completed 16.7 miles long firstmajor diversion outside the basin, conveys wateracross the Continental Divide into eastern Colorado

1900 Basin's population is 260,000

1901 100,000 acres irrigated in California's Imperial Valley

1901 Santa Fe Railroad completes tracks to south rim ofthe Grand Canyon

1902 Newlands Act passed

1902 Arthur Powell Davis unveils comprehensivedevelopment plan for the Colorado River

1905-07 Colorado River breaks through Imperial Valley Canalheadgates

1908 Winters v. U.S. decision Supreme Court reserveswater, as well as land, for Indian reservation

1909 160,000 acres are irrigated in the Imperial Valley

1910 Mexican Revolution

1911 Imperial Irrigation District formed

1913 Los Angeles Aqueduct from Owens Valley completed

1919 Congressman Kettner from San Diego introduces billauthorizing construction of the All-American Canal

Significance or Result

Land orant request refused by Congress

Later became director of U.S. Geological Survey, andopposed the Reclamation Movement of the 1890's.

Precedent for inter-basin transfers

Canyon becomes tourist attraction

Fstablishes the U.S. Reclamation Service

Entire flow of the river passed into the' Imperial Valleydestroying homes, agricultural lands and creating theSalton Sea

(1917) Last lower basin lands reserved for theIndians

Unsettled conditions threatened canal

(1916) 300,000 acres under cultivation in the ImperialValley 5 4

Year Action or Event Significance or Result

1919 Creation of Grand Canyon National Park, reserving a132-mile reach of canyon and river for the public

1920 Los Angeles population reaches 600,000 Los Angeles looks to Colorado for power production,city council endorses Davis Plan

1920 Kinkaid Act authorizes government to collect dataabout All-American Canal and plans for potentialreservoir introduced (Davis Plan for dam on Colorado) ";A.

1920 Colorado attorney Delph Carpenter argues for Col-orado River Compact

1920-21 Basin states and Congress approve idea of Compact

1922 Supreme Court rules in Wyoming v. Colorado thatappropriative doctrine applies regardless of statelines ("first in time, first in right")

1923 All bas n states except Arizona ratify Compact

1924 Southern California cities and other agencies beginto form the Metropolitan Water District of SouthernCalifornia (MWD) to build eventually the ColoradoRiver Aqueduct

1925 Six state compact arrangement approved by Nevadaand upper states, California approves contingent on Construction of MWD's Parker Damconstruction of a high dam on the lower river

1927 California legislature approves MWD and authorizes it Gave support to the Imperial Valley interests into provide a supplemental water supply to the efforts to develop Colorado Rivercoastal plain of southern California

1928-29 Boulder Canyon Project Act approved by Congress, California agrees to limitations of the ActCompact also approved as part of Boulder CanyonProject Act

1929 President Hoover declares Boulder Canyon ProjectAct in errect

1929 Great Depression begins

1929-30 U.S. and Mexico negotiate towards apportionment No agreement reachedof Colorado River, U.S. offers Mexico 750,000acre-feet annually

1930 California agrees to purchase all power produced byBoulder Canyon Project

1930 First Arizona v. California case filed to invalidateBoulder Canyon Project Act

1932 Construction of Boulder (Hoover) Dam started

55


1932 Grand Canyon National Monument created

1933 Arizona sends National Guard to prevent constructionof diversion by MWD to coastal southern California

1934 Second Arizona v. California case filed to invalidateBoulder Canyon Project Act

1935 Arizona requests judicial apportionment of lowerColorado

1936 Third Arizona v. California case filed to invalidateBoulder Canyon Project Act

1937 Congress approves Colorado-Big Thompson Project

National Resource Drainage Basin Report ispublished

California creates Colorado River Board to protect itsinterests in the river

1939 Bureau of Reclamation establishes power line fromHoover Dam to supply Arizona with emergency power

1940 Arizona reassesses water policy

1941 242-mile long Colorado River Aqueduct is completedby MWD and begins delivering water

1942 Imperial Valley receives first deliveries via All-American Canal

1944 U.S. and Mexico sign treaty giving Mexico 1.5 millionacre-feet of Colorado River water annually (slightlyless than Mexico was believed to be using)

1944 Arizona legislature ratifies Colorado River Compact(after 22 years of opposition)

1945 Senate ratifies treaty with Mexico

1946 Reclamation Bureau issues study called for inBoulder Canyon Project Act

1946 Upper basin states authorize the negotiation ofCompact to apportion their share of the river

1947 Colorado Piver water is delivered to San Diego viaMWD


Supreme Court refused on technical grounds; U.S.not a party to the suit; Arizona would have to showdeprivation of actual rights

Leads Arizona to reconsider policies against Compact

Reconsiders opposition to Compact

Funded by a $220 million bond issue, this was thelast major water system to be built in California by acity or municipal district without state or federalfunding

Concluded there was not enough water for allprojects proposed; Congress refused to approve anyprojects until upper states determined their individualrights

56


1947 Reclamation Bureau presents plans for Central

Arizona Project (CAP)

1948 Upper basin negotiations result in apportionment,formal signing in Santa Fe, creation of UpperColorado River Commission

1949 Water is delivered to Coachella Valley

1949 States and Congress approve Upper Colorado River

Basin Compact

1950 Reports of President's Water Resources PolicyCommission with plans for Colorado River

1951 Congress refuses to approve Central Arizona Project

(CAP) until differences between California andArizona are resolved

1952 Bill for projects on upper Colorado meets nationwideopposition because of plans to flood DinosaurNational Monument

1956 Colorado River storage project bill is approved byCongress, also authorizes Glen Canyon Dam

1961 Welton-Mohawk Irrigation District completes draindischarging salty water to lower Colorado aboveMexico's intake

1962-64 New upper basin projects are authorized by Congress

1963 Arizona v. California decision: U.S. Supreme Courtapportions lower basin allocation

1963 Glen Canyon Dam is completed

1964 Bureau of Reclamation completes Pacific Southwest

Water Plan

1965 Water is discharged from reservoirs to improve waterquality in Mexico, Welton-Mohawk drain discharge is

relocated

1967 Navajos agree to limit upper Colorado claim to50,000 acre-feet in exchange for power plant

1968 Colorado River Basin Project bill is approved byCongress, proposed Grand Canyon Dam iseliminated from bill after one of the biggestenvironmental battles in U.S. history

1968 Ten-year federal moratorium on .styclies to bringwater from other basins is imposed


Paved the way for new projects in upper basin

(1952) Arizona files suit asking court to apportionlower basin water

Crop losses from salinity cause protests from Mexicoand conflicts over water quality not specified in 1944

treaty

MWD of So. Ca. to lose approximately 600,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water when the CentralArizona Project goes on line (1985)

5 7

Year Action or Event Significance or Result

1968 National Research Council report on "Water andChoice in the Colorado Basin" is published

1973 Minute 242 of International Boundary Commission is Specified salinity limits for water to Mexicosigned by Mexico and U.S.

1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act is approvedby Congress

1978 Ten-year moratorium on studies to bring water fromother basins extended another ten years

1979 Supreme Court turns Indian irrigation disputes overto Special Magistrate

1980 Arizona passes Ground Water Management Actwhich sets a broad goal of cutting the state's percapita water consumption in half by the year 2025,mainly by reducing agricultural consumption

1983 Arizona v. California: Supreme Court refuses toreopen 1964 decree awarding federally reservedwater rights to five lower basin tribes

1984 Amendments to 1974 Colorado River Basin SalinityControl Act

1984 Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984

1985

1986 Colorado River Floodway Protection Act

1986 Lower Colorado Water Supply Act

1987 Hoover Dam power contracts renewed

1988 Central Arizona Project officialiy reaches Phoenix

1991 Central Arizona Project to reach Tucson

1993 Scheduled completion of Yuma desalination plant

Authorized salinity control projects in Nevada, Utah,Colorado and one of the largest desalination plantsnear Yuma

(1982) Special Magistrate recommends Indian claimsbe upheld

Supreme Court rejects Special Magistrate's recom-mendation that Indian claims be upheld, other Indianrights cases pending

Added an on farm salinity control program and non-federal cost sharing

Authorized increased capacity (uprating) of HooverPower Plant generators

California's water allotment reduced from 5.3 to 4.4million acre-feet when CAP starts

MWD of So. Ca. loses approximately 600,000 acre-feetdependable supply because the Central ArizonaProject is now on line. However, the Secretary of theInterior can allocate Colorado water to.California inyears of surplus

Defined floodway to minimize loss of human life,protect health and safety, and minimize damage toproperty from Davis Dam to the Mexican border

Provides for water supply to non-agricultural waterusers in California with limited or no rights toColorado River water

LJD Notima

111..

air

4."*V41"

prXt-- .

ez-g 4

r

e -

(Top) Irrigation today in theImperial Valley. Colorado Riverwater is delivered through the All-American Canal. (Below) Grapesin the Coachella Valley. ColoradoRiver water is delivered throughthe Coachella Canal.

As California developed lands foragriculture, other states in the basinbegan to fear that they would losetheir rights to the water by the timetheir development caught up withCalifornia's. All western statesrecognized the doctrine of ap-propriative rights which was theprevailing water law in most miningareas of the world. The doctrine heldthat the first to use the waterestablished the first rights to use it,or "first in time, first in right." IfCalifornia established priority rightsby using large amounts of the Col-orado's flow, the other states mightbe forced to leave enough water inthe river to satisfy thnse rights.

California's first irrigation of theImperial Valley was by a canal, anold overflow channel of the river thatwent through Mexico. Mexicoallowed American settlers to use thediversion in exchange for half thewater. Users of the canal weredissatisfied with Mexico's controlover their water supply and had con-flicts over maintenance of the levees.They also feared that Mexico's useof the water would increase. Theusers wanted to build a canal fromthe Colorado that was entirely withinthe United States to be called the All-American Canal. For a project of thissize, federal help was needed.

There was little chance of gettingCongress to approve ally largeproject on the Colorado without thesupport of all the states in the basin.This created a stalemate for anylarge projects. None of the otherbasin states would approve a projectthat would allow one state toestablish rights to Colorado Riverwater without getting similar projectsof their own.

In the first two decades of this cen-tury, a number of events occurredthat increased the motivation tobreak this stalemate. The UnitedStates Reclamation Service wasestablished in 1902 and the reclama-

, tion movement began with the goalof developing regional water supplies

for farming and flood control projectssponsored by the federal govern-ment. It's leader, Arthur PowellDavis, nephew of John WesleyPowell, conceived a comprehensiveplan for developing dams and reser-voirs on the Colorado River.

In 1905, flood waters broke throughthe headgates of the Imperial ValleyCanal. The entire flow of theColorado poured into the ImperialValley destroying homes andthousands of acres of agriculturallands and creating the Salton Sea.The Southern Pacific Company,owner of the it,ation works, finallyrepaired the break after working fortwo years. A railroad trestle was builtacross the break, and carloads ofrock, gravel, and clay were dumpedfrom trains to form a dam. This dis-astrous flood intensified the push forthe All-American Canal, and theMexican Revolution of 1910 gave itfurther impetus. Proponents of thecanal eventually joined with Davis tosupport his broader program ofdams and reservoirs which wasexpanded to include the canal.

As pressure was increasing for theseprojects and for flood control on thelower Colorado, Los Angeles wasseeking a power supply for itsgrowing population. The potential forhydroelectric power developmentmade the city a natural ally of theproposal for a large dam on thelower Colorado.

In 1920, Delph Carpenter, aColorado water rights attorney,proposed the idea of an interstatecompact. The timing was excellentfor the basin states to be receptiveto the idea of negotiating theirdifferences. California wanted itsprojects and would have a betterchance to get them with supportfrom other basin states. The otherstates were afraid the projects wouldbe approved because of strongarguments for flood control, and theywanted their own interests protected.

59

Meg irecU

The state legislatures of all the basinstates and the federal governmentapproved the concept of a compact,and negotiations began in January,1922. The meetings of state andfederal representatives, called theColorado River Commission, werechaired by the Secretary ofCommerce, Herbert Hoover.

The negotiators were not able toresolve all the issues they hadattempted, but reached anagreement to divide the watershedinto upper and lower basins andapportion the right to use 7.5 millionacre-feet per year to each basin. Allthe deiegates signed the Compact,but it had to be ratified by Congressand the legislatures of all the statesinvolved. Arizona's legislaturerefused to ratify the Compact.

Finally, unable to secure Arizona'sapproval of the Compact, theremaining states endorsed a six-statecompact. California approved the six-state agreement on the condition thata high dam would be built on thelower Colorado.

The Boulder Canyon Project Act wasthen introduced in Congress, withprovisions for a six-state or seven-state compact incorporated into theagreement. The upper basin statesdid some bargaining of their ownand agreed to support the bill only ifCalifornia would agree to limit its useof Colorado River water. AlthoughArizona was not a party to thecompact, the upper states wantedsome assurance that Arizona's laterclaims to the Colorado would comefrom the lower basin's share, and notfrom their share.

When the Boulder Canyon ProjectAct was passed, it contained a sug-gested lower basin apportionmentrestricting California's use to 4.4million acre-feet and 'no more thanhalf of any surplus water. When theCalifornia legislature approved thislimitation, the Act was declaredeffective. California also had to agreeto purchase all the electricity fromthe power plant before Hoover Damcould be built.

Conflict between Arizona and Califor-nia continued long after Hoover Damand the All-American Canal werecompleted. In 1931, 1934 and 1936,Arizona appealed to the SupremeCourt to resolve the states'differences, each time unsuccess-fully. There was little to supportArizona's claims of damage withCalifornia's limitation of use and withsurplus water in the river.

Arizona's water policies began tochange in 1939 when it becamenecessary for the state to acceptpower from Hoover Dam for the firsttime. Finally, in 1944, the Arizonalegislature ratified the Compact. ThenArizona began efforts to securefederal projects of its own.

In the upper basin, projects author-ized for study in the Boulder CanyonProject Act were blocked until thestates determined their individualrights. In 1948 these states reachedan agreement that apportionedpercentages of the flow available tothe upper basin and 50,000 acre-feetto the small portion of Arizona thatwas in the upper basin. The agree-ment also established the Upper Col-orado River Commission to deter-mine water use in each upper basinstate if diversions had to be reducedto meet lower basin entitlements.

In 1952 the first bill for projects onthe upper Colorado met with nation-wide opposition because of plans toflood the canyons of Dinosaur Na-tional Monument. These canyons areon the Green River, a tributary of theColorado. The Flaming Gorge Damwas substituted for the proposedEcho Park Dam, and the ColoradoRiver Storage Project Act of 1956was approved by Congress. This actauthorized the Glen Canyon Dam tobe built just above Lee's Ferry nearthe Arizona-Utah border. It alsoauthorized the Central Utah Projectand 11 projects in Wyoming, Col-orado and New Mexico. Severalother upper basin projects wereauthorized in 1962 and 1964.

u

While other states were obtainingwater projects, Arizona's plans for anaqueduct to carry water to Phoenixand Tucson were stalled. Congresswould not approve the CentralArizona Project (CAP) until Arizona'sshare of the Colorado wasdetermined. Arizona again appealedto the Supreme Court. this time toapportion the water among the lowerbasin states. The Court determinedthat Arizona had a legitimate cause,and the case was litigated for 11years before a decision was reached.The resulting 1963 decision gave asurprising interpretation to theBoulder Canyon Project Act. TheCourt said that Congress had em-powered the Secretary of the Interiornot only to suggest, but to implementthe lower basin agreement suggestedin the Act. Further, the decree heldthat the Secretary of the Interior alsohad been empowered to determinehow future shortages would beapportioned among the states.

This controversial decision advanced,for the first time, the view that Con-gress had the power to apportionrights to interstate streams. It alsoasserted that Congress had em-powered the Secretary of the Interiorunder certain conditions to apportionwater rights of the Colorado River.The decision initially gave Arizonaeverything it had wanted in the initialCompact negotiations. It also clearedthe way for the CAP. California'swater allotment would be cut even-tually from 5.3 million acre-feet to 4.4million acre-feet. Coastal southernCalifornia lost more than 600,000acre-feet of water entitlement in 1985through Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California (MWD), althoughpresently MWD reserves surpluswater.

Despite its Supreme Court victory,Arizona still found it necessary tobargain with California and the upperbasin states to get its project throughCongress. Arizona agreed, in eventof shortages, to limit diversions to theCAP to assure delivery of the 4.4million acre-feet apportioned toCalifornia.

he -Mg Rhe War 3

'Ts

+RP,-

(Top) The Bureau's 1903 Salt RiverProject winds near the developingPhoenix area. Both Phoenix andTucson will be served by theCentral Arizona Project (CAP).(Below) The CAP underconstruction near Phoenix.

The Colorado River has been appor-tioned among the seven basin states

and the Republic of Mexico by anumber of interstate agreements,contracts, an international treaty,

state and federal legislation, aSupreme Court decision and federal

administrative actions. These variousdocuments and laws are known, col-lectively, as "The Law of the River."

Among the documents forming "TheLaw of the River," some of the most

significant are:

1. The Colorado River Compact of

1922, which divided the rights to thewater between the upper and lowerbasins, with the dividing lir a andmeasuring point near Lee's Ferry

2. The Boulder Canyon ProjectAct of 1928, which authorized con-struction of Hoover Dam and PowerPlant and the All-American Canal

3. The Mexican Water Treaty of1944, in which the U.S. agreed todeliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Col-orado River water to Mexico annually

4. The Upper Colorado RiverBasin Compact of 1948, whichapportioned the upper basin share ofwater among the upper basin states

5. The Colorado River StorageProject Act of 1956, which author-

ized several storage reservoirs in the

upper basin

6. The Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court decision (June 3,

1963) which determined the lowerbasin apportionment among Arizona,

California and Nevada

7. The Colorado River Basin

Project Act of 1968, whichauthorized the Central ArizonaProject (CAP) and limited diversions

to the CAP during shortages to

assure California's entitlement of

4.4 million acre-feet annually

4 61

This federal act also established thepriority of satisfaction of the MexicanWater Treaty as the first call on anyfuture augmentation project, anddirected the Secretary of the Interior

to propose criteria for the coor-dinated long-range operations offederal reservoirs on the ColoradoRiver

8. The "Criteria for CoordinatedLong-Range Operation of ColoradoRiver Reservoirs of 1970," whichprovided for the storage of water inreservoirs of the Colorado RiverStorage Project and set a priority for

release of water from Lake Powell

9. The Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972,which gave the U.S. EnvironmentProtection Agency authority tocontrol water quality of the nation'srivers

10. Minute 242 of the InternationalBoundary and Water Commission,United States and Mexico, issued in1973, which required actions toreduce the salinity of water delivered

to Mexico

11. The Colorado River BasinSalinity Control Act of 1974 and1984 amendments, which authorizeddesalting and salinity control projects

to improve Colorado River waterquality

All dams on the Colorado River areoperated by the Bureau ofReclamation, an agency of the U.S.

Department of the Interior. TheSecretary of the Interior makes thedecisions which control distribution ofthe water from these projects. TheInterior Secretary's decisions are to

be in accordance with all thedocuments that make up "The Lawof the River."

AST COPY AVAIVABli

Pa![Med veT

The Colorado was so named bySpanish explorers because of itsruddy color. The force of the wateragainst the steep gradient and thecomposition of the rock formationsin the Colorado basin contribute tothe river's excessive amount oferosion. The river carries more siltthan most rivers, and has a highconcentration of dissolved mineralsin the water.

The river carries nine million tons ofsalt annually. The Colorado flowinginto the Imperial Dam contains about2,000 pounds of salts per acre-footcompared with the 300 pounds peracre-foot in the Sacramento River atSacramento. Salinity increasesdownstream thro!igh the leaching ofsalts from saline sods and geologicformations due to natural processesas well as to agricultural and otheractivities of man, and the loss ofwater through evaporation, munici-pal, industrial and agricultural use,and through out-of-Basin exports.Minerals increase concentrationbecause they are carried in lesswater. Extreme salinity can damagesoil and crops and can corrodepumps, household plumbing andmachinery. Highly saline water is notsuitable for municipal water supply orindustrial and agricultural useswithout treatment to remove minerals.

In the agriculturally rich area of theImperial Valley one ton per acre-footaccumulates each year. Salt damagecould double by the year 2020, sayagricultural experts, with an annualloss to California farmers of morethan $250 million. The increasinasalinity is a serious problem on thelower Colorado. In 1973, the UnitedStates made an agreement withMexico to improve the quality ofwater that was delivered to Mexico.

Also in 1973, the seven basin statesformed the Colorado River BasinSalinity Control Forum. This groupadopted a program for establishingwater quality standards for salinityunder Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) regulations. TheForum has conducted studies onsalinity and recommended numericcriteria and a salinity control plan tomeet the criteria. The criteria andplan have been adopted by theseven basin states arid approved bythe EPA. Several salinity controlprojects have been approved for theColorado to meet the adoptedcriteria. To meet the agreement withMexico, a large desalination plantnear Yuma is scheduled for comple-tion in 1993 at a cost currentlyexpected to be $484 million. ThisBureau of Reclamation plant willproduce 73 million gallons a day ofreclaimed irrigation water. With mostof the salt removed, the water will beblended back to the Coloradoflowing to Mexico at a salinity levellow enough for Mexican farmers touse again. None of the water will beused in the United States but willfulfill our treaty obligation withMexico. Critics say retiring nearbyland from irrigation by buying outsome local farmers would have beencheaper than constructing thedesalination plant.

Indian RightsThe 1908 Winters v. United StatesSupreme Court decision that Indianrights existed whether or not waterwas actually being used by themwas reaffirmed in the 1963 SupremeCourt Arizona v. California decision.In the Arizona decision the Justices

held that the five lower river reserva-tions near the main stream of theColorado River "were not limited toland, but included water as well . It

is impossible to believe that whenCongress created the great ColoradoRiver Indian Reservation and whenthe Executive Department of this Na-tion created the other reservationsthey were unaware that most of thelands were of the desert kindhot,scorching sandsand that waterfrom the river would be essential tothe life of the Indian people and tothe animals they hunted and thecrops they raised." The Court saidthe only feasible and fair way bywhich reserved water for the reserva-tions can be measured is irrigableacreage, although Indians were notrestricted to the use of the water foragriculture.

Today more than 20 years after theArizona decision, Indians in theseareas are only farming about 60 per-cent of their irrigable acreage. For anumber of reasons including Indianpoverty and concern by non-Indiansthat Indian projects will divert morewater, the Indians have not financedexpensive irrigation projects and havenot received financial assistance fromCongress. After the Arizona decision,in which the Indian Reservations wereawarded over 900,000 acre-feet of di-version rights, the Indians made addi-tional claims. In 1979 the U.S. Su-preme Court turned those claims overto a Special Master. In 1982 theSpecial Master recommended that theCourt uphold Indian claims that wouldpermit them to receive some 1.2 mil-lion acre-feet or about one-third morewater than already awarded by theArizona v. California court. However, ina 1983 decision, the Supreme Courtrejected the recommendation of theSpecial Master, ruling that some ofthe claims were made too late andthat others required further resolutionof boundary disputes before anymore water rights could be awardedto the Indians. Litigation continuesover the boundary disputes and in191 the Supreme Court appointed aSpecial Master to make recommenda-tions to the court. p

Water Management

California has been innovative inadopting programs to encouragemore efficient use of Colorado Riverwater. Lining of 49 miles of theCoachella Canal was completed in1980. In 1988, the President signedlegislation authorizing the Secretaryof the Interior to line 28 miles of theAll-American Canal and 38 additionalmiles of the Coachella Canal. One ormore of the California agencies withcontracts for delivery of ColoradoRiver water would fund theseprojects to line the canals which areowned by the Federal Government.In turn, the 100,000 acre-feet ofwater saved annually by the projectswould be available for use by theCalifornia agencies. Constructioncould begin in the early 1990sfollowing completion of environmentalimpact statements. In the meantime,the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,Coachella Valley Water District, andthe Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California (MWD) aresponsoring a demonstration oftechnology to line 1.5 miles of theCoachella Canal in place while wateris flowing through the canal. Theprocess involves shaping the canalprism and applying a geotextilepolyvinylchloride liner and concretecover. The demonstration project willallow for refinement of cost esti-mates, evaluation of environmentalimpacts, and verification ofequipment operation.

Also in 1988, MWD and the ImperialIrrigation District signed a landmarkwater conservation agreementwhereby MWD will contribute fundsto implement 18 water conservationprojects in the Imperial Valley over a5-year period. Following theirimplementation, MWD will pay theiroperation and maintenance costs fora 35-year period. The projectsconsist of structural and non-structural conservation measures,including lining of existing irrigationcanals, construction of localreservoirs and spill interceptorcanals, installation of gates and

automation equipment, andexpansion of water managementpractices. The 100,000 acre-feet ofwater saved annually would beavailable to MWD during the periodof the agreement.

Other proposals which may come tofruition in the 1990s include aground water storage program onthe East Mesa of Imperial County.Surplus Colorado River water mightbe recharged in the abandonedunlined Coachella Canal on the EastMesa for later use by the Californiaagencies when their water suppliesare short. Cooperative waterutilization programs are also beingconsidered. In years of watershortages, irrigation districts mightmake water available for urban use.To do so, lands in the districts wouldbe removed from agriculturalproduction, freeing the water thatwould otherwise be used on thefarms. Landowners would befinancially compensated for therevenue they forego by MWD.

PowerThe Colorado River Basin plays asignificant role in the economics ofthe western states because it is richlyendowed with a variety of energyresources including water, coal, oil,gas, and uranium. Massive coalbeds are widespread over much ofthe upper basin. In the Green RiverBasin of that area, one of the largestoil shale deposits in the nation issituated. With the vast resources,fossil fuels and hydroelectric powergeneration projects have beendeveloped in the basin states.

The largest power generating plant islocated at Hoover Dam. The BoulderCanyon Project (Hoover Dam) wasconstructed for the purposes ofcontrolling the floods, improvingnavigation, regulating the flow of theColorado River, providing for storageand for the delivery of the storedwater thereof for reclamation ofpublic lands and other beneficialuses exclusively within the United

States, and for the generation ofelectrical energy. The main featuresof the project include the dam andreservoir, hydroelectric plant andhigh voltage switchyards. Electricalenergy is delivered to the allottees atthe high voltage switchyards andtransmitted from that point to loads inArizona, California, and Nevada overtransmission facilities which areowned or arranged for by theallottees of electrical energy. In 1987the Federal Government's 50-yearcontracts to sell Hoover Dam'shydroelectric power to utilitiesexpired and new contracts weredeveloped for using Hoover energy.Approximately 1,500 megawatts ofinexpensive electricity is allocated tocontractors. Metropolitan WaterDistrict of Southern California (MWD)now receives 17 percent, city of LosAngeles 34 percent, SouthernCalifornia Edison Company 19percent, Arizona Power Authority 13percent, and more than 3 percentgoes to municipalities.

Hoover power plant uprating, fundedfrom non-federal resources, ispresently under way to increase thecapacity of the existing generatorunits. Upon completion in 1992,Hoover power generation willincrease to an anticipated outputexceeding 2,000 megawatts. Poweris also generated at Parker Dam andDavis Dam. The Colorado RiverStorage Project also providessignificant power.

, mph*. 11

734;ZK z -

V46.W/i/Mff

111 IIMMINUM11.1, 'MIt.N.S, NUL "MMINIIIIr-r min- - - PIZ,'

110 r

Unresolved issues

Although agreements have estab-lished the basic water entitlementsamong the basin states and withMexico, the controversy over the Col-orado is far from ended. Thedilemma is whether there will beenough water in the Colorado tomeet the entitlements and to supplythe projects that are authorized butnot yet built.

When the Colorado River Compactwas negotiated, the ReclamationService estimated the annual aver-age runoff at Lee's Ferry to be morethan 18 million acre-feet. It appearstoday that the figure is closer to 14million acre-feet annually.

The Colorado basin has pioneeredmany changes in water manage-ment. The Colorado River Compactmarked the first time that more thantwo or three states negotiated atreaty to settle their differences. TheColorado was also the first drainagebasin where the multiple use of waterwas planned. Major projects on theColorado were planned for municipaland industrial water supply, powerdevelopment, irrigation, flood controland recreation.

Though nearly one million acre-feetof rights to Colorado River waterhave already been awarded to theIndians, the total rights of all Indiantribes to Colorado River water is stillvery much in doubt. The Arizona v.California Supreme Court decision in1963 awarding water rights to fiveIndian reservations in the lower basinhas implications that may greatlyincrease the rights of other Indians toColorado River water. Many Indianwater rights are now being used. If

The Colorado River below Parker Dam

these rights are exercised, therecould be even greater shortagesthan those that can be expectedbecause of the optimisticapportionments under the Compact.

Water quality problems in theColorado are equally serious, andwill become even more severe asthe basin states use their share ofthe Colorado River. The basin statesare working cooperatively with thefederal government and with eachother to resolve these problems.

Various measures are beingexamined to supplement the flow ofthe Colorado. The possibilitiesinclude desalting of sea water andweather modification by cloudseeding and vegetation managementto reduce evaportranspiration lossesand increase stream flow. Anothermajor unresolved issue is the

64

development of oil shale in the upperbasin states, which is potentially avery large water use.

The competition for water willcontinue and, with it, the inevitableanimosity that causes a Coloradodelegate at a water conference tocategorize a California delegate as a"lower basin person." Yet regionalplanning is much more acceptabletoday than it was to the independent-minded Western people of the nine-teenth century, and significantprogress has been made bycooperating to preserve and protectour resources. The problems will notbe solved easily, but with a spirit ofcooperation and with newtechnology, they can be solved.

Water Education Foundaticn717 K St., Suite 517Sacramento, CA 95814(918) 4444240

perre u!ds©ft

Prepared by the Water Education Foundation

;

'

''

.1- iv.

,--rf '4.A:41- 3.7if

MOLE

Partial support for this guideprovided by the San FranciscoEstuary Project.

6 7

CcoMencfte

Introduction 2

Chronology 5

Background 6

Delta Issues 9

Delta Decisions 15

Agreements 17

Plans 8( Programs 18

Summary 20

1990

68

The Layperson's Guide to CaliforniaWater is prepared and distributed by theWater Education Foundation as a publicinformation tool. It is part of a series ofLayperson's Guides which explorepertinent water issues in an objective,easy-to-understand manner.

For information on the Foundation's otherinformation and education programscontact:


President: Robert M. HaganExecutive Director: Rita Schmidt Sudman

LILAAuthor: Gala Argent


Editorial Assistance: Merle Fraser

Photo Credits:

California Department of Water ResourcesU.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Graphics:

California Department of Water Resources

On the Cover

This photograph of Georgiana Slough isfrom Delta Country, written by RichardDillon and photographed by SteveSimmons. The book gives an historicaloverview of this timeless land, from thedays of the Indians and early explorers tosettlement and development of today'sagribusiness. The uncertain future of thisunique area is also considered.

TAT ducU

Flowing south, fed by northern SierraNevada runoff, the Sacramento Rivermeets the northbound San Joaquin Riverto form the Sacramcnto-San Joaquin Deltain the Central Valley. The two rivers minglewith smaller rivers to form a 700-milemaze of rivers and sloughs surrounding 57islands, most of them now agricultural.

Their combined freshwater flows then rollon through the Carquinez Strait, a narrowbreak in the Coast Range, and on into SanFrancisco Bay's northern arm. SuisunMarsh and adjoining bays are the brackishtransition between the fresh water flowingfrom the rivers and the salt water of theBay.

The area has always been at the mercy ofriver flows and tides. Before humanschanged the Delta environment, saltyocean water from San Francisco Bay creptup Delta channels during dry summers;when mountain runoff ebbed. Then, duringthe winter, heavy runoff from the moun-tains kept the sea water at bay. The earlydiaries of Spanish explorers indicate thatthe salt line moved according to the rela-tive dryness of the year A great flood inthe 1860s resulted in a substantiallyfreshwater Bay. Conversely, salt waterreached as far as Sacramento in the1930s. Today, upstream dams includingOroville and giant Shasta help controlsaltwater intrusion by releasing water intothe Delta system during dry times.

The Delta, as we know it, is largely ahuman invention. Early explorers found avast mosquito-infested tidal marshlandcovered with bullrushes called tules. Later,trappers took advantage of the abundantwildlife. They were followed by farmers,some of them unsuccessful gold-seekers,who discovered in the Delta wealth ofanother sort: fertile soil. Over a centuryago, these farmers, using Chinese labor-ers, began building a network of levees todrain and "reclaim" this fertile soil. Pro-gressively higher levees were built to keepthe surrounding waters out, lands werepumped dry, and what once was uncon-trolled marshland was transformed intoproductive farmland. By 1930 more than1,000 miles of levees surrounded close to500,000 acres of farmland.

No other single area is quite as crucial tothe state's overall water picture as the Del-tait forms the cornerstone of California'stwo largest projects: the State Water Proj-ect (SWP) and federal Central ValleyProject (CVP). Its existing channels areused to transport water to the federal andstate pumps both in the western and south-western Delta. From the Delta, water ischanneled south and west through canalsand aqueducts to the north and south Bayareas, Contra Costa County, agriculture-rich San Joaquin Valley and to over 16million urban Californians, mostly insouthern California.

Water that would otherwise flow into theDelta is also diverted upstream by localusers and some exporters such as theEast Bay Municipal Utility District on theMokelumne River and San Francisco'sHetch Hetchy project on the TuolumneRiver.

Water also flows west through the Deltaand San Francisco Bay to the ocean, par-tially holding back the salt waters of theBay and protecting water quality for urbanuses, recreation, fish and wildlife and Deltaagriculture. With brackish marshes andSan Francisco Bay next door, the Deltaforms part of an estuary and an importanthabitat for millions of migrating wildfowl,fish and other fauna and flora.

Yet above the picturesque waters of theestuary a decades-long tempest over thedistribution of its waters has brewed.Comprising just one percent of California'stotal area, the Delta is at the heart of boththe state's water supply system and watercontroversies, providing almost 55 percentof the state's water supply, including 40percent of its drinking water.

Water issues have always been of crucialconcern not only in California but theentire western United States, a regionwhich depends very heavily on developedsurface supplies of water. But even withlong-standing awareness and concern,water remains one of the least understoodof all our natural resources.

63

Through the following pages, the WaterEducation Foundation has attempted topresent an accurate and balanced discus-sion of one of the most fought-over areasin this state, the Sacramento-San JoaquinDelta.

Many technical reports, scientific studiesand political analyses have been preparedon the Delta. But for us, the laypeople, asimple and more basic explanation of thiscomplex subject is helpful. This Layper-son's Guide attempts to meet that needand in so doing describes the importantrelationships between the Delta and thestate's overall water picture.

V--

3

,,,,,, 0 la,

-J7 4 MIA ARCA N.

N

".a.)

st, '""

$ ACRA YIN TO

0.0.41

I III1 ; '2,

,

r.rA

v. /-.. .e;11: ea -

',...=9 ,'t::

DELTA WATERWAYS1987

.tool, ,410t.,if-- kAS

.":"_Anoc

LON

Oil 7 cc

, ,1'.0

..?() <. .0 0( 1

COMIA tOr 4/100.4 ref--/ (, ,

. ..,5

..,4: ,4, . 4, . ,, 4e - - -

f".\1.-r-:<iir---\, ..,,,

......717714)...... . ...... ... ,.--r-*,--'-'-`-'"-'!. ,...:-..1.,C., 0 a ,

- \ ..,/d?: u0 ..y. : : a. ;,. . . ..

SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA

C

\Pis

IAA NT (CA

"10

VEST COPY AVM AM)

Clair Engle Lake17

cVsN..7

Whiskeytown Res.

SACRAMENTO RIVER

OW

Shasta LakeA n

Lake Oroville

Folsom Lake

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

New Melones Res.

Contra Costa Canal

Existing and AuthorizedMajbr Peatures of theState Water Project andCentral Valley Project

0

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

Delta Mendota Cana' NSan Luis Res.

California Aqueduct.

LEGEND

State Water Project

Central Valley Project

Joint Use Facilities

ChT

1772 First recorded sighting of the Delta by Fray Juan Crespi andCaptain Pedro Farges

1849 Settlers begin arriving in the Delta region to farm its rich land,one year after the discovery of gold in California

1861 California Legislature authorizes the Reclamation District Actallowing drainage of Dee lands and construction of sturdierlevees to protect the area from flooding

1914 Passage of the Water Commission Act

1930 Completion of a comprehensive State Water Plan calling formajor transfers of northern California water to Central Valley

1940 Contra Costa Canal, the first unit of the federal Central ValleyProject (CVP), is completed and use of Delta channels to con-vey water for export begins

1944 Completion of Shasta Dam and reservoir as the key feature ofthe CVP, adding water to Delta channels during naturally low-flow periods

1951 The State Feather River Project (now State Water Project)authorized by the California

Diversions from the Delta begin for the CVP's Detta-MendotaCanal

1959 State Delta Protection Act approved by the state Legislature1960 California voters approve the Bums-Porter Act to assist in

financing the State Water Project, including Delta facilities forwater conservation, water supply in the Delta, transfer of wateracross the Delta, flood and salinity control and related functions

1961 State Department of Water Resources (DWR) initiates theInteragency Delta Committee, consisting of DWR, U.S. Bureauof Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to findsolutions to Delta problems

1965 Interagency Delta Committee releases its report which containsa variety of proposals designed to offset adverse effects ofincreasing use of water from the Delta. The proposal included aplan for a Peripheral Canal

Department of Water Resources officially selects the PeripheralCanal as the Delta water facility of the State Water Project

1967 Construction begins on SWP's Clifton Court ForebayInitial diversions begin from the Delta to the California andSouth Bay aqueducts of the state water project

1969 U.S. Department of Interior adopts the Bureau's PeripheralCanal Feasibility Report and recommends the project be ajoineuse facility of the CVP and SWP with shared costs

1970 State endorses a joint-use facility, urges Congressional author-ization on the condition that Delta water requirements havepriority over exports

1971 State Water Resources Control Board adopts its Delta WaterRights Decision 1379 establishing water quality standards to bemet by both CVP and SWP

1972 DWR announces that the state is proceeding with planning ofthe Peripheral Canal as a state-only projectFirst SWP deliveries to southern California

1973 Dem Environmental Advisory Committee forms. As part of athree-point solution, the committee concludes in January 1977that a property designed, built and operated facility such asthe Peripheral Canal is necessary

Department of Fish and Game concludes a 10-year studywhich probes the Delta's problems. Report concludes a Peri-pheral Canal is the most desirable plan for a Della waterfacilitiy

1974 DWR, state Department of Fish and Game, the Bureau of Rec-lamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sign a statement ofintent that the agencies will prcvide protection of fish and wild-life resources in the Delta

1975 DWR calls for complete reappraisal of alternative possibilitiesfor Delta water management problems

U.S. Department of Interior releases its opinion that the FederalWater Pollution Control Act does not require the Bureau torelease water for salinity repulsion in the DeltaDWR releases a legal opinion stating the Federal Water Pollu-tion Control Act does apply to the operation of the CVP

1977 After reviewing nearly 40 atternative courses of action in theDelta, DWR reaffirms that building the Peripheral Canal is thebest answer to Detta problems

1978 State Water Resources Control Board issues SWP-CVP WaterRights Decision 1485 regarding CVP and SWP operation toprovide water quality control in the Delta

1979 Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus announces the CVPwill be operated to voluntarily meet state Delta Water qualitystandards (Decision 14853 until legal questions of mandatoryfederal compliance are resolved. Negotiations between thestate DWR and the federal Bureau of ReclamationSenator Ruben Ayala introduces Senate Bill 200 specifying teePeripheral Canal as the Delta transfer facility, not requiring fed-eral participation

1980 Voters pass Proposition 8 insuring more Delta protectionsunless SB 200 is defeated

1982 Voters defeat Proposition 9, which includes the PeripheralCanal SB 200 package, by 3-2 margin. Northern Californiansvote 9-1 against SB 200 and Southern Californians vote 3-2 forthe bill

1983 DWR releases a report analyzing four through-Detta alterna-tives to the Peripheral Canal

1984 Attention focuses on Governor Deukmejian's through-Deltaplan utilizing natural Delta channels and reconstructed levees.By June "Duke's Ditch" (SB 1369) is shelved

1986 CongresS passes State DWR and U.S. Bureau of Reclamationhistoric accord, the Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA)

California Supreme Court affirms state Court of Appeal ruling(Racanelli decision) strengthenipg powers of State WaterResources Control Board to pr§tect all uses of Delta water,and potentially San Francisco Bay

DWR and DFG sign Delta Pumping Plant fishery mitigationagreement for direct fish losses

1987 The State Water Resources Control Board begins the SanFrancisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Hear-ing (Bay-Detta Proceedings)

1988 Senate Bill 34 provides $120 million over 10 years for DWR torebuild levees, enlarge channels and to help reclamation dis-tricts make levee improvements

Suisun Marsh facilities (tide gates) begin operation to providewater quality for waterfowl protection

Construction begins on four additional pumping units at theDelta Pumping Plant

1988 An engineering study by the California Urban Water Agenciesexamines options for improving drinking water quality for usersof Doha water

1993 Expected completion of State Water Resources ControlBoard's new Water Quality Control and Water Right decision

72

E3ackgr und

California is a land of great diversity. Withinits boundaries lie vast mountain ranges,sprawling deserts, miles of picturesquecoastlines and major urban areas. Thisstate is the world's leading agriculturalproducer and simultaneously is home tomore than 28 million residents, making itthe most populous state in the nation.

No other single resource has been moreimportant to the development of Californiathan its water. California's natural waterpicture is also a study in contrasts. Two-thirds of the state's water originates northof Sacramento, while 70 percent of itsusers live south of the Capitol City. Most ofthe state's rainfall occurs in winter andspring while peak demand occurs in thehot summer months. This is the setting forCalifornia's water story. As Time magazineonce noted, "California has everythingusually in the wrong place."

Adjusting water distribution in time andplace is at the heart of California's waterdevelopment program. Winter and springflows are stored in reservoirs for use dur-ing the summer growing season, and theexcess runoff of wet years is captured foruse during drought periods. Largeamounts of runoff are stored in groundwater basins which serve as a mechanismfor balancing irregularities in water supply.

To regulate the distribution of water, majorwater storage and transportation facilitieshave been built in California. The Delta isat the heart of the two major projects inCalifornia, the State Water Project (SWP)and the federal Central Valley Project(CVP).

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lies atthe center of almost all discussions of Cali-fornia's future water supply. What couldpossibly be so important about the Delta?Why should such a small area, 700,000acres in total, be embroiled in such con-troversy and have such an effect on thestate's future?

The Delta lies in that area where theSacramento and San Joaquin Rivers con-verge to discharge over 40 percent of thestate's total runoff into San Francisco Bay.In addition, it is the low point of the Sacra-mento-San Joaquin Valley through whichwater flows before going to the ocean.Consequently, whatever affects the Deltaaffects large portions of northern, centraland southern California.

Problems, whether environmental, politicalor engineering in nature, are nothing newto the Delta region. Since the first settlersarrived in the area, the Delta has simul-taneously offered a fertile, rich environ-ment and seemingly insurmountableproblems.

Legend has it that the first explorers to seteyes on the vast tidal marshland nowknown as the Sacramento-San JoaquinDelta were two soldiers from the party of -

the explorer Hernando Cortez in 1520.Mosquito-infested and tule-covered, theDelta was a rare sight to these early dayconquistadors.

In 1771, Pedro Farges first recorded sight-ing the Delta. In 1776, Juan Bautista deAnza gazed upon the immense expanse ofwaterways and tules from the foothills over-looking the Carquinez Strait.

Farges and de Anza were the first to pro-vide written accounts of the abundance of

wildlife in the Delta region. Later, in 1827,American adventurer Jedediah Smith pro-vided detailed accounts of trapping andhunting in the area. Smith trapped beaver,otter and mink on the periphery of thegiant marsh and blazed a trail north to FortVancouver, where his tales of the wealth ofanimal pelts yielded by the Delta wereheard with keen interest by the HudsonBay Company.

During the next 15 years, trappers were afamiliar sight in the Delta. Seagoing shipsnavigated the Sacramento and San Joa-quin rivers to bring in supplies and to takeout tallow and an ever increasing number

of animal skins.

t

Growth during this time was characterizedas steady and slow, but in 1848 the trendchanged. Gold was discovered in theSierra Nevada foothills, and the stampedeto California was on. When the gold ranthin many of these newcomers turned toone of California's richest resources - itsfertile soil. They settled in large numbersthroughout the Sacramento-San JoaquinValley region.

But farming in the Delta wasn't withoutserious perils. The land was constantlythreatened by flooding. Farmers and Chi-nese laborers began building series ofsmall levees called shoestring levees - tohold back flood water. Their efforts weremostly futile, as the levees were able tohold back little more than a high tide

During the second half of the 19th century,great strides were taken to convert themarshlands of the Delta into primarily anagricultural area. New techniques weretried as part of these reclamation efforts.Mechanical power was applied to dredg-ing, levee building, ditching and land clear-ing. Pumps were introduced in 1876 tocontrol water levels on reclaimed bndLevee-building projects ultimately turnedwhat was once an uncontrolled marshlandinto productive farmland.

By 1880, the amount of reclaimed arearose to 100,000 acres; by 1900, it hadreached 250,000 acres. And during thenext 30 years, the amount of reclaimedland grew to almost 450.000 acres. all ofthis accomplished by local interestS

,...,

1/-

1111111E

At the same timesucceasful farming was

burgeoning in the Delta, new species of

fish and game wereintroduced into the

area. Striped bass, American shad and

white catfish were brought to the Delta.

Game birds, imported varieties of orchard

and field crops and new breeds of live-

stock also were introduced.

Ironically, though, man's attempts to har-

ness the natural resources of California

were causing problems of equal signifi-

cance to hisaccomplishments. Starting in

the-1860s, the Delta suffered enormous

damage from the vast amounts of sedi-

ment and debris swept downstream from

hydraulic mining in the mountains far up

the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.

Even after an 1884 federal court injunction

halted these miningoperations, silt con-

tinued to settle in the Delta, lltering the

navigable channels and greatly hindering

shipping activity.

Deposited silt also reduces the Delta

channels' carrying capacity, increasing the

dangers of flooding when the rivers rise.

Over the years, these channels were

dredged to improve navigability and

reduce flooding. (Today, silt deposits,

sometimes accelerated by human activi-

ties, are still a problem.) By the turn of the

century, because of low Delta outflows in

dry years, saltwater intrusion into the Delta

from the ocean became an increasing

problem. In contrast, high water levels dur-

ing the winter season and occasional high

tides caused many of the Delta islands to

flood.

High flood waters on the Sacramento River

also caused problems, and in 1880 the

State Engineer devised an integrated flood

control plan which eventually came to

include a system of levees and bypasses

transporting floodwaters past protected

areas. After a series of flood years in the

Sacramento Valley, Congressional author-

ity for the Sacramento Flood Control Proj-

ect by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

was finally granted in 1917, and the proj-

ect was completed in 1960.

dEST COPY WILABIt

In 1921, the state legislature authorized anextensive investigation by the State Engi-neer to develop a comprehensive waterplan for California. For the next 15 years,federal, state and local interests wrangledover how to best supply California with adependable source of water and reducesalinity intrusion into the Delta. The stateCentral Valley Project Act, passed andapproved by voters in 1933, authorizedbuilding reservoirs to supply water andprovide a hydraulic barrier to repel sea-water intrusion, but could not be financedby the state during the depression. In1937, the Department of the Interior wasauthorized by the Rivers and Harbors Actto construct a federal Central ValleyProject.

The use of the Delta channels as conduitsfor transporting water began in 1940 withcompletion of the Contra Costa Canal, thefirst unit of the CVP. With the completion in1951 of the Delta-Mendota Canalpart ofthe CVP, which begins at Trinity Dam andends in the lower San Joaquin ValleytheDelta became part of a vast water exportsystem. Also in 1951, the Delta CrossChannel was constructed near WalnutGrove in the North Delta to facilitate favor-able flow patterns for water transfer acrossthe Delta by the CVP.

Also in 1951, the state authorized theFeather River Project and Delta DiversionsProjects, later known as the State WaterPrcject (SWP), and in 1960 the Burns-Porter Act defined and funded the facilitiesof the SWP.

In 1967, the state also began pumpingwater from the Delta into its CaliforniaAqueduct, part of the SWP which todayserves the mirth and south Bay area andthe San Joaquin Valley, as well as much ofthe densely populated Southland.

By 1975, the combined deliveries of theSWP and CVP, both north and south ot theDelta, had grown to about 4.8 million acre-feet; by 1988, the total reached around10.6 million acre-feet. Prior to the CVP andSWP, many of the state's ground waterbasins were overdrafted; the projectshelped alleviate this problem by substitut-ing surface water for ground water mining

The Delta TodayBy definition, an estuary is an intercon-nected area where tidal and river currentsmeet, and where salinity (saltiness) isbetween the extremes of ocean and freshwaters. The Delta, Suisun Bay, San PabloBay and south and central San FranciscoBay form such an estuary.

The estuary is hydrologically complex. TheSacramento and San Joaquin rivers arethe major source of freshwater inflow tothe estuary, with the Sacramento River thelargest contributor. The area where riverflows and tidal flows interact most inten-sively, known as the "entrapment zone," isof ecological significance to many plantsand animals residing in or migratingthrough the estuary. The location of theentrapment zone moves back and forthfrom the Delta to near San Pablo Baydepending on Delta outflow and the oceantides.

Downstream of Suisun Bay, the estuary ismore subject to daily tidal forces, althoughmoderate to high seasonal freshwaterflows and prevailing wind patterns stillaffect circulation patterns.

The estuary is constantly changing. Forinstance, according to the Bay Conserva-tion and Development Commission, SanFrancisco Bay has shrunk since 1850 from780 to 550 square miles due to the con-struction of dikes and the filling of low-lying areas. Also, the South Bay wasplagued with fish kills and algal blooms inyears prior to the passage of the federalClean Water Act in 1972. Since the pas-sage of the act. investments in the treat-ment and disposal of municipal sewagehave greatly reduced these problems.

Today, the estuary is connected not onlyecologically, but also through the varioususes made of it. The Delta containsnumerous below-sea-level islands pro-tected by levees. The surrounding leveesand channels, and the islands themselves,serve as passageways tor migrating fishand provide valuable habitat for a wide var-iety of fish and wildlife. The leveed islandsare also productive agricultural lands,generating an average gross crop value of$375 million, according to the Departmentof Water Resources (DWR) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Atlas.

v"74.444,:4-44$.7

,

411

The Delta also supports over 8.5 millionuser-days of recreation annually, fromboating and waterskiing to sport fishing.which contribute to the area's economy.

Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles toresolution of the Delta's myriad problemsis the enormous complexity of the issuesand the way in which each fits tightly withthe other. Each of the Delta's problems, beit preserving the fisheries, maintainingwater quality levels, managing Delta leveesor making sure enough water is presentfor meeting agricultural and urban needswithin the state, brings with it opposingpoints of view, special interest groups andnew conflicts. For the most part, past stu-dies and programs have taken a piece-meal approach to exploring and managingthe Delta'sand the estuary'sproblems.It is only recently that studies and pro-grams, discussed later in this Guide, havebegun to address the estuary as a wholerather than its component areas

"7":":\

JJ e[2a 02 02

1

-40.140/1111,

7 7-se. 44

,

,4J1Mt

The CVP Delta-Cross Channel regulates water passage in the Delta.

The "Tule Theory"

Although human modification of the Bay-Detta estuary began in the mid-1890'sre4ativelyrecently in the estuary's overall tirriespanaccurate measurements of the amounts cr water flowingfrom the Delta through the Bay are only available beginning in the eady-1900's.

Today there is interest in just how much water flowed through marshes in the earlY daysbecause of testimony brought up in the State Water Resources Control Board's Bay-DeltaProceedings concerning historic freshwater flows. Many arguments in favor of requiring morefreshwater inflow to the Bay cited estimates of as much as a 60 prircent reduction in "historic"flows to the Bay due to increased land use and export diversions.

But testimony offered by consultants to the State Water Contractors (a group of 28 of the 30agencies that buy water from the State Water Project) in the Proceedings stated that as muchwater actually reaches the Bay today because California has been experiencing an overall periodof increasing precipitation. Also, they stated that in frontier times vast acres of tule marsh andriparian forest in Central Valley consumed much of the water that would have flowed into the Bay.

The "lute theory" pointed out that the estimates that water project diversions allow only a fractionof historic flows into the Bay had not included the amounts formerly consumed by Central Valleyvegetation, much of which used more water per acre than any of the currently cultivated crops.

As the Bay-Delta Proceedings continue, there remains a question of how much fresh wateractually flowed into the Bay and how much was absorbed and transpired through marshlands inthe Delta and in the entire Central Valley. Nevertheless, the State Board is left with the amount ofwater that is available today and in the future to allocate to urban, agricuttural and environmentalneeds.

7 6

Water DistributionThe Delta, because of its geographicallocation, is the historical collection point formuch of the runoff and resulting watersupplies of California. And it is throughDelta channels that this water must pass inorder to satisfy the demands within theDelta itself, the agricultural lands of theSan Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco BayArea and the state's densely populatedSouthland.

Many who have studied the Delta believethat some of its environmental problemshave been aggravated by the developmentof the state and federal water projects. TheBay-Delta region has played a key role inmeeting the water supply needs of muchof California's population. In the past, rapidgrowth and development were accommo-dated, to a large extent, by increasedannual upstream and export diversions ofsome waters that would otherwise flowtoward San Francisco Bay.

No one disagrees that there will be newdemands for water in the state. By the year2010, California's population is projectedto rise from 28 to 36 million. Net wateruse throughout the state is expected togrow, too, by about 1.4 million acre-feetper year by 2010, according to DWR.Since the amount of water passing throughthe Delta for export is limited by the size ofDelta channels, the SWP cannot maintaina reliable future water supply for the statewithout building an improved Delta watertransfer system and constructing morestorage, according to DWR.

Present and past state administrationsbelieve development of additional waterfor the state project is crucial. But envir-onmental groups and others opposeincreased development of Delta water onthe grounds that more diversions mayfurther harm the estuary's ecosystem.Indeed, some groups argue for reducedDelta diversions to allow more fresh waterto flow through the estuary, especially dur-ing the spring when some anadromousfish migrate upstream to spawn, andothers migrate out to the ocean. They con-tend new demands can be met by moreefficient use or reallocation of alreadydeveloped supplies from agricultural tourban uses.

Because an estimated 80 percent of Cali-fornia's developed water is used by agri-culture, some of it either used upstream orimported through the Delta, those withinterests in this $14.5 billion annual indus-try are understandably concerned aboutthe continued availability of Delta waters.

Water districts in Kern County, for instance,serve 1.5 million acres of California's mostproductive farmland, with an estimatedcrop value of $1.6 billion in 1986.Decreases in the amount of water to farm-ing, the agricultural community argues,could damage the state's agriculturaleconomy, with serious social and eco-nomic effects on many farming communi-ties. Various proposals to increase theDelta's water transfer ability have beenproposed over the years.

Salinity and Agricultural DrainageSalinity, either intruding from the sea oraccumulating as minerals from the state'sagriculture and discharged into the Delta'stributaries, has long been a Delta issue.

Freshwater outflow repels the intrusion ofsea water into the Delta, helps to providenecessary levels of nutrients for the estu-ary's many flora and fauna, and mixes withheavier salt water to create a dynamic cir-culation process that helps disperse pollu-tants and maintain adequate water quality.During dry years, or dry parts of the yearlate summer and early fallthe state andfederal reservoir projects help to controlsalinity by releasing water held in reser-voirs. But after a prolonged drought, thereoften isn't enough water left for salinityrepulsion. And during the spring whenreservoirs are being filled, Delta salt con-centrations can go up, creating salt intru-sion problems for Delta farmers andmunicipal and industrial users.

Compared to other Delta areas, the west-ern Delta suffers periodically from highersaltwater content and its possible adverseeffect on drinking water supplies of morethan one-third million residents of easternContra Costa County The more freshwater flowing from the Delta to San Fran-cisco Bay, the better the water quality inthe western Delta.

Over the years, four basic types of facilitieswere studied to solve salinity intrusion andother problems in the Delta. They are: 1)hydraulic barriersthe provision of suffi-cient Delta outflow to repulse ocean salin-ity, basically the method used today andan integral part of the remaining types offacilities; 2) physical barriersactual low-level dams separating fresh water fromsaline water with passageways for naviga-tion and fish migration; 3) waterway controlalterations and facilities in existingchannels to improve flow patterns; and 4)isolated channelsnew channels to iso-late export water from Delta waters andprovide for releases to the Delta. Plans thatwere combinations of these conceptswere also studied.

Water Right Decision 1485, issued in1978 by the State Water Resources Con-trol Board, sets salinity standards to protectthe water supply for the Delta's broadlygrouped beneficial uses: fish and wildlife,agricultural, municipal, industrial andrecreational uses. The decision's underly-ing premise is that Delta water qualityshould be at least as good as the levelsavailable had the state and federal projectsnot been constructed, with adjustmentsbuilt in to accommodate changes in hydro-logic conditions under different types ofwater years. A monitoring program isrequired to gauge compliance. Revisionsof this decision are now under considera-tion; the "Bay Delta Proceedings" began inearly 1987, and enactment is expected in1992 or 1993. (See page 17: Bay-DeltaProceedings.)

Agricultural drainage also contributes tosalinity problems in the Delta. Becausemost of the Delta islands are below sealevel, the area is beset by seepage-relatedproblems. Farmers must constantly pumpwater from their lands to permit crops togrow. However, farmers must also addcontrolled amounts of water for productiveagriculture. In the South Delta farmers relyprimarily on the waters of the San JoaquinRiver for their irrigation supply. The pro-cess of irrigation and leaching mineralsfrom the soils concentrates salts in thedrainage water which is then pumped intonearby Delta channels. Sometimes there isno current to "flush" these salts throughthe Delta, creating localized salinityproblems.

,

;faThe salt content of drainage water flowingdown the San Joaquin River, primarily fromthe west side of the valley, is high andsources of dilution water are limited. Mostof the valley gets an average of less than10 inches of rainfall a year and water his-torically received from Sierra streams isnow largely retained by dams and eitherexported or diverted for consumptive usesFlows in some stretches of the San Joa-quin River, during droughts and thesummer irrigation season of dry years,consist almost entirely of irrigation returnflows, including surface runoff and subsur-face drainage from irrigated east-andwest-side lands and, to a lesser extent,from public and private wildlife manage-ment areas

111

e

.14-0

I

Allokk,

tiot

,

t,

Drinking Water QualityDrinking water quality is an issue of grow-

ing concern to domestic water users and

water agencies which supply water from

the Delta source. The elevated concentra-tions of salts and minerals continue to be

of concern; however, much greater publicattention is now focused on organic con-tamination from natural and syntheticorganic chemicals and their reactions withchemicals used in the water treatment

process.

Tastes and odors can also be a problem in

treated water supplies from the Delta.Taste and odor are due mainly to organiccompounds but are also occasionally due

to high mineral content.

A clear indication of the increasing con-cern of California citizens about the quality

of their drinking water is the growing useof bottled water and home treatment devi-

ces, even though the tap water meets all

state and federal drinking water standards.The people who use Delta water are thehighest bottled water users in the state.

When water from the Sierra rivers flowsinto and through the Delta, additional natur-ally-occurring organic materials (mainly

derived from vegetation) are added tothose already in the water as it contacts

the Delta's peat soils. Organic material isalso added by agricultural drainage from

Delta farms. These organic compounds

are precursors to the formation of disinfec-

tion by-products. The best known of theseby-products are the trihalomethanes(THMs).

THMs formed upon chlorination of theprecursor-rich Delta water supplies are of

concern because THMs are an animal andsuspected human carcinogen. This prob-

lem is exacerbated at certain times of the

year when the powerful state and federal

pumps in the south Delta draw water from

the western Delta that includes ocean-derived bromides which produce other

forms of THMs.

The THM problem could cost urban waterpurveyors billions ofdollars over the years

in additional treatment costs to meet antic-ipated higher EPA drinking water stand-

ards for THMs and other disinfection

by-products.

78 661 COPY AVAIMLE

z

Increasing evidence of Delta drinkingwater quality problems created interest instudying ways to operate existing watersystems diverting water from the Delta inways that will minimize contamination.Research by water agencies has shownthat only with the installation of advancedand expensive water treatment will Deltawater be able to meet anticipated drinkingwater standards for THMs and other disin-fection by-products.

Such concerns led the California UrbanWater Agencies (CUWA), a coalition of thestate's largest drinking water supplyagencies, to commission a study of Deltadrinking water quality. The study, com-pleted in 1989, investigated both opera-tional and physical means of improving theexisting water supply systems in order toimprove drinking water quality.

The results of this Delta drinking waterstudy show that the urban water agencieswill have to use costly treatmenttechniques to meet anticipated tougherdrinking water standards. However, lesstreatment will be required for drinkingwater diverted upstream of the Deltabecause those areas are less developedand the upstream waters contain loweramounts of contaminants.

The CUWA study reported severalalternatives that could help improve thequality of Delta-source drinking water andconcluded that alternatives that would takewater upstream of the Delta would providehigher quality drinking water and wouldreduce overall costs to urban water users.The study did not attempt to analyze themany environmental, institutional and otherimpacts of the alternatives it presented,and stressed that much more study andassessments of these factors are needed.

Fish and WildlifeThe fish and wildlife that call the Bay-DeltaEstuary a permanent or temporary homecome in all shapes and sizes, from ducksand cranes to salmon and sturgeonMillions of traveling birds exit the "PacificFlyway," a major north-south migrationroute, to fuel up and rest at the 55.000-acre Suisun Marsh and other brackishmarshes and freshwater wetlands aroundthe Bay and Delta

' (1411N6

,-,ats.

-- .

Delta fisheries have had their problems.Striped bass, an introduced species, feedin the Bay and ocean directly beyond theGolden Gate, migrating to the fresh wat(.of the Delta to spawn. Once responsibit.for a $7.5 million sportfishing industry,from the mid-1960s the adult striped basspopulation declined from about 3.5 millionfish to about 1 million today. Also, becauseof mercury in excess of health standards,an advisory was issued to consumers onlimiting their intake of striped bass

Increased exposure to toxics, introductionof new species, changes in food supply,loss of habitat and water diversions are allimplicated in the decline of the stripedbass fishery, but there is debate as towhether water withdrawal has caused orexacerbated the problems.

According to the state Department of Fishand Game, more than three-quarters ofthe state's multimillion-dollar commercialsalmon catch depends upon the habitatsof the Bay, Delta and tributary rivers. Andnatural spawning chinook salmonpopulations, too, are declining, althoughhatchery production has kept their overallnumbers relatively stable. In 1989,however, the Sacramento River's winter-run salmon population, one of fourCalifornia sub-species, reached a low of

--

11

500, down from 117,000 in 1969, causingthe state Fish and Game Commission tolist the run as endangered.

Another major problem in the Delta is thatof reverse flows, which occur at certaintimes of the year when export water on itsway to pumps flows down the SacramentoRiver into the western Delta and then backupstream in the lower San Joaquin River.Reverse flow problems have beenimplicated in the decline of migrangsalmon and young striped bass which areeither sucked into the pumps and killed orthrown off their spawning pilgrimage bythis change of flow pattern.

Many believe that the fluctuatingentrapment zone, where fresh and saltwaters mingle, is Very important to the foodchain of the region. This area of circulatingcurrents provides a particularly goodhabitat for the tiny plankton upon whichlarger organisms feed. Although thelocation of the entrapment zone fluctuatesunder natural conditions, diverting waterupstream and out of the Delta also altersthe location of the meeting place of freshand salt waters, and some contend thisadversely affects, at the most fundamentallevel, the food supply of the Bay-Deltaestuary

The timing of the fresh water influx maybe more important than the total annualamount, with late spring and early summerdiversions reducing the outflow that wouldotherwise occur as the Sierra snowpackmelts and runs off. According to fisherybiologists, this "spring flow" cycle isneeded for the creation of the conditionsfavorable to migration and spawning forfish such as striped bass and salmon.

Spring, however, is the harvest season forwater. Once the need for flood controlstops in the spring, water managers needto place as much of this "spring flow"water as possible in storage to usethroughout California's long, dry summers.

As brought up in the Bay-Delta Proceed-ings, there is no consensus on either theproblems of fish and wildlife within theestuary or the solutions to those problems.Some argue that until direct, cause-and-effect relationships for fishery declines arefound, current standards should not bechanged. Furthermore, they argue thatphysical measuressuch as fish screensat the pumps, improved water transferfacilities and upstream habitat enhance-mentand, in the short term, increasedhatchery production, should be used toprotect the fishery or to offset losses inpreference to augmenting flows.

Others hold that the amount of water dis-charged into the estuarine system is corre-lated to fish catches and that adequatefreshwater flow is necessary to maintainhabitat for fish and wildlife. They see short-term solutions such as hatcheries andscreens as temporary, and at best onlypartial solutions, secondary to the issue ofgetting more fresh water through the Deltaand out the Golden Gate. One thing is cer-tain: isolating the variable(s) responsiblefor, and solutions to, fishery declinesremains a difficult challenge yet to be met.

,)

'Armigett

Delta Levee Issues

A well-maintained levee system isneeded to protect the supply of freshwater moving through the Delta, fish andwildlife living in the Delta, recreation onDelta waterways, roads on levees andisland floors, and farmlands and towns inthe Delta. When levees fail, water rushesinto the lower-than-sea-level islands andsalt water can be drawn up fcom furtherdownstream.

According to DWR, the collapse of Deltalevees would create widespread floodingbecause most of the Delta islands arebelow sea level and would fill with water. Ina summer situation with low freshwaterflows to counter the pressure of the seawater, salt water would intrude farther intothe Delta and into water that is used by mil-lions for their agricultural and drinkingsupplies.

Much of the soil used to reclaim the Deltais now destroying it. On two-thirds of Deltalands, the local soil, composed of organicmatter from the original marshlands, sinksor erodes at the rate of about three inchesper year.

Today, most of the Delta is below the sur-rounding water level and many islands are25 feet or more below sea level. Continu-ally higher levees are necessary to holdback Delta waters, but some levee founda-tions are made of the stringy peat soil thatoxidizes and compacts, or blows away.This compaction, known as subsidence, isa critical problem because the processputs stress on levees and makes islandflooding more probable.

A major aspect of flood control in theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta and alongthe rivers is stability of its levees, many ofwhich are vulnerable to failure in highwater situations.

Responsibility for federal project leveemaintenance travels through three levels.After the U.S. Army Corps of Engineerscompletes a Congressionally-approvedlevee construction project in the CentralValley, the legal responsibility for the proj-ect is transferred to the State ReclamationBoard, which then turns levee mainte-nance over to DWR or local public agen-cies. Outside the Central Valley, otherlevees are transferred directly from theCorps to local flood control districts, citiesor counties.

About 65 percent of Delta levees are"nonproject" they were constructed andare maintained by island landownersthrough local levee and reclamation dis-tricts, to varying and generally less string-ent standards than those for projectlevees, according to DWR. Many are invery poor condition. A part of Senate Bill34, the "Delta Flood Control Protection Actof 1988," will increase the financial assist-ance to reclamation and levee districtsmaintaining nonproject levees throughout

/ the Delta, and provide funds for specialflood control projects in the northern andwestern Delta.

DWR is considering several improvementsto the Delta to help alleviate its flood prob-lems, including dredging, levee setbacks,channel improvements, and land usechanges which would also provide waterquality, fishery, wildlife, and water supplybenefits.

Senate Bill 34 provides $120 million over10 years for DWR to rebuild levees,improve channels and help local reclama-tion districts improve and maintain levees.

Another potential danger to levee stabilityis a major northern California seismicevent. If an earthquake caused the Sacra-mento-San Joaquin Delta's iragile leveesystem to collapse, millions of individualsfrom the San Francisco Bay area to south-ern California could be left without ade-quate drinking water.

The state Legislature has required, throughAB 955, the Department of Water Resour-ces to devise an emergency plan thatwould allow the CVP, SWP, East BayMunicipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Con-tra Costa Water District to "continue orquickly resume exporting or deliveringusable water (from the Delta) in the eventof the failure of one or more levees inthe Delta."

The emergency response plan as outlinedby DWR would entail stopping the SWPand CVP pumps in the south Delta, fillingClifton Court Forebay for a reserve, waitingfor the Delta to stabilize, and increasingreleases from Folsom, Shasta, and Orovillereservoirs to fill up the Delta with freshrather than salt water. Once stabilized,work to patch up the levees and blocksalinity intrusion could begin.

But many argue that massive Delta leveefailure could not be so easily repaired -thatthe Delta is essentially a "weak link" in thestate's water transportation system. Studiesdone for EBMUD concluded that longreaches of Delta !evees built over sandpockets could liquefy under severe seis-mic loads and cause failure. (Liquefactionoccurs when the earth shakes and satur-ated sand start to flow like liquid. Quick-sand is an example of liquefaction).

Researchers are continuing to look at theeffects of an earthquake on the Delta.

0-1485 and The Delta PlanOver the years; the State Board issuednumerous conditional water right deci-sions and permitsto the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation (Bureau) for ita Central ValleyProject and to DWR for its State Water Proj-ectfor the operation of water projects inthe Delta.

Because of the complexity of issues andmany unresolved questions surroundingthe dynamics of the Delta, the State Board(and its predecessor, the State WaterRights Board) "reserved jurisdiction" whenit issued permits to DWR and the Bureaufor operations in the Delta. The purpose ofthis reservation of jurisdiction was to allowthe State Board an opportunity to revisestandards pertaining to salinity control, fishand wildlife protection and coordination ofthe state and federal projects as moreinformation was developed..

In August 1978, the State Board exercisedits reservation of jurisdiction over the waterright permits of DWR and the Bureau byadopting D-1485. At the same time, theState Board adopted a new water qualitycontrol plan (the Delta Plan) for theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sui-sun Marsh. Together, the two documentsrevised existing standards for flow andsalinity in the Delta and required DWR andthe Bureau to meet these standards (allow-ing 5 million acre-feet Delta outflow), eitherby reducing export pumping or by releas-ing waters stored in upstream reservoirsor both. An underlying premise of D-1485and the Delta Plan was that water qualityshould be at least as good as it wouldhave been had the state and federal pro-jects not been built.

The beneficial uses protected under thesequality standards fall into three broadcategories - fish and wildlife, agriculture,and municipal and industrial uses - andwater quality standards were establishedfor each of these. The standards provideadjustments for lowered quality in criticalor dry years, when less water is flowinginto the Delta from the rivers which feed it

'Rs0 0

)acie_

439

PAEAN

NET DELTA OUTFLOW (TAF)FOR WATER YEARS 1956-1988

1151 .40 Ilti 1511 1911 144 1579 1570 1171 1774 1171 1110 115, 1555 1155

WFITER YEAR

DELTA EXPORTS (TAP)FOR WATER YEARS 1956-1988

MEAN

I

--,

n _,..:

,.....

, i .

100 0042 1N 0114 alio 1170 1171 WI 1175 1171 1 no liii I it. 1154 tinWATER ?ERR

82

At the time D-1485 and the Delta Planwere issued, the State Board stated itbelieved the level or protection affordedwas "reasonable." However, because itrecognized that there was continuing"uncertainty associated with possiblefuture project facilities and the need foradditional information," it stated that itwould review the Delta Plan in ten years. Italso called for additional fisheries andwaer quality studies and sampling andmonitoring programs in an attempt to gaina better knowledge of the ecosystem andwater quality needs for Delta agriculture,and to find answers to some of the persist-ent questions. For the first time the StateBoard mandated studies of the projects'impacts on San Francisco Bay.

Both the Delta Plan and 0-1485 stated theState Board's intent to reopen the matter inorder to review this additional informationand to reassess the standards.

In mid-1987, as the next step in this evolu-tionary process, the State Board began anev.tensive hearing procedure, the Bay-DeltaHearing (later called the Bay-Delta Pro-ceedings), aimed at developing new waterquality objectives for the Bay-Delta estuaryand the means for implementing them.During the first six months of this multi-year process, its members heard testim-ony on a number of issues. Over thecoming months and years, this evidencewill be assessed, and a salinity controlplan and pollutant policy documentprepared.

Ultimately, the 1978 Water Quality ControlPlan and Water Right Decision 1485 (0-1485), which together set water qualityand flow standards for the Delta, will berevised and possibly expanded to includeSan Francisco Bay. (See page 17: BayDelta Proceedings.)

Racanelli Decision

In 1986 an historic decision of the stateCourt of Appeal (known as the Racanellidecision ) concluded that the State Boardin issuing D-1485 had improperly nar-rowed its scope of its water quality plan-ning to the protection of water rights(instead of the protection of all beneficialuses of Delta waters) and to the impactson water quality of the state and fe, 'eralprojects (instead of the impacts of all fac-tors and water users affecting water qualityin the Delta).

This ruling, allowed to stand by the Califor-nia Supreme court, instructs the StateBoard, when establishing water qualityobjectives for the Delta, to take into con-sideration all factors - not just the opera-tion of the state and federal projects-which have a bearing on Delta water qual.ity. The decision also said the State Boardhad improperly based its previous salinityobjectives on levels which are needed toprotect existing water rights, rather thandetermining what flows and salinity areneeded to protect the various uses ofDelta water.

The ruling distinguished the State Board'swater rights and water quality planningauthorities. In doing so, the court pavedthe way for more comprehensive waterquality objectives and a broader programof implementation to obtain those objec-tives, including the regulation of non-projeut water rights and the recommenda-tion of other non-regulatory measures.

The Public Trust

A 1983 California Supreme Court decisionfocusing on the Los Angeles Departmentof Water and Power's diversion of waterfrom the streams that feed Mono Lakeoverlaid the California water rights systemwith the age-old English Law doctrine of"Public Trust," through which a state isrequired to hold in trust for future genera-tions the values associated with certainresources.

The decision essentially charged thecourts and state agencies, including theState Board, with the obligation to act asguardian or "trustee" for the beneficialuses dependent upon the public's waterresources. The court noted its previousexpansion of the concept of the publictrust doctrine to include not oniy the tradi-tional uses of navigation, commerce, andfishing but also "changing public needs ofecological preservation, open space main-tenance and scenic and wildlife preserva-tion Additionally, the court held that thepublic trust doctrine applies to diversionsfrom streams tributary to navigable waterswhen such diversions may harm publictrust uses of the downstream navigablewaters.

In its presently developed form, the publictrust doctrine requires the courts and theState Board to perform a balancing test toweigh the value to society of a proposedor existing water diversion against protec-tion of the public trust uses of water Publictrust issues and values associated with theDelta are figuring more prominently in thecurrent Bay-Delta Proceedings than inpast Delta decisions

Interagency Agreements:

Coordinated Operation Agreement

In 1986, DWR and the Bureau replaced26 years of year-to-year agreementsregarding the responsibilites of each pro-ject in the Delta with a Coordinated Opera-tion Agreement (COA).

The agreement gave additional safeguardsto the fragiie Delta by committing theBureau to a share of the responsibility forsustaining flows in the Delta during dryperiods.

A major hurdle in reaching agreement wasthe federal government's reluctance to seta precedent by accepting the state'sauthority to prescribe water qualityrequirements for the Delta to be met bythe CVP. The concern was resolved by aprovision in the COA which authorizes theSecretary of the Interior to determine ifoperating the CVP to meet new state Deltastandards would be inconsistent withCongressional directives. If the Secretarywere to make this determination. the U Swould be required to bring a legal actionto decide whether the state standards forthe Delta apply to the federal CVP

C000rdinated operation is vital for bothprojects to make the best use of their facili-ties, but had long been controversial. Intimes of drought prior to its implementa-tion, the SWP may have been forced tosacrifice the needs of some of its custo-mers to meet State Board Delta flow andwater quality standards, if the Bureau didnot voluntarily agree to contribute water tomeet those standards. Under the COA, thefederal government is committed to sharewith the state the responsibility to meetmost of the water quality and flow stand-ards established in D-1485, as well asfuture Bay-Delta standards, subject to pro-vision in the agreement.

Agreenwrne

Bay-Delta Proceedings

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), through Regional Water Quality ControlBoard hvo and five, has primary responsibility for water quality objectives with the Bay-Dettaestuary. The State Board in 1987 began a comprehensive procedure aimed at developing newwater quality objectives for the estuary and the means for implementing them. After gatheringvoluminous, and often contradictory, evidence and testimony from over 60 organizations andinterest in Phase I of the proceedings, the State Board released in late 1988 a draft Salinity ControlPlan and Pollutant Policy Document.

To say the draft plan and document were not well received is an understatement Fishery andenvironmental interests involved in the Proceedings, concernedover declines in certain fishpopulations and supportive of promptly enacted, stronger Delta standards, felt the drafts did notgive enough water to instream uses to protect the estuary's resources. And urban and agriculturalwater users, supportive of additional development to increase supplies to an ever-growing state (orat the very least no reduction in already committed supplies), saw the drafts as limiting theirsupplies.

The drafts were subsequently withdrawn, and the proceedings were redesigned toinclude workgroups through which interested parties and SWRCB staff could furtherinvestigate alternatives aimed at balancing all of the various uses to which the Delta's water areput

The outcome of the proceedings, now scheduled for completion in 1993, is important not only tousers of the Delta'u waters, but to all Californians as well because most of California's waterdelivery systems are interconnected to some degree.

\

It

,4r4.1.41

,

.

Aitta

RaorrioN4-4

Suisun Marsh Preservation Act andAgreements

In 1987, state and federal representativesof DWR and the Bureau signed an agree-ment intended to maintain the brackishcharacter of the 57,000 acres of water-ways in the marsh, northeast of CarquinezStrait. The marsh is a primary resting placeand feeding ground for millions of water-fowl migrating on the Pacific Flyway. Theagreement is intended to mitigate forchanges in the marsh caused by operationof state and federal water projects and byother upstream diversion of fresh water.The Bureau and DWR will each pay 40percent of the costs of marsh improve-ments, and 20 percent will be allocated toother upstream users and reimbursed bythe legislature. To date, approximately $40million has been spent on marshimprovements.

Fish Agreement

Another area of concern in the Delta wasaddressed when DWR and the stateDepartment of Fish and Game (DFG)signed an agreement in 1986 aimed atoffsetting some of the direct fish losses atthe Delta pumping plant. Because waterand fishery interests agreed that fishlosses are probably greater today becauseof past operation of the SWP, the statewater contractors agreed to provide anadditional $15 million for a program toquickly increase Delta fish populationsThe agreement sets up a procedure tocalculate direct fish losses on an annualbasis and requires DWR through its con-tractors to pay for mitigation. These pay-ments have totaled about $2 million peryear and IN.': continue indefinitely untilanother agreement supersedes.

The fish agreement was seen as an inte-gral step in the installation of four newpumps at the Harvey 0. Banks DeltaPumping Plant. The pumps, which are nowbeing built, are expected to eventuallyprovide increased pumping capacity forthe State Water Project and act as a back-up in case of other pump failures. A newCorps of Engineers permit and newagreement with DFG are necded toincrease pumping levels. DWR DirectorDavid Kennedy approved the pump proj-ect in 1986 based on an EnvironmentalImpact Report prepared by the depart-ment The four pumps will bring the totalnumber of Delta pumps to eleven and willbe built at a cost of $46 million by 1991.

P_arn a

The Peripheral Canal and DeltaChannel StudiesIn 1977, the Department of Water Resour-ces proposed and amalgam of joint state-federal programs and facilities, later calledSenate Bill 200, which included the Peri-pheral Canal, Suisun Marsh protectionfacilities, on- and off-stream water storagefacilities in the Sacramento and San Joa-quin valleys, ground water recharge andstorage in southern California, wastewaterreclamation and increased waterconservation.

As proposed, the 42-mile-long PeripheralCanal of SB 200 would have carried waterdiverted from the Sacramento Riveraround the eastern edge of the Delta toCVP and SWP pumping plants and ContraCosta Canal intake on the southern edge,and released fresh water into the Delta atstrategic points for irrigation, fish and wild-life and repulsion of salt water. Althoughlarge quantities of Sacramento River waterwould have been diverted into the canal,supplies of water would still flow past thecanal intake on the river and down into theDelta and San Francisco Bay.

Proponents contended, among otherthings. that the canal would eliminatereverse flows in the Delta, easing condi-tions for fish. Canal foes expressed a fearthat the facility would lead to more exportsand further reduction in the flow of freshwater to the Delta and Bay resulting inharm to Delta and Bay consumptive andinstream uses. In 1980. opponents of thecanal and SB 200 mustered enough sig-natures to force a referendum on the billThe ballot measure, called Proposition 9,was scheduled for the June 1982 ballotand the battle lines were drawn. As acompromise to some northern Californi-ans, a provision was added to SB 200guaranteeing more protection for the Deltaand North Coast rivers If Prop. 9 failed,however this protection would not gointo effect

Statewide, in 1982 Proposition 9 Wasrejected by voters 62 to 38 percent In thetally, 50 of the state's 58 countries votedagainst the measure, leaving only Kernand the seven counties south of the Teha-chapis in favor In 35 northern counties,the "no" vote exceeded 90 percent

SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA

Nov,

Suar-o/

HR.

-\<

SenhIl SfPitistar9

Anhoch

NatoPumping

Nerd

Proposition 9 was the biggest water pack-age to be presented to the voters in morethan'20 years. Its rejection made animpact on the direction of water resourcesplanning in California that is still being feltyears later The battle for and against Prop9 was one of the most expensive and div-isive in California's 100-year battle overwater Many argue that tne size of itsfinancial package was responsible for itsdefeat

Following defeat of the Proposition 9package there have been other attemptsto approve a water transfer facility in theDelta. in late 1983, the Deukmejianadministration proposed four Delta alterna-tives tchhe Peripheral Canal, described inDWR's eternatives for Delta WaterTransfer

One was chosen and in 1984, SB 1369,one of eight bills in Governor Deuk-mejian's Water Package. was carried inthe Senate by Senator RutAn Ayala,chairman of the Senate Committee onAgriculture and Water ResourCes. The bill,co-authored by Assemblyman Jim Costa,chairman of the Assembly Water, Parksand Wildlife Committee. was estimated at$1.1 billion and included construction ot anew 10- to 14-mile-long canal linking the

Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers (theNew Hope Cross Channel, or "Duke'sDitch," as it was dubbed by opponents).widening existing Delta channels, con-struction of three additional reservoirssouth of the Delta as well as investment inlevee maintenance and fishery restoration.If completed, the SB 1369 package wouldhave moved an additional 630.000 acre-feet a year through the Delta to the SanJoaquin Valley and southern California. InAugust of 1984, however. the Governordropped the bill when it became clear itwould not receive enough support in thelegislature and might be subjected to avoter referendum.

Another Delta bill focused on offstreamstorage below the Delta. Legislation intro-duced by Assemblyman Phil Isenberg in1984 authorized the construction of amajor storage reserioir near the existingSan Luis reservoir in Merced County. InsLos Banos Grandes Reserv6ir would beused by the state during high runoff per-iods to store surplus water that otherwisewould flow out to sea The reservoir's great-est benefit to the Delta, according to DWR.would be increased flexibility of operationthat could help offset the impacts pumpinghas on Delta fish, one of the biggest con-cerns in operation of the SWP

By 1989 DWR had completed five years offeasibility studies for the reservoir, nowconceived as having 1.7 million acre-feetstorage capacity. The reservoir hasevolved into a joint SWP/CVP project withthe Bureau serving as the lead federalagency in preparation of the necessaryenvironmental documentation. Key to thisreservoir project ere increasing channelcapacity, an agreement with DFG and theaddition of the final four pumps at thestate's pumping plant, since the feasibilitystudy is based upon the assumption theplant will be completed. A final Environ-mental Impact Report for the project isscheduled to be completed by 1990.

The planning and environmental docu-mentation process necessary to obtainregulatory permits for three separate DeltaWater Management programsSouth,North and Westernwas started by theBureau and DWR in 1987 with publicmeetings and will take approximately fouryears to complete.

In an effort to find long-term solutions toimproving and maintaining water levels,circulation patterns and water quality in thesouthern Delta, DWR and the Bureau haveinitiated planning activity to evaluate alter-natives to meet these objectives. Theyinclude: dredging and channel improve-ments; channel flow control structures; rel-ocation of the Contra Costa Canal intake;changes to Clifton Court Forebay, includ-ing a new intake gate or relocation of theintake and enlargement,of the forebay;and interconnection of the CVP with theforebay. A Corps of Engineers permit toallow greater exports for water banking willalso be part of this program.

North Delta planning will focus on providingflood protection for islands along the lowerMokelumne River, reducing fisheries im-pacts. and improving transfer efficiency offederal and state project water across theDelta. One promising pnssibility for the nor-thern Delta is a phasea program that wouldstart with enlargement of the South Fork ofthe Mokelumne River. providing major floodcontrol benefits for the area, and correctingunfavorable flow patterns caused by stateand federal pumping.

DWR and DFG are also investigating WestDelta water management needs, theobjectives of which include minimizingoxidation and subsidence, improvinglevees and protecting existing highwaysand utilities, providing habitat for waterfowl,improving recreation, reducing fishimpacts by screening, and protectingDelta water quality. One alternative is awildlife management plan which wouldchange Sherman Island from currentcultivation practices to managed wildlifehabitat, reducing subsidence and floodingproblems.

interagency Ecological StudiesProgram for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

The interagency program was initiated inJuly 1970 by a Memorandum of Agree-ment between the California Departmentsof Fish and Game (DFG) and WaterResources (DWR), the U.S. Bureau of Rec-lamation (Bureau) and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (RNS). Later, the U.S. Geo-logical Survey (USGS) and State WaterResources Control Board were broughtinto the program as participants. The pro-gram was an outgrowth of testimony at thewater rights hearing leading to D-1379(preceding D-1485), which indicated thatconstruction and operation of the SWP andCVP may have been contributing to fishand wildlife problems in the estuary. Thetestimony also indicated a need for moreinformation regarding the environmentalneeds of fish and wildlife and ways todesign and operate the water projects tominimize detrimental effects on thoseresources.

Over the years, annual reports have beensubmitted to the Stete Board and otheragencies.

86

Aquatic Habitat InstituteThe Aquatic habitat was established at therecommendation of the State WaterResources Control Board in 1982 inrecognition of the need to develop a morecomprehensive scientific understanding ofthe impacts of human activities on the eco-lolgy of the Bay and Delta. Set up as anindependent, nonprofit corporation withthe purpose of evaluating the effects ofpollution on the estuary, AHI's charge is tocoordinate research and monitoring effortsrelated to pollutants in the estuary, andpublish research and findings.

Funded by the San Francisco Estuary Proj-ect (See below), AHI has developed com-puter databases compiling research andmonitoring programs that have been, orare presently being, conducted in the Bay-Delta estuary, and testimony and exhibitspresented during the State Water Resour-ces Control Board's Bay-Delta Proceed-ings. Interested parties may access thedatabases at no charge.

San Francisco Estuary ProjectIn 1986, the San Francisco Bay-Deltaestuary was added to the U.S. Environ-mental Projection Agency's (EPA) Na-tional Estuary Program. The program wasformerly established and funded underthe federal Water Quality Act of 1987 withthe purpose of protecting and improvingwater quality and enhancing livingresources in the nation's designatedestuaries. Representatives from the publicsector, all levels of government andelected officials from 12 Bay-Delta coun-ties are working together in the five-yearproject to develop a comprehensive andwater conservation management plan forthe estuary. This requires characterizingthe problems and values of the estuaryby collecting and analyzing information.developing a data management system,evaluating existing laws and recommen-ding co:rective actions. The plan will thengo to the governor and EPA for approval.The project is investigating five issueswithin the estuary: the decline of biologicalresources; increased pollutants; freshwaterdiversion and altered flow regime;increased waterway modification; andintensified land use. Status and TrendsReports on each of these issues are cur-rently being prepared, with public work-shops beginning in 1969.

Summaffy

Obviously, there are no simple solutions tothe Delta dilemma. The mined of differentagencies, all with different mandates, allattempting to come up with solutions forDelta problems, often work at cross pur-poses. A multiplicity of issues and specialinterests has caused a long and drawn-outprocess of addressing and solving Deltaproblems and state water issues. Eachproblem is as important as the next. Com-peting interests for the water flowingthrough Delta channels further complicatethe issues.

The Delta is the crucial mingling point formuch of the state's runoff and therefore isa critical link in the chain of events whichmust ultimately assure all of California anadequate water supply. But the Delta is adynamic and unique estuary as well, withinherent value as more than a mere waterconduit. And for many environmentalorganizations, Delta issues have become abattle cry; the Delta has a symbolic qualitythat transcends the issues.

The productivity of the rich Central Valleydepends on the transportation of water in theSacramento Valley. through the Delta and in-to the San Joaquin Valley In addition toupstream and local Delta uses, one-fourth ofthe land area and two-thirds of the popula-tion of the state are served, at least partially.by water exported from the Delta.

Many southern California water users lookto the Delta and surplus northern suppliesto offset lost supplies from the ColoradoRiver. As a result of a 1963 U.S. SupremeCourt decision, California's entitlement toColorado River water was reduced from5.3 to 4.4. million acre-feet. per year. Nowthat Arizona has begun using its ColoradoRiver entitlement, the Metropolitan WaterDistrict of Southern California (MWD) haslost more than half of the water available tothem in the past, although supplies arebeing met by surplus water. One highlycontroversial proposal to ease the South-land's water shortage, which might alsohelp lessen pressures on the Delta, sug-gests transfenng water conserved by agri-cultural users to the thirsty coastal cities.

State Water Project users in the San Joa-quin Valley expanded agriculture upon thearrival of state project water and argue that

.r-±.7

they depend upon the state's commitmentto complete the SWP. They say if state proj-ect water deliveries aren't increased intheir area, ground water overdraft willincrease as in pre-project days, especiallyduring droughts, and agricultural land willgo out of production.

In addition, over half of California'sanadromous fish, such as striped bass andsalmon which live in the ocean but travelto freshwater to spawn, are dependent onthe waters of the Delta Protection of thesefish, and the estuary's ecosystem, adds stillanother dimension to the problem ofsatisfying all the Delta's water interests

And finally, Delta water users maintain thatprotection of the Delta and adequate sup-plies for Delta users should be placedforemost

In the wake of the defeat of Prop 9 and theGovernor's "Ditch" package, however,there has been a shift toward healing oldwounds and building consensus. Coali-tions of northern and r.duthern Californi-ans, urban and agricultural users, andenvironmentalists are actively seekingaccommodations aggreeable to all inter-ests, hoping that with the right checks andbalances, and with proper management,the state's water needs can be met withoutje ipardizing the environment

But so far, each proposal for solving theDelta's quagmire of problems seems to bemet with opposition from some region orgroup, resulting in continued negotiationsand discussions but delaying crucial Deltasolutions.

!n the meanwhile, many believe there is astrong possibility ihat nature may reclaimthe Deltathrough subsidence, a largeearthquake or a gradual raising of the sealevel due to global warmingto thewetlands area it once was Were this tohappen water quality issues would beraised to a crisis point for the miilions ofCalifornians who depend on it for theirwater, and arguments over prioritizing thebest uses of the Delta's waters wouldprove immaterial.

Amid all this uncertainty, the Delta todaystill holds as much mystery and challengeas it must have held for its original settlersAnd it remains apparent that the ever-changing Delta wilt continue to providechallenges in th i. years to come

Water EducationFOUNDATION

NON PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSACRAMENTO, CA

PERMIT NO. 430

y TO

gelcuMuiOutid

11 Dcref6nPrepared by the Water Education Foundation

14,

0!ca,

r'

BEST COPY MAILABLE 897

[rn

Introduction

Glossary

Drainage Primer

Regional Issues

Kesterson Reservoir

What is Being Done?State and Federal Efforts

District Programs

The Future

Updated 1991

2

4

6

9

12

15

16

On the Cover:A field of cotton is being irrigated on the west sideof the San Joaquin Valley. In this area, about 1.2 tonsof salts are deposited on the topsoil of one acre offarmland from irrigation water. Agricultural land canbe ruined permanently if irrigation continues andnatural or artificial drainage and leaching of saltsfrom the root zone does not occur.

The Layperson's Guide to AgriculturalDrainage is prepared and distributed bythe Water Education Foundation as apublic information tool. It is part of a seriesof Layperson's Guides which explorepertinent water issues in an objective.easy-to-understand manlier.

The mission of the Water EducationFoundation, an unbiased, nonprofitorganization, is to develop and implementeducation programs leading to a broaderunderstanding of water issues and toresolution of water problems. For moreinformation on the Foundation's materialscontact:

Water Education Foundation717 K Street, Suite 517Sacramento, CA 95814(916)444-6240 FAX 448-7699

President: Robert M. HaganExecutive Director: Rita Schmidt Sudman

Author: Nancy Hanson


1991 Update: Betty Bnckson

Editorial Assistance: Merle Fraser andValerie Holcomb

Photo Credits:Nancy HansonCalifornia Dept. of Water ResourcesSan Joaquin Valley Drainage ProgramU.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Varied in climate, terrain and people,the prosperous Golden State pro-duces more goods and services thanall but five of the world's nations. Itsagricultural industry has transformedmillions of acres of arid land intofields and orchards with the help ofirrigation projects that import waterfrom less arid parts of the state andfrom the Colorado River. Today,farming is second only to tourism asCalifornia's top industry. Agriculture isalso a major employer, with morethan 80,000 families and as many as400,000 workers growing and har-vesting crops. According to the Cali-fornia Farm Bureau Federation, oneout of every three people employedin California works at an agriculture-related job.

In 1990, California farmers sold $18.3billion worth of food and fiber. But allthis productivity does not come with-out a price. The arid climate that pro-vides the almost year-round growingseason also can hasten deteriorationof irrigated soils. In some arid re-gions there is inadequate rainfall towash salts from the soil. This, com-bined with especially high rates ofevaporation and transpiration, causeminerals and salts to accumulate inthe soil near the plant's roots. In partsof the San Joaquin Valley, a third fac-tor, relatively impermeable layers ofclay, complicates the drainage prob-lem by inhibiting the downwardmovement, or percolation, of irriga-tion water. When poorly-drained sa-line soils are irrigated, shallow, saltyground water accumulates and even-tually rises into the root zone. With-out adequate drainage, a field canbecome waterlogged, like a flowerpotwithout a hole, stunting plant growthand reducing agricultural productivity.Underground drainage facilities pro-vide the "hole," allowing farmers toflush excess salts from the soil whilekeeping the root zone from becomingwaterlogged, thus preserving thesoil's productivity. The saline waterfrom underground drainage facilities.however, must go somewhere:

therein lies one of the most difficultissues facing California's agriculturalindustry today.

Public awareness of the potentialdangers associated with drainagewater began to develop in 1984 whendead and deformed waterfowl werediscovered at the Kesterson NationalWildlife Refuge. Scientists directlylinked the problem to toxic concentra-tions of trace elements contained inthe drainage water used to supply therefuge's wetland areas. Awarenessand concern have increased as morerecent studies have shown that envi-ronmental problems associated withdrainage water are widespreadthroughout the western United States.Some experts fear the damage hasonly begun to surface. Stepped-upresearch efforts and expanded watermanagement programs focusing onminimizing the volume of agriculturaldrainage water while preventingsallnation of cropland are underwayat water districts, public agencies anduniversities.

Salination the buildup of salts insoil is one of mankind's oldest en-vironmental problems, resulting in re-duced crop productivity and some-times contributing to the decline ofcivilizations. The Middle East's Tigris-Euphrates Valley once was known asthe "fertile crescent." Today it ismostly desert, partly because of thesalinity of its soils. Similar examp!3s

of salination can be found in India,Pakistan, Egypt, the Soviet Union,China and Mexico.

In ancient times, the common remedyfor salination was to stop irrigatingand abandon the land until rainscould flush enough salts from thesoil. Then farming could be resumedfor a few seasons until the salts builtup again. This practice is still followedin some parts of the world.

In California, like most regions whereirrigated agriculture is high-technol-ogy, water beyond that required tomeet the crop's needs is applied tosaline soil to wash, or leach, excesssalts from the root zone. Leaching isthe last step in resolving salinationproblems only where soil drainage isgood. Where soils are not naturallywell-drained, further assistance oftenis required. Two of the state's largestagricultural areas, the western SanJoaquin Valley in the central part ofthe state and the Imperial Valley tothe south, are faced with both poorly-drained and naturally-saline soils.

This Layperson's Guide, part of acontinuing series published by theWater Education Foundation, reviewsthe science of agricultural drainage,explores regional drainage problemsand remedies in several key areasand discusses what is being done touncover workable solutions to drain-age problems.

4:: =

:);:r.;XrSTde7.,zfa; liricjit,,-air- .41;

do, fr 401,s ,7?:.

4 '1, toe.,"Ito' .4P .1 et iyr git, 3. s.Jr. e.: ',..rA?"; ; vs%; fir- Firsk.1. 4410"

GLOSSARY

Bioaccumulation The process bywhich an individual organism concen-trates a substance within its tissues to alevel greater than that found in the sur-rounding environment.

Bioconcentration The process bywhich a substance is passed up thefood chain resulting in an especiallyhigh level of the substance at upperlevels of the food chain.

Cogeneration Process by whichenergy is extracted from the wasteheat of an industrial process such as asteam boiler orfood processing system.

Electrical conductivity (EC) Oneway of measuring the salinity of water,commonly expressed as millimhos percentimeter (mmho/cm) or deciSiemensper meter (dS/m), equivalent terms.EC can also be related to osmotic pres-sure, which influences the amount ofwater a plant's roots can extract fromthe soil. One mmho/cm or dS/m corre-sponds to about 640 parts per million(ppm) total dissolved solids.

Infiltration The passage of water

-

..

I ta1

_Ow

111W1214 ;4'

through the soil surface, into the soil.

Ion exchange unit Device whichselectively removes unwanted chargedparticles (ions) from a solution by at-tracting the ions to an oppositelycharged site in the unit.

Leach To apply water in excess of acrop's needs for the purpose of flush-ing out salts from the root zone. Theleaching requircwr sint is the amount ofwater needed 1- ,ass through the rootzone to preve. salinity in the soil fromreaching levels which would damagecrop productivity.

Percolation Movement of waterdown through the soil toward the watertable (the level at which water stands ina well).

Potable Suitable for drinking.

Reverse osmosis Process for re-moving salts and other trace elementsfrom water by forcing fluid through amembrane designed to allow only freshwater to pass. Salts and trace elementsare concentrated, reducing the volumefor disposal but still presenting someenvironmental management chal-lenges.

9/

to,

qnt!wilk- 44."1.1

Salination Process by which salt§accumulate in soil.

Saline soil Soil affected by solublesalts.

Salts All the minerals dissolved inwater.-

Selenium Naturally-occurring inor-ganic element found primarily in soils.and to a lesser extent in water and air.Selenium is a necessary nutrient in verysmall amounts but can be toxic in highdoses.

Solar pondsSystem of saline pondsdesigned to extract energy from waterwhen heated by the sun.

Subsurface drainage systemSystem of underground pipe to removeexcess water accumulating below thesoil surface. which will not naturallypercolate downward, out of the roc tzone.

Transpiration Process by whichplants release water vapor to the atmo-sphere through the pores of their leaves.

Volatilization Process by which asubstance is passed off as vapor,evaporation.

[in a PT[DM T

What are Salts?

Salts are combinations of commonearth elements and compounds: cal-cium, magnesium, potassium, so-dium, chloride, sulfate, carbonate andbicarbonate, nitrate, and others.When farmers talk about salts theyrefer to all the minerals dissolved inthe water and present in the soil. Suf-ficiently diluted, salts are usuallyharmless for most water uses andmay even be beneficial. Excessiveamounts of dissolved mineral salts,however, are detrimental to most wa-ter uses, including agriculture. Inareas affected by salt accumulation,the choice of crops is limited to salt-tolerant food and fiber crops, such aswheat and cotton. The salt toleranceof crops varies tremendously, rang-ing from salt-sensitive strawberries tocotton, which can tolerate 10 timesmore salinity in the root zone thanstrawberries before yields decline.Crops such as stone fruits (peaches.avocados) and vine crops (grapes)are particularly sensitive to sodiumand chloride.

Salts are commonly measured in mil-ligrams per liter (mg/l) or parts permillion (ppm), units which are roughlyequivalent. One ppm is one part ot asubstance dissolved in one millionparts of water by weight. Electricalconductivity (EC) is another measureof the concentration of salts, withconductivity steadily increasing assalt concentrations rise.

Surprisingly large amounts of salt arecarried in solution by some rivers. Forexample, the Sacramento River, as itflows past California's capital city,contains about 300 pounds of saltsper acre-foot of water, or about 100mg/I of salts. An acre-foot is approxi-mately 326,000 gallons, or enoughwater to cover an acre of land onefoot deep. An average householduses between one-half and one acre-foot of water a year. Measured at Im-perial Dam near Yuma, Arizona, the

highly-saline Colorado River containsabout 2,000 pounds of salts per acre-foot, or 725 mg/I of salts. The SanJoaquin River at Vernalis contains anaverage of about 960 pounds of saltsper acre-foot (about 350 mg/l), butsometimes climbs as high as 1,500pounds per acre-foot (545 mgA).

In arid lands, soil salinity problemsare compounded when large vol-umes of salt-bearing irrigation waterare applied to soils which alreadycontain salts. Some of the appliedwater evaporates from the surface ofthe field, leaving salts behind. Therest of the water penetrates the soilwhere much of it is taken up by croproots and is transpired through theplant leaves, again leaving salts in thesoil. In a single irrigation season onthe west side of the San Joaquin Val-ley, for example, about 1.2 tons ofsalts are deposited along with irriga-tion water on one acre of farmland.And the effects are not temporary.The agricultural value of land may bepermanently lost if irrigation contin-ues and artificial drainage and leach-ing of salts from the root zone is in-sufficient.

Need for Drainage

Plants, like animals, need food, water,air and a clean environment to live,grow and reproduce. Because mostplants nourish themselves throughtheir roots, a balance of life-sustain-ing materials must be maintained inthe soil throughout the plant's rootzone. Although tolerance to imbal-ances and toxic substances varieswidely among plants, the productivityand ultimately the survival of all plantscan be threatened by too much ortoo little of any of the materialsneeded to survive, or by concentra-tions of certain trace elements to toxiclevels. Optimum plant productivity,the general goal of farmers raising acrop for market, is achieved by main-taining a rather specific balance of

931

the life-sustaining materials. Carefulmixes of fertilizer are applied at ap-propriate times in a plant's develop-ment. If rainfall supplies less than theneeded volume of water to a crop'sroots, a farmer often applies water viasome method of irrigation. And if thesoil retains too much water, not allow-ing sufficient air to reach the roots ofthe crop, artificial methods for drain-ing the excess water from the rootzone often are employed.

Artificial drainage also may be neces-sary if the farmer's soil or water sup-ply contains elements that accumu-late to concentrations harmful to thecrop. Additional water beyond thatneeded to sustain the plant undernormal circumstances is added toleach the harmful elements from theroot zone. If a soil is freely draining,excess salts and water percolatedeeply into the ground water basin.However, if an impermeable barrierexists, a subsurface drainagesystemis commonly used to carry excesssalts and water away from the irri-gated land helping to maintain theland's long-term productivity.

The amount of water required for ad-equate leaching varies widely with thesalinity of both the soil and irrigationwater, the salt tolerance of the crop,the uniformity of the field slope andother factors. The farmer usually mustapply about 10 percent to 25 percentmore water than the crop needs inorder to cover the entire field and atthe same time leach salts from theroot zone sometimes leading tocharges that the farmer is wasting wa-ter. A favorable salt balance isachieved when salt is exported atleast at the same rate as it is importedwith irrigation water. In many basins,rivers are used as natural drainagesystems to transport salts from agri-cultural lands. Thus, drainage be-comes part of the flow of the river andis eventually carried to the ocean oran inland salt sink such as the SaltonSea. A prime consideration in thesebasins is whether salinity in the river

can be kept below levels which mayharm other uses of the river water orthe fish and other wildlife which theriver supports.

If salt levels are already beyond thecapacity of a river to safely accept allof the drainage water, some or all ofthe saline water must be exported byman-made systems. The cheapestway to accomplish this is by using agravity-flow canal to carry away thedrainage water. The logical place toexport salts is to a natural sink, wheresalts will not degrade fresh waters.

Coping with DrainageWater

Throughout the Imperial, Coachellaand Central valleys, districts were es-tablished to deliver water to arid agri-cultural lands and to construct, oper-ate and maintain regional drainagesystems. In some areas, regional sys-tems collect drainage water from indi-vidual farm drain outlets and conveythe water to a point of reuse, disposalor dilution.

On-farm drainage management is theresponsibility of the individual land-owner. Most farms have some kind ofsurface drainage system and somehave subsurface drainage systems.Irrigation districts, the U.S. Soil Con-servation Services, county farm advi-sors, or agricultural consultants mayassist farmers by recommendingdrainage system designs based onsoil types, cropping plans and otherconsiderations.

For years, subsurface drains havebeen called "tile" drains. Today, theterm is a misnomer. While the firstdrain lines were made of baked redclay tiles and later of concrete, perfo-rated plastic pipe came into use inthe 1960s. Plastic is considerably lessexpensive, easier to install and seemsto hold up just as well as concrete or

-'AVERAGE PRECIENTATION INVAL LEV LESS THAN IO INCHESPER YEAR

4.40p

IRRIGATIONWATERCONTAINSSALT

°41 \"...-"N`\ ---.,\\ ...vOR, .,, iWP EARTI LORD ICCALRERA, CE SH IAN&

WATER TABLE WiTHOUT /.

MULATTO SALT OUT OF '..--.. SBAULIICSROOT ZONE UP IN

4POTENTIAL LEVEL OF .

.

SUBSURFACE DRAINS ..--"' SOIL

EVAPORATION ANDTRANSPIRATIONREMOVE WATER ANDLEAVE SALTS BEHIND

4

4

4

0 o *0 0 0 % I. a 0

SUBSURFACE DRAINS REMOVE SALINE WATER, LOWER WATER TABLE AVERAGEDEPTH EIGHT FEET WITHOUT DRAINS SALT CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE

DRAINS EMPTY INTO A COLLECTOR SYSTEM WHICH TRANSPORTSTHE DRAINAGE WATER TO A DISCHARGE POINT.

LEGEND

INDICATES SAL TS

INDICATES F LOWOF WATER

On-farm drainage system.

clay. The cylindrical drain pipe, vary-ing from three inches to 10 inches indiameter, is installed at a depth of sixfeet to 10 feet. Water then flows intoand through the drain and toward thedrainage outlet, where it goes into asurface drainage ditch or collectorpipe and ultimately to a natural or arti-ficial drainage conveyance system todispose of the effluent.

Some drain lines are laid by ma-chines which dig trenches, lay thedrain and backfill the trench withgravel in a single operation. Anothertype of machine, the "mole" plow,bores into the soil and lays the drainwithout digging a trench.

In the Imperial Valley, where subsur-face drains have been placed undermuch of the 500,000 acres under pro-duction, systems consist of large col-lector drains into which parallel laterallines flow. Drains laid in sandy soil

.9 4

are spaced from 50 feet to 200 feetapart, while spacing in dense, heavysoil might be at intervals of 50 feet orless. Subsurface drainage is an ex-pensive proposition, with initial costsrunning anywhere from $300 to$1,000 per acre, depending on thespacing and depth of the lines. Oncelaid, subsurface drain lines are notproblem-free. The drainage processprecipitates minerals like iron whichcan solidify and clog the system.Roots, too, can infiltrate the lines andpartially or completely block watermovement. Breaks or shifts in thesystem can permit soil to enter thedrains, clogging them and causingsinkholes or washouts of the soilabove the drain. To alleviate prob-lems such as these, long hoses em-ploying high-pressure jets of watercan be threaded into the drains todislodge obstructions.

Nsgu° [Jowl]

Imperial Valley

From an agricultural viewpoint,California's earliest drainage successstory can be found in the ImperialValley, the rich agricultural area lo-cated in the southeast corner of thestate on the Mexican and Arizonaborders. Yet here, as at KestersonReservoir and the Tulare Lake Basinfarther north, trace element contami-nation and adverse effects on fish,wildlife and other beneficial uses areunder investigation.

The Colorado River is the ImperialValley's sole source of surface water.Before the introduction of irrigationwater in 1901, the region was a vastdesert, although its agricultural poten-tial was recognized as early as the1850s.

By 1902, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture engineers found that the valley'swater table and salinity needed to becontrolled, and by the 1920s it wasapparent that a drainage problem ex-isted. Accumulating salts and a risingwater table forced some lands out ofproduction and threatened the pro-ductivity of tirtCusands of additionalacres.

A $2.5 million bond issue was passedin 1922 f area's water supplier,Imperial Irriyatien District (IID), to be-gin constructing a drainage system tocollect water from individual farmsand transport it to the Salton Sea.Two northward-sloping river chan-nels, the New River and the AlamoRiver, became the system's maindrainage conveyance channels. HDbegan construction of an extensivesystem of open drains linking farms

Laying subsurface drainage pipe aspart of a large, collector drainage sys-tem the San Luis Drain.

to the river channels. Today, !ID main-tains a network of more than 1,400miles of open drainage ditches.

In the early days, farmers dug ditcheson their land to help carry away saltydrainage water, however, due to thefine texture of the soils, these ditchesproved to be insufficient. Subsurfacedrainage systems were introduced in1929. To date, 32,000 miles of sub-surface drains have been installed onmore than 60 percent of Imperial Val-ley farmland. About 867,000 acre-feetof agricultural drainage water flows tothe Salton Sea annually, of which214,000 acre-feet comes from tiledrains.

Most recently, questions have beenraised about the presence of toxicconcentrations of trace elements inthe waters and waterfowl of theSalton Sea, which serves not only asa repository for agricultural drainagewater, but also as a wildlife habitat,sport fishing and recreational area.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) in 1986 found elevated lev-els of selenium, nickel, arsenic andlead in tissue samples from waterfowlthat spend their winters in the SaltonSea. As a result, the USFWS is con-ducting in-depth monitoring andanalysis of impacts in the area.

The Coachella Valley

HD's neighbor to the north, theCoachella Valley Water District, alsooperates and maintains an effectivedrainage system. Farmers in this agri-cultural oasis, which supplies almostall of the nation's dates, have in-stalled extensive systems of subsur-face on-farm drains. Today, morethan 2,000 miles of farm drain linesserve approximately half of thevalley's 78,500 irrigable acres. LikeImperial Valley, agricultural drainagefrom the Coachella Valley flows intothe Salton Sea, although in a farsmaller amount (an estimated120,000 acre-feet per year).

The farm drainage waters are dis-charged into main collector drains(open ditches underground pipedrains) constructed and maintainedby the district. Large concrete pipedrains have replaced most of the dis-trict-maintained open drains. Substi-tuting underground pipes has al-lowed additional cropland to be putinto production and also has reducedoperation and maintenance costs.Another benefit is reduced exposureof Salton Sea fish to fertilizers andpesticides that could more readilycontaminate water in open ditchesthan in underground pipe.

AN

-4. - -s ,

c. -

,

.311111111111111...-e,--

2

-"a ,-,rstiC

-ste

iqte0:4-044fr

.,.1111.

i/-

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a rich agricultural region where many islands

are below sea level, requiring farmers to pump water from their land.

The Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta

Few regions are as important toCalifornia's water supply as the Sac-ramento-San Joaquin Delta, wherethe Sacramento and San Joaquin riv-ers converge to discharge into theSan Francisco Bay. This sprawlingnetwork of waterways serves assystem to supply and transport waterto more than 19 million users in cen-tral and southern California. The Deltaalso is a rich agricultural area ofabout 700,000 acres and containssome of the most critical fishery andwildlife habitat in the state.

Because most of the Delta islands arebelow sea level, the area is beset by

seepage-related drainage problems.Farmers must constantly pump waterfrom their lands to permit crops togrow. However, farmers must alsoadd controlled amounts of water forproductive agriculture. Some of thesefarmers rely on the waters of the SanJoaquin River for their irrigation sup-ply. Here, drainage and water qualityproblems intertwine.

The salt content of drainage waterflowing from the west side of the SanJoaquin Valley is high and sources ofdilution water are somewhat limited.Most of the valley gets an average ofless than 10 inches of rainfall a yearand water historically received fromSierra streams is now largely retainedby dams and either exported or di-verted for consumption. During the

summer irrigation season, somestretches of the San Joaquin Riverconsist almost entirely of irrigation re-turn flows. The flows include surfacerunoff and subsurface drainage fromirrigated east- and west-side landsand, to a lesser extent, from publicand private wildlife managementareas.

Exports of the Central Valley Project.Friant Project, East Bay MunicipalUtility District and San Francisco'sHetch Hetchy Project all tend to in-crease the salt concentration in theSan Joaquin River by reducing theamount of water available for dilution.According to the South Delta WaterAgency, about 1.3 million tons of saltare deposited in the Delta annuallyfrom the San Joaquin River and thesalt load is increasing at the rate ofabout 18,000 tons per year. Whereriver salt concentrates in the semi-iso-lated reaches of some south Deltachannels. salinity reaches as high as2.000 ppm salts during the summermonths.

Selenium is also of concern in theDelta. Chemical analyses of plants,fish and waterfowl living in the Deltaand San Francisco Bay indicate thatselenium levels in the water may notappear to be excessively high. How-ever. bioconcentration and the con-tinued recycling of selenium trans-ported to the area with agriculturaldrainage water and discharged withindustrial and municipal waste watermay be causing problems. Accordingto the San Francisco EstuaryProject's 1991 Status and Trends Re-port on Pollutants in the San Fran-cisco Estuary, most of the estuary'sselenium load comes from SanJoaquin River flows. The report statesthat San Joaquin River flows deposit4.2 metric tons of selenium into theestuary on art annual basis, municipaland industrial effluent accounts forthe deposit of 2.1 metric tons andSacramento River flows deposit 1.1metric tons.

The San JoaquinValley

The San Joaquin Valley is one of themost productive agricultural regionsin the world. Crops grown there in-clude grapes, tomatoes, hay, sugarbeets, cotton and a multitude of otherfruits and vegetables. In 1987 (the lastyear for national ranking) three SanJoaquin Valley counties Fresno,Tulare and Kern ranked first, sec-ond and third in the nation in agricul-tural production. In 1990, the threecounties' crop and livestock produc-tion was $2.94 billion, $2.16 billionand $1.84 billion, respectively.

Irrigation began in the San JoaquinValley in the 1870s. As early as 1886,a wide-spread need for agriculturaldrainage in the valley was evident. Inthe 1890s and early 1900s, some cul-tivated lands were forced out of pro-duction because of salt and drainageproblems. Although drainage prob-lems were recognized early, farmingcontinued to expand. Localized prob-lems in some areas of the valley werecontrolled by using irrigation wellswhich lowered ground water levels.Areas with access to the San JoaquinRiver were able to use the river toconvey agricultural drainage.

Soil salinity is predominantly a prob-lem on the west side of the valley. Irri-gation water used on the east side ofthe valley comes from Sierra Nevadasnowmelt and rainwater and containsextremely low concentrations of dis-solved salts (less than 100 mg/l).Also. soils on the east side wereborne of granitic rocks which containfew salts and generally do not formclay layers that impede the downwardflow of water. In great contrast, west-side soils were formed from salinemarine sediments eroded from theCoast Range and contain thin clay

layers or lenses that impede percola-tion, creating numerous shallow wa-ter tables. Lands in the lowest part ofthis valley may be affected both bywater applied to the land surface andby the horizontal flow of percolationwater from irrigated lands upslope.The water supply to the west side isnot highly saline (about 250 mg/l), butis significantly more saline than theSierra snowmelt. In fact, according to1990 data, approximately 1.6 milliontons of salt per year come to the westside of the San Joaquin Valley withirrigation water imported from theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Today, the largest single district af-fected by the lack of access to drain-age is the 600,000-plus-acresWest lands Water District (West lands),the largest irrigation district in theUnited States. West lands is located inthe federal San Luis Unit service areaon the west side of the San JoaquinValley and is without drainage accessto the San Joaquin River. Approxi-mately 198,700 acres nave a shallowsaline water table between five feetand 10 feet from the surface. Salinewater is less than five feet from thesurface under 12,900 acres of themost severely affected land. Atdepths of less than 10 feet, saline wa-ter begins to seriously affect cropproductivity.

Because of the severity of the prob-lem, the district has been monitoringdrainage conditions and annual cropproduction. Within its boundariesalone, areas with water tables shal-lower than 10 feet had crop produc-tion losses of $150 to $415 per acre,or approximately $35 million in 1987,the last year for which figures areavailable. This one district's lossestranslate to an annual income loss ofny.ighly $70 million for the valley and$95 million statewide, includinglosses sustained by industries whichprovide goods, services and sales forthe valley's farms and agriculturalproducts.

The San Luis Drain

When the federal and state govern-ments began laying the groundworkfor large water supply projects toserve the San Joaquin Valley, plan-ning also began for drainage facili-ties. In 1960, California voters ap-proved financing and construction ofthe State Water Project and autho-rized the California Department ofWater Resources (DWR) to constructdrainage facilities as part of theproject. That same year, Congressenacted Public Law 86-488 for devel-opment of the San Luis Unit of thefederal Central Valley Project, whichalso called for construction of the SanLuis Drain to meet the unit's drainagerequirements.

Efforts were made for federal/statecooperaiion to build a joint drainagesystem, but there were several rever-sals in the state's planned participa-tion in a valley-wide drain. In 1967,DWR notified the U.S. Bureau of Rec-lamation (Bureau) that the statewould not participate, and requestedthe Bureau to proceed with a smallerdrain to serve only the federal SanLuis Unit service area.

Construction of the San Luis Drainbegan in 1968, but was halted in 1975when funds ran out and concern overdisposal of drainage water to the Sac-ramento-San Joaquin Delta height-ened. By then, the Bureau had com-pleted about 85 miles of the drain andthe first stage of Kesterson Reservoir,which was to be managed jointly forirrigation drainage and wildlife habitatuses under a 1970 agreement withthe USFWS. In 1973, Kesterson be-gan receiving surface irrigation runoff.Subsurface drainage water wasadded to the flow in 1978. By 1981,subsurface drainage was the solesource of water to Kesterson Reser-voir. Prior to conducting studies nec-

g TO n EIT

essary to satisfy state requirementsfor the discharge of drainage water tothe Delta, the Bureau reevaluated op-tions for valley-wide drainage and saltmanagement. In a cooperative fed-eral/state effort in 1975, the Bureau,DWR and the State Water ResourcesControl Board (State Board) formedan Interagency Drainage Program(IDP) and jointly funded a four-yearstudy. The IDP and a 30-memberpublic advisory committee evaluated18 alternatives, rec. ,mmending a val-ley-wide drain that would incorporatethe completed ;:ortion ot the San LuisDrain. The project was to have in-cluded a 290-mile joint-use federal/state drainage canal to be con-structed in stages. The existing 85-mile stretch would have been thecenter section. Construction of anorthern extension to Suisun Bay wasexpected to follow by 1991, and by2000 a section would have beencompleted to the south San JoaquinValley. The collected drainage efflu-ent was also planned to provide thewater supply for a total of 64,300acres of new or restored wetlandwildlife habitat.

In 1980, the Bureau applied for a per-mit to discharge the drainage water atthe location identified in the IDP re-port, near Chipps Island in the Delta.After the State Board identified the in-formation needed to set dischargerequirements, the Bureau began tech-nical studies to gather necessarydata. But plans to complete the drainwere dashed by field observationsmade by the USFWS in the spring of1983. A very high incidence of mor-talities and deformities amongKesterson waterbirds revealed a newdrainage problem the effects oftoxic concentrations of trace ele-ments on the environment.

,;41-4x

Typical view of a Kesterson Reservoir evaporation pond before clean-up and filling.

Problems at KestersonReservoir

In 1982, the USFWS discovered un-usually high concentrations of sele-nium in fish at Kesterson Reservoirand in 1983 and 1984 turned up analarming incidence of deformity anddeath among young waterfowl atKesterson. Scientists concluded thatselenium poisoning was the probablecause. These findings were the impe-tus for a wealth of studies into the po-tential effects of selenium and otherdrainage-related elements on thehealth of fish and wildlife andchanged the course of drainage plan-ning in the San Joaquin Valley.

Testing of the drainage water flowinginto the reservoir revealed that sele-nium levels ranged from 85 to 440ppb. The U.S. Environmental Protec-

98

tion Agency National Criteria Guid-ance indicates that levels of five ppbor less are necessary for the protec-tion of freshwater aquatic organismsin flowing streams. State of Californiastudies indicate that, in situationswhere aquatic life is continuously ex-posed to standing water, such as amarsh or pond, two ppb may be anappropriate allowable selenium levelto protect aquatic life. And, if the sele-nium level of an evaporation pondreaches eight ppm, the State Depart-ment of Fish and Game will requirethat a hazing program be imple-mented to scare waterfowl from thearea.

Although selenium in trace amountsis essential to all animal life, it haslong been known to be harmful andeven lethal in high concentrations.Fish and wildlife may become ex-posed to harmful concentrations of

the element through two processesknown as bloaccumulation andbloconcentration. Bioaccumulationoccurs when an individual organism,usually a simple plant or animal, ac-cumulates and stores selenium (orany other substance) in its body tis-sues at levels exceeding ambient en-vironmental concentrations. Whenmany of these organisms are con-sumed by species higher in the foodchain, their stores of selenium arepassed on. Through this second pro-cess, known as bioconcentratiorprogressively higher concentratior,of the element are passed up thefood chain. Eventually, selenium canattain levels in the tissues and organsof more complex organisms whichlimit reproduction and cause deformi-ties and possibly death among water-fowl, other bird life and fish.

To reduce the number of birds ex-posed to the contamination atKesterson, the USFWS, in 1984, be-gan a hazing program which involvedfiring blanks from guns to make noiseand scare birds from landing at thereservoir. This program continues ona very limited basis today, primarily inthe spring and late summer.

The Bureau's Kesterson Programwas established in 1985 to identifyand evaluate alternatives to solveproblems at the reservoir. In May ofthe same year, a local landowner pe-titioned the State Board to issue"cease and desist" and "cleanup andabatement" orders for Kesterson. Thefollowing February, the State Boardunanimously decided that under statelaw, drainage discharge intoKesterson was a "hazardous waste"because of its threat to human healthand the environment. As a result, theBureau was ordered to closeKesterson Reservoir or to upgradethe facility to a hazardous waste sur-face impoundment.

Then, on March 15, 1985, Secretaryof the Interior Donald Hodel ordered

GUSTINE

KESTERSON RESERVOIR AND VICINITY

The 5,900-acre Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge includes 1,280 acres of filledevaporation ponds where selenium contamination is the most severe. The refugealso has 4,620 acres of viable wildlife habitat served with water from the federalDelta Mendota Canal.

immediate steps to begin closure ofthe reservoir and to discontinue irriga-tion water deliveries to the 42,000acres from which the bulk of the drain-age water originated, stating that con-tinuing to operate the reservoir couldcause Department of Interior employ-ees to be in violation of the MigratoryBird Treaty Act, a criminal statute.Landowners and merchants fearedthat tens of thousands of acres offarmland might be put out of produc-tion and crops in place would be lost.

Relenting somewhat, on April 3, 1985,the Interior Department entered into anagreement with Westlands to phaseout drainage flows into the San LuisDrain and Kesterson Reservoir byJune 30, 1986. Westlands proposed toaccumplish this through an intensivewater conservation program, dilutingand recycling drainage water andplugging a portion of their drainagecollector system.

In the meantime, the Bureau and theUSFWS began preparation of an En-vironmental Impact Statement (EIS)to analyze the differences in environ-mental effects of alternative methodsof dealing with the cleanup of Kes-terson Reservoir and the San LuisDrain. The EIS also examined the re-quirements and options for removingcontaminated soil, ground water andvegetation from the reservoir andmethods for disposal of contami-nants. Once drainage flow into thereservoir was halted, the water in the12 evaporation ponds which collec-tively make up Kesterson was al-lowed to evaporate.

In March of 1987, the State Board ap-proved a scrape and burial plan re-quiring the Bureau to excavate mostof the selenium-contaminated soilfrom the ponds at Kesterson and dis-pose of it in a 45-acre double-lined

VolatIle Se

4kfr/f Excretion

Absotplon

Alosorptan

ExcretiOn

40:e)Plankton

Moored from: U.S. Fen and Wields Seneca

Simple organisms (lower right) can bioaccumulate selenium and other substancesin their body tissues. More complex organisms (moving clockwise) consume manysimpler plants and animals and may bioaccumulate harmful substances.

and sealed landfill to be built at thereservoir site. The Bureau's cost esti-mates of the disposal procedure haveranged from $37 million to $144 mil-lion. Plans for excavation by the Bu-reau were halted when Congressquestioned the cost and effective-ness of the proposed plan and studyresults indicated that the planned on-site disposal actions would notachieve cleanup goals at KestersonReservoir. In July 1988, the StateBcard acknowledged the likely inef-fectiveness of the on-site disposalplan, extended the time for the Bu-reau to develop a final cleanup plan.and required the Bureau to proceedto fill all areas of anticipated ephem---al pools (depressions). The Bureau

arded a construction contract to fillabout 600 acres of ephemeral poolsat Kesterson Reservoir which floodwith up-welling ground water. Theprocedure was completed in Novem-ber 1988.

The final cleanup plan for Kesterson,approved by the State Board in Sep-tember 1989, has three components:1) active site management to preventthe reestablishment of wetland habitatwhich might develop from surfaceponding of rain water; 2) minimizingselenium exposure to wildlife andmonitoring any impacts; and 3) con-ducting research into selenium dissi-pation techniques.

Since the pools were filled and stand-ing water was eliminated atKesterson, no serious selenium-re-lated effects have been observed inbirds or mammals. However, insectsand wild mushrooms growing in thesoi!-filled ponds have been fourrwith abnormally high levels of sele-nium. Wildlife agents are concernedthat when California's drought endsand heavy rains return, water mayrise to the surface and potentially

l u

hazardous ponds may reappear.

With the closure of Kesterson Reser-voir. an estimated 1,283 acres of wet-lands were lost. In early 1990, the Re-gional Water Quality Control Boardapproved a plan to acquire and man-age seven private parcels of land to-talling 23,000 acres in the northernSan Joaquin Drainage Basin for wa-terfowl and upland habitat. The landpurchases would protect 6,239 acresof existing wetlands and create an ad-ditional 4,4& of new wetlands,resulting in a trip...1g of the area's wet-lands acreage. The estimated 62,000acre-feet of water required annually tomanage the wetlands will come fromthe Central Valley Project and existingwater resources associated with theland. By the summer of 1991, three ofthe major land parcels had been ac-quired.

Difficulties with selenium and othertoxic trace elements are not limited todrainage water from Westlands.Some scientists and conservationistsnow recognize that Kesterson is onlythe tip of an iceberg. Comparableconcentrations of selenium were de-tected in drainage water in nearbyGrasslands Water District. Concentra-tions exceeding the U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency's five mg/I sele-nium limit for freshwater aquatic sys-tems have been measured in portionsof the San Joaquin River.

The USFWS has documented water-fowl embryo deformities at four of fiveevaporation ponds studies ir, theTulare Lake Basin. High ievels of se-lenium also have been found in birdsin the southern portion of San Fran-cisco Bay and Suisun Bay. And, asmentioned in previous pages, theSalton Sea has been targeted as apossible selenium hot spot. Just howwidespread environmental problemsstemming from selenium and othertrace elements are throughout theWest is the subject of extensive in-vestigation by the U.S. Department ofInterior.

State and FederalEfforts

The San Joaquin Valley DrainageProgram (SJVDP) was created inmid-1984 to identify the magnitudeand sources of the drainage problemon the western side of the SanJoaquin Valley, the toxic effects of se-lenium and other substances of con-cern to wildlife and the actions neces-sary to resolve the problems. Thedata collection and research, whichwas conducted by five principal par-ticipating agencies (U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, U.S. Geological Survey, Cali-fornia Department of Fish and Game,and California Department of WaterResources), was directed at problemanalysis and plan formulation con- el)

cerning the effects of drainage on ag-ricultural productivity, fish and wildliferesources, water quality and publichealth. The program also coordinatedwith the Kesterson Program and theUniversity of California Salinity/Drain-age Task Force and was advised bythe National Research Council'sCommittee on Irrigation-Induced Wa-ter Quality Problems.

A final report issued in September1990, entitled "A Management Planfor Agricultural Subsurface Drainageand Related Problems on theWestside San Joaquin Valley," fo-cuses on in-valley management ofdrainage nd drainage-related prob-lems from 1990 to 2040. The reportstates that if the recommended actionis taken, a salt balance in the plantroot zone nould be maintained sothat physically removing salt from thevalley wouldn't be necessary for sev-eral decades. The plan's principalrecommendations are:

A) Source control: on-farm improve-ments in irrigation to reduce theamount of applied water.

B) Drainage reuse: reusing drainagewater to irrigate increasingly salt-toler-

ant plants, thus reducing the volumeof drainage water through evapo-transpiration.

C) Evaporation systems: disposing ofresidual drainage water in varioustypes of redesigned evaporationponds.

D) Land retirement: fallowing farm-land which overlies difficult-to-drain,shallow ground water containing highlevels of selenium.

E) Groundwater management:pumping from specified areas in thesemi-confined aquifer in order tolower high water tables.

F) Discharge to San Joaquin River:limiting drainage discharge into theSan Jc: Jin River while meeting wa-ter-quality objectives.

G) Protection, restoration and watersuppliesforfish and wildlife habitat:providing fresh water to substitute fordrainage-contaminated supplies, pro-tecting and restoring contaminatedfisheries and wildlife habitat.

H) Institutional change: includingtiered water pricing, improved sched-uling for water deliveries, water trans-

fers and marketing and other mea-sures.

The report concludes that if no com-prehensive drainage managementplan is carried out, over the next 50years about 554,000 acres of irrigatedland in the San Joaquin Valley willhave to be abandoned or convertedto noncrop uses due to soilsalination. The result would be a lossof $440 million per year in agriculturalproduction and $63 million per year inretail sales for valley communities.Overall, 9,200 agriculture-related jobswould be lost by 2040. The reportalso concluded that by 2040, thevalley's seasonal and permanent wet-lands with firm water supplies wouldbe reduced to 55,000 acres. (Cur-rently, there are 85,000 acres to90,000 acres of wetlands in the val-ley.) This would cause the concentra-tion and decline of resident wildlifespecies and increase the incidence ofavarian diseases.

The SJVDP devised a multiple-useplan to collect drainage water fromsalt-sensitive crops and use it to irri-gate more salt-tolerant crops, such ascotton and barley. Drainage waterfrom the salt-tolerant crops ap-proximately one-tenth the volume of

Excavation to plug subsurface drains at Westlands Water District in 1986.

1°i BEST COPY AVRABLE

2-am. 3

Salt crust on a cotton field in the San Joaquin Valley.

the original canal diversion and 23times more saline is then collectedand used for a third time to irrigateeven more salt-tolerant plants suchas eucalyptus trees, which transpireabout five acre-feet of water per acre,per year.

The tree crop could eventually beharvested and sold for fuel, and in theinterim, could provide wildlife habitatas long as no environmental risk fromconcentrations of selenium or othertrace elements is found. Drainage wa-ter from the tree crop would be re-used a fourth time on atriplex, ahighly salt-tolerant hay crop, andthen sent to an evaporation pond forfurther volume reduction prior to dis-posal. According to the report, drain-age water could be reduced by 80percent to 95 percent through thesereuse methods, thus eliminating theneed for large, environmentally dam-aging evaporation ponds.

The primary disposal site for drainagewould still be in evaporation pondsunder the plan, but ponds would beredesigned to improve their safetyand efficiency with steeper sides and

greater depth to discourage wildlifeuse and vegetation growth. Othernontoxic ponds would be locatednearby to pi ovide alternative habitat.Some ponds, called "acceleratedrate" ponds, would have mechanicaldevices installed to increase evapora-tion and small, solar ponds would beused only for very concentrateddrainage. Highly-saline drainage wa-ter from the tree crop could be usedto generate income-producing en-ergy from solar ponds orcogonera-tion facilities.

Many technical, economic and insti-tutional uncertainties rc nain to be re-solved along the path ward imple-mentation of a multiplb use processin California agriculture, however. Forexample, salt-tolerant crops generallyproduce less income per acre thanmore salt-sensitive crops. How wouldprogram-related impacts on growers'income be fairly managed if croppingpatterns are altered to establish amultiple-use system? What legal andinstitutional tools exist to encouragegrowers to coordinate their crop se-lection, irrigation and drainage opera-tions? How can the costs associated

102

with multiple use be evenly shared?

According to the report, the plan"should be considered as a frame-work that will permit the present levelof agricultural development in the val-ley to continue, while protecting fishand wildlife and helping to restoretheir habitat to levels existing beforedirect impact by contaminated drain-age water. It is noteworthy that manyof the valley's water and drainage dis-tricts and individual growers have al-ready begun to take action similar tothose recommended in this report."

Although the drainage program offi-cially ended Sept. 30, 1990, aninteragency task force consisting off our federal agencies and four stateagencies is developing a procedureto implement and fund the $42 millionplan. The participating agencies arealso working to continue and improvemonitoring of valley ground water lev-els, soil salt content, surface watertrace element contents and fish andwildlife conditions. An implementationreport is due to be published in late1991.

Other programs that will be address-ing the drainage problem are: 1) theSan Joaquin Valley Management Pro-gram, a state program established in1990 to coordinate federal, state andlocal efforts to manage and rehabili-tate the river system, looking at is-sues relating to water supply, waterquality, flood protection, fisheries,wildlife habitat and recreation; 2) theSan Joaquin Basin Resources Man-agement Initiative, a Bureau programto improve the water-related environ-ment of the San Joaquin Basin withparticular emphasis on chinooksalmon, water quality, wetlands, wild-life and reservoir fisheries and recre-ation; and 3) the National Water Qual-ity Assessment Program, a U.S. Geo-logical Survey program to assess thequality of America's surface andground water resources. The SanJoaquin-Tulare basins form one of 20initial hydrologic study units for theprogram.

DWR operated a demonstration de-salination plant at Los Banos from thefall of 1983 to August 1986. The plant,which used the reverse osmosis (RO)process, treated 340,000 gallons ofsaline drainage water per day comingfrom the San Luis Drain. The facilityallowed for the evaluation of severalpretreatment processes, such asmarsh ponds to naturally filter saltsfrom drainage water or various typesof manufactured filters. The RO unitwas then intended to separate waterfrom salts, selenium and other tr ceelements by employing a membranethrough which only water could pass.Pretreatment is necessary to preventRO membranes from fouling from thehigh level of organics in drainage wa-ter. The project had only limited suc-cess in removing selenium, however,and when the San Luis Drain wasclosed in 1986, so was the desalina-tion facility. While the SJVDP encour-ages further research into selenium-removal technology, treatment withavailable technology is not recom-mended in the action plan.

Diagram of amultiple water use

program devised bythe San JoaquinValley DrainageProgram whichmaximizes the

beneficial use ofirrigation water and

minimizes themanagement costs,volume and harmfuleffects of drainage

effluent.

The University of California's Salinity/Drainage Task Force was establishedto develop, interpret and disseminateresearch knowledge addressing sa-linity, drainage, selenium and othertoxic element problems in the SanJoaquin Valley. In addition to fundingneeded research through a competi-tive grant process, the Task Forceworks closely with federal and stateregulatory and research groups, pub-lishes reports on important issuesand provides the public with annualprogress reports of technical workunderway in the state's university sys-tem. In-field selenium reduction stud-ies are being conducted at laborato-ries at the University of California, Riv-erside, test plots at Kesterson Reser-voir and privately-owned evaporationponds near Mendota. Soil scientistsare finding ways to accelerate thevolatilization of selenium by addingsubstances such as orange peels orcottonseed meal to soil.

Chemical reactions between the sub-stance and selenium cause an in-crease in the rate at which seleniumtransforms from a solid to a gas.Eventually soil scientists hope to dis-cover a means to vent selenium tothe atmosphere at a rate fast enoughto make possible the restoration ofKesterson Reservoir and other sele-nium-contaminated soils. Seleniumventing to the atmosphere is not ex-pected to cause environmental orpublic health problems because ofthe enormous dilution which will oc-cur when selenium gas mixes withthe air. However, up-welling groundwater may continue to supply the sur-face soils with selenium, frustratingthe effectiveness of the volatilizationprocess. Funding for this researchcomes from a grant from the Univer-sity of California Salinity/DrainageTask Force, a grant from the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency (ad-ministered by the State Board), andthe Bureau.

MULTIPLE USE OF AGRICULTURAL WATER SUPPLIES

TDS 320 ppm

SUPPLY CANAL

3.000 AF

TDS 2.000 PPc1

500 AF

NORMAL CROPPINGPATTERN

(1.000 Ac)

TDS 7.400 ppm

COTI-ON(160 Ac)

SALT RECOVERY

SOLAfi POND

1/V1AL SIZE(2 AO'

' One adeavonal acre is added every thad year.

TDS 32.000 ppm

26 AF

AGROFORESTRY (-Rees) <I.)(17 AC)

EVAP POND(5.5 AC)

7 AF

TDS 230.000 PPm

'1.u3

District Programs

Over the past decade, water districtson the west side of the San JoaquinValley have spent millions of dollarson programs to reduce and managethe volume of agricultural drainagewater produced in the valley. The150,000-acre Central California Irriga-tion District and many other districtshave initiated technical assistanceprograms aimed at improving thegrower's ability to efficiently apply irri-gation water, reducing the volume ofdrainage water created. Districts alsoprovide low-interest loans anii per-acre reimbursements so that farmerscan more easily afford to upgradetheir on-farm irrigation systems andprevent spills, leaks, and over-water-ing which contribute to excess drain-age. Panoche Water District is im-proving irrigation scheduling to in-crease water transportation efficiencyand minimize losses which add todrainage problems.

As a result of an agreement with theDepartment of the Interior, West landshas plugged 42,000 acres of subsur-face drains since June 30, 1986.West lands farmers no longer dis-charge drainage water by blending it

J

AREABEYOIW '.=7:7)ms'CCOSED

with fresh water. The district spon-sors several significant drainagemanagement, treatment and disposalprograms and cocourages water con-servation to reduce drainage at itssource. The conservation programsinclude weekly, crop-specific irriga-tion guides, periodic water manage-ment workshops, regular monitoringby the district of crop water-use andthe availability of technical assistancefrom district staff.

Field surveys have identified nearly2,500 miles of unlined ditches andabout 900 acres of tailwater pondsand reservoirs in the Westlands ser-vice area. Studies indicate that dis-trict-wide seepage from these facili-ties contribute about 27,000 acre-feetof seepage per year 2.2 percent ofthe district's total applied Neter tothe shallow water table. The district isalso in the process of locating sub-surface stream channels originatingin the Coast Range and determining ifthey are contributing runoff water tothe valley's drainage problem. Thefirst phase looked at the PanocheFan area, an alluvial fan stretchingfrom the Coast Range foothills east tothe San Joaquin River at Firebaugh.Studies indicate that the area's soilshave minimal capacity to conductsubsurface shallow ground water lat-erally, but research is continuing todetermine the effects of upslopepumping on downslope lands.

Westlands has explored the technicaland economic feasibility of using abiological treatment process to re-move selenium and other trace ele-ments from drainage water. The dis-trict is also experimenting with usingplantatioi; of salt-tolerant trees andbushes to reduce drainage throughreuse and disposing of drainage wa-ter loi injecting it deep into under-ground saline strata. In June 1989,Westlands drilled a well 8,100 feetdeep intending to inject up to 1 mil-lion gallons of drainage water a day.

104

But the project was placed on holdwhen tests indicated that the sand-stone strata was much denser thananticipated and injection rates muchslower.

Partial funding for construction andoperation of the deep well injectiondemonstration facility ($1.1 million outof a total cost of $2.1 million) wasprovided by the State Board's Agri-cultural Drainage Loan Program, es-tablished in 1986 with passage of theWater Conservation and Quality BondLaw. Two other projects funded bythe loan program include $100,000 toPanoche Drainage District for a pilot-level study to assess the feasibility ofusing iron fillings to remove seleniumfrom agricultural drainage water and$1 million to Tulare Lake DrainageDistrict to design and construct a715-acre evaporation pond with fewerof the environmental problems whichgenerally occur when drainage wateris concentrated. To date, the StateBoard has provided approximately$71.25 million in loans to public agen-cies, made available through thebond law. As of August 1991, allavailable funds had been committedand renewed funding was beingsought.

An option that may hold promise forthe removal of selenium from drain-age water is the combination of adrainage water treatment processwith an electrical cogeneraLn facility.The process simply uses the wasteheat from the natural gas turbines toevaporate untreated drainage water,leaving behind a slurry of thick saltywater and solids. Developers pro-pose to remove the selenium beforethe slurry residue is crystallized. Elec-tricity generated by the turbines andfresh water condensed from theevaporation process could be usedor sold to help defray costs. A 1990Westlands report cautions, however,that disposing of the solid wastes -

generated by this process will be verycostly.

The PERUIT

Irrigated agriculture changed the faceof California forever. Since the intro-duction of irrigation in the mid-nine-teenth century, hundreds of thou-sands of acres of desert and semi-arid land have been replaced bycropland and pasture. Agriculture hasbecome an indispensable part of thestate's economy. Large agriculturalwater appropriations and diversionshave altered the natural landscapeand aquatic structure of the state.

But this prosperity comes with aprice. Despite multi-billion-dollar pro-ductivity, environmental dilemmaslike Kesterson have caused some toview irrigated agriculture with distrust.At the same time, few would disputeCalifornia's tremendous reliance onirrigated agriculture for its economicwell-being, or tnat agricultural pro-ductivity would be reduced withoutboth irrigation and drainage systems.As the state's population increases,so does the need for food, fiber,clean water and employment. Themost significant questions we mustanswer are, how can the unhealthfulelements that concentrate within thedrainage water be safely managed,while conserving the water at a rea-sonable cost, and providing food andfiber for the nation and jobs for Cali-

fornians? What trade-offs will need tobe made?

Everyone has a stake, of course, notonly in California's agriculture,economy and environment, but alsoin the state's water supply future. Ag-riculture plays an important part inthat water future, since farming usesabout 80 percent of the state's devel-oped water. As the state's populationgrows, competition for water for usein other sectors urban, wetland,instream fishery, recreation alsogrows. Satisfying some of theseneeds undoubtedly will fall upon agri-culture. Recycled drainage water mayplay an important role in that future.

At the same time, farmers will becalled upon to become increasinglyflexible and adaptable. The explana-tion that, "We've always done it thatway," will no longer be acceptable.Finding solutions to the state's drain-age problems may change not onlythe way crops are grown, but whereand which crops are grown. Empha-sis on minimizing the volume ofdrainage water produced will encour-age the use of state-of-the-art irriga-tion water application systems previ-ously considered to be too expen-sive. New strains of salt-tolerant

'11!

.1111=11MIldillm

T... tat.

'ow...

, .

;....rg-ye:

. - -

,-,041111111Ms...:

-* .. -i- T.- ....

crops may be bred. And the identifi-cation of income-producing methodsfor treating or disposing of drainagewater will continue to be discussed inthe board rooms of water districtsand in the halls of universities and en-vironmental offices.

Solutions will be increasingly innova-tive and new alliances may be formedamong growers to manage drainagewater at the lowest possible cost. Per-acre surcharges, or otherwisb in-creased water prices, may becomenecessary to cover the added cost ofdrainage water treatment or disposal.New agreements to supply water tothe meager acreage of remainingwetlands so vital to the survival of mi-gratory birds and waterfowl will be ne-gotiated as the precedent for supply-ing wildlife habitat with drainage wateris broken. Undoubtedly, some of ourmost precious resources produc-t;ve soils, healthy plant and animallife, sate water supplies are atstake. The decisions we make nowwill affect these resources far into thefuture, and possibly permanently.Creativity, cooperation, compromiseand vision are needed to restore andprotect our environment and continueto produce the agricultural productsthat sustain the state and nation.

tIME4_+f?4'i

.

`

11)3 dEST COPY AVAILABLE

Water EducationFOUNDATION717 K Street, Suite 517

Sacramento CA 95814(916) 4446240

Water EducationFOUNDATION717KStmaSulte517Socromento, (A 95814(916) 444-6240FAX (916) 4487699

DVALUATION FORM

As a teacher, former teacher or education specialist, wefeel your comments and criticisms regarding thematerial's appropriateness for teacher and student usewould be valuable to us. Would you be good enough toreview the text and activities and give us yourevaluation of them from the standpoint of the followingcriteria:

Readability - Are the reading and student worksheetscommensurate with the reading abilities of the designatedlevel?

Ease of Use - Are the lessons designed so that teachersand students can easily accommodate the activities withinthe classroom setting and in the designated subject area?

Quality - Do the lessons include concepts, knowledge andproblems which are significant in promoting personalresponsibility in students for conservation and wise useof a precious resource?

Defects - What shortcomings do you feel exist in thematerials as presently drafted? How could these becorrected? What needs to be added?

Other Comments and Suggestions Please note any othercriticisms or comments you may have.

The mission of the Water Education Foundation. on unbiased. nonprofit orgonizotion. is to developand Implement education programs leoding to a brooder understanding of water Issues and toresolution of water problems.

107

Name

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Are you a:

Subject area major:

Teacher

Former Teacher

Education Specialist

Science

English

Social Studies

Math

Other (specify)

Grade levels taught: K-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

108

Water E

ducationF

OU

ND

AT

ION

717 "II" Street, S

uite 517S

acramento, C

A 95814

/

.4.

'.-t*.111:"^-.A

".

-4

%.

bI.

5$

-4.':

.7%

1111Milsorrw

armem

lalm

a001itgE=

I,ficitrir,

:Arg.

rztA:

:31rni

4"..2

Cr*

14.1

:t.:

Classroom Materials

Water has become one of the hottest politicaland scientific issues in California. If ourstudents, who are our future citizens andvoters, are to make intelligent decisions aboutthe fate of our water, they must be taught notonly the scientific facts about water, but :heskills necessary for gathering and evaluatinginformation. They must also be given theopportunity to practice problem solvingstrategies on real-life environmental issues.

All Water Education Foundation classroommaterials have been developed with the aid ofgrants from the Department of WaterResources and the California Department ofEducation's Environmental License Plate GrantProgram. The goals of the programs areconsistent with those of the California StateFrameworks for Science and History/SocialScience.

The program sets include lesson plan bookletswith worksheets and evaluation devices whichmay be duplicated. Also included are thoroughteacher instructions and background materialsfor teachers. Since none of the components ofthe units are consumable, Water EducationFoundation classroom materials may be usedyear after year, making them a wise educationinvestment.

The California Water Story

An upper elementary unit of study toaccompany the California Water Map.

For use in grades 4-6

Goals: To teach students:

the importance of water as a naturalresourcehow California's water supply relates to itsgeographythe nature of the hydrologic cyclethe place of water in California's historythe importance of water to California'seconomyhow water is used and transportedthroughout the statethe importance of conserving waterhow to protect the quality of water

110

Materials included in this unit:

Lesson plans with worksheets/testsCalifornia Water MapLayperson's guide to California WaterWater Trivia Fact CardHydrologic Cycle posterFilmstrip and tape: "The California Water Story"Water Awareness stickers

The California Water Story is amultidisciplinary approach to teaching aboutwater as one of California's most importantresources. The lessons integrate many subjectareas (geography, history, science, math and art)and are designed to help students developspecific skills (critical thinking, organizing data,predicting, mapping, and graphing).

CLASSROOM SET PRICE: $15

California's Water Problems

Ideal for either a social science class studyingmanagement of natural resources or a scienceclass studying the interaction of man and theenvironment.

For use in grades 6-9


the relationship between geography andwater distribution in Californiathat water is a resource for all the people ofCalifornia and must be managed for thebenefit of allthat decisions about the environment aredifficult and that many viewpoints andinterests must be consideredabout the variety of agencies that havesome control over California's naturalresourcesthe danger water toxins pose for the state'swater supplythe relationship of ground water and surfacewateragricultural and urban water needs

Materials included in this unit:

Lesson plan bookCalifornia Water MapLayperson's Guide to the DeltaLayperson's Guide to Agricultural DrainageLayperson's Guide to the Colorado River

California's Water Problems is a series of threerole-playing scenarios designed to give studentsfirst-hand experience trying to work out a solutionto a real-life problem involving the managementof California's water. These cooperative learningexercises give students the opportunity todevelop research techniques, practice groupinteraction skills, and sharpen their reasoningabilities. The problems are ones that allCalifornians should be concerned about:protecting the Delta, preventing toxicaccumulation of salts and minerals in agriculturalsoils, and meeting the water needs of growingurban and agricultural communities in the southpart of our state. This unit is ideal for either asocial science class studying management ofnatural resources or a science class studying theinteraction of man and the environment.


Project Water Science

A general science unit for the study of thechemistry of water and how water relates to theenvironment

--For use in grades 7-12


the importance of monitoring water qualitythe relationship of rainfall patterns togeographysampling techniques for testing watertemperature and claritythe interaction of toxics in water and theecosystemthe importance of dissolved gases in waterhow to develop a plan for water conservation

Materials Included in this unit:Lesson plan book with lab sheetsCalifornia Water MapWater Trivia Fact CardLayperson's Guide to Drinking Water

Project Water Science is a series.of 10laboratory exercises suitable for junior highscience or high school classes in either physicalor earth sciences. The labs explore the chemicalnature of water, as well as the relationship ofwater to ecosystems.


111

112

ttt4

School Programs"The California Water Story'

Upper Elementary $15.00/setIncludes:

Lesson plans with worksheets/testsCalifornia Water MapLayperson's Guide to California WaterWater Trivia Fact CardHydrologic Cycle posterFilmstrip and tapeWater Awareness stickers

"California's Water Problems"Middle school level $15.00/set

(Role-Playing Strategy)Includes:

Lesson plan bookCalifornia Water MapLayperson's Guide to the DeltaLayperson's Guide to Agricultural DrainageLayperson's Guide to the Colorado River

"Project Water Science"Secondary level $15.00/set

Includes:Lesson plan book with lab sheetCalifornia Water MapWater Trivia Fact CardLayperson's Guide to Drinking Water

Other itemsWater Awareness Guide: "Where

Your Water Comes From" $3.00 eachCalifornia Water Map $7.50 eachColorado River Water Map $8.50 eachHydrologic Cycle Poster $3.00 eachWater Trivia Fact Card $1.00 eachLayperson's Guide $3.50 each

Subtotal6.5% Tax

Shipping & Handling$0450 1.50$51-$100 5.00$101-Over 10.00

Name

Address

TOTAL

City, State/Zip

Send to: WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION7171C Street, Suite 517Sacramento, California 95814(916) 444-6240

NOTF - ERICINTRODUCTORY LESSON The California Water Map OBJECTIVES Students will be able to: 1....

Documents

Transcript of NOTF - ERICINTRODUCTORY LESSON The California Water Map OBJECTIVES Students will be able to: 1....