San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
Updated November 9, 2007
Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh, Coordinators,
Eugene H. Buck, Nicole T. Carter,
Peter Folger, Renee Johnson,
Mary Tiemann, Harold F. Upton
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Kristina Alexander
American Law Division
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
Summary
Historically, Central California’s San Joaquin River supported large Chinook
salmon populations. Since the Bureau of Reclamation’s Friant Dam on the San
Joaquin River became fully operational in the 1940s, much of the river’s water has
been diverted for off-stream agricultural uses. As a result, approximately 60 miles
of the river bed is dry in most years. Thus, the river no longer supports Chinook
salmon populations in its upper reaches. In 1988, a coalition of conservation and
fishing groups sued Reclamation (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers).
A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that operation of Friant Dam violates state law
because of its destruction of downstream fisheries. Faced with mounting legal fees,
uncertainty, and the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, parties
negotiated a settlement instead of proceeding to trial. In September 2006, an
agreement, commonly called the Settlement, was reached. It calls for new releases
of water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries, as well as for efforts to mitigate
reductions in off-stream deliveries lost to restoration flows.
Congressional authorization and appropriations are required for full Settlement
implementation. Legislation based on the Settlement (H.R. 4074, H.R. 24 and S. 27)
is pending. Related bills have also been introduced. A key legislative issue is how
to finance the Settlement, specifically how to resolve congressional pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) issues. Other challenges are how to achieve the Settlement’s dual goals
of fisheries restoration and water management, and how to address concerns of
stakeholders not party to the Settlement, without disrupting the negotiated agreement.
The amount of water projected for restoration flows and the volume of reduced
Friant water deliveries are related, but the relationship would not necessarily be one-
for-one. Available estimates for total annual Friant water supplies (including both
contract and temporary water) are, on average, 15% to 16% less under the Settlement
than under current operations; but such estimates do not account for improvements
in water management that might reduce the impact on water users. For three-quarters
of water contractors, the reduction would represent a reduction in one of their
available sources of water. The impacts of such reductions will vary by contractor
depending on the firmness of existing surface water supplies and the reliability of
groundwater supplies. How to offset the decrease and who would pay for
investments in other water sources and improved efficiency has not been determined.
Although the region may benefit from increased recreational expenditures and
investment in river restoration activities under the Settlement, studies suggest its
largest and mostly negative economic impact would be on the agriculture industry,
at least in the short term. In addition, downsteam interests not party to the Settlement
have been concerned about increased flooding, groundwater infiltration, and
competition with existing federal financial commitments. Nearby communities fear
harm to groundwater quantity and quality. Some of these concerns have been
addressed in the legislation, but some remain. On the other hand, some communities
and interests believe restoration will bring other benefits to the river, such as
improved surface water quality in lower San Joaquin River reaches. Ultimate
Settlement costs and benefits are very difficult to predict.
Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
San Joaquin River Settlement and Impacts..............................2
Background ..................................................2
Friant Division............................................3
Chinook Salmon Runs......................................4
Recent Legal History.......................................6
Legislative Context............................................7
Settlement Goals and Implementing Legislation: Key Issues............9
Restoration Goal..........................................9
Water Management Goal...................................11
Federal Financing.........................................13
Additional Issues.........................................14
Concluding Remarks and the Larger Policy Context..................19
Appendix A: Analysis of Existing Water Supply Impacts Data.............21
Introduction to the Analysis and Summary of Results.................21
Water Supplies in the Friant Division Service Area..................24
Surface Water Supplies: Friant Dam Releases..................26
Surface Water Supplies: Friant Division Water Supplies..........27
Other Surface Water Supplies...............................30
Groundwater Supplies.....................................30
Contract Water Supplies Under the Settlement......................31
Limitations of Water Supply Estimates and Mitigation
for Reductions.......................................33
Friant Contract Water Supplies — The Big Picture..................37
Estimated Water Supply Reductions Under the Settlement.........37
Friant Water Supplies: The Contractor-Level Picture.................44
In Summary.................................................45
Appendix B.....................................................46
List of Figures
Figure 1. San Joaquin Valley........................................3
Figure 2. Friant Division and Water Contractors.........................5
Figure A-1. San Joaquin River Reaches...............................26
Figure A-2. Frequency of Water Year Types............................32
Figure A-3. Estimated Friant Division Water Supply Under Settlement:
Steiner 2005.................................................35
Figure A-4. Estimated Friant Division Water Supply Under Settlement:
BOR 2006..................................................35
Figure A-5. Estimated Restoration Flows and Estimated Reductions in
Friant Water Supplies.........................................40
Figure A-6. Estimated Average Annual Friant Water Supply Under Settlement
by Water Year Type...........................................41
Figure A-7. Estimated Average Annual Water Supply Under Settlement
by Water Year Type and Class...................................41
Water Year Type.............................................42
List of Tables
Table A-1. Friant Contractor Annual Water Supply and Supply Diversity.....29
Table A-2. Annual Runoff, Year Type, Friant Water Supply, and Estimated
Reductions from Average Friant Supply Under the Settlement,
1962-2003 ..................................................36
Table A-3. Estimated Average Annual Reductions Average in
Friant Water Supplies.........................................39
Table B-1. Studies of the Negative Effects of Lower Water Deliveries to
Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley ............................46
Table B-2. Comparison of Studies of the Negative Effects of Drought Conditions
to SJV Agriculture............................................48
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
Introduction
Historically, Central California’s San Joaquin River supported large Chinook
salmon populations. Since the Bureau of Reclamation’s Friant Dam on the San
Joaquin River became fully operational in the 1940s, much of the river’s water has
been diverted for agricultural uses. As a result, approximately 60 miles of the river
is dry in most years, making it impossible to support Chinook salmon populations in
the upper reaches of the river. In 1988, a coalition of conservation and fishing groups
advocating for river restoration to support Chinook salmon recovery sued the Bureau
of Reclamation (hereafter referred to as Reclamation), which owns and operates1
Friant Dam (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers). Most long-term
water service contractors who receive the diverted water were added to the case
shortly thereafter as defendant intervenors. A U.S. District Court judge has since
ruled that operation of Friant Dam violates state law because of its destruction of
downstream fisheries. Faced with mounting legal fees, considerable uncertainty, and
the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, parties agreed to negotiate a
settlement instead of proceeding to trial on a remedy regarding the court’s ruling.
In September 2006, a Settlement Agreement was reached concerning operation
of Friant Dam — one of the largest federal dams operated as part of Reclamation’s
Central Valley Project (CVP) in California. The Settlement calls for new releases of
water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries in the San Joaquin River and for efforts
to mitigate water supply losses due to the new releases. Full implementation of the
Settlement would require congressional authorization and appropriations.
Implementation legislation based on the Settlement (H.R. 4074, H.R. 24 and S. 27)
is currently pending. Other San Joaquin water management bills have also been
introduced (e.g., H.R. 3768 and H.R. 2498).
Under the Settlement, increased water flows for restoring fisheries would reduce
diversions of water for off-stream purposes, such as irrigation, hydropower, and
municipal and industrial uses. The quantity of water used for restoration flows and
the quantity by which water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the
relationship would not necessarily be one-for-one. For instance, in some of the
wettest years, flood water releases could provide a significant amount of the
restoration flows, thereby lowering the reduction in deliveries to agricultural and
municipal users. Under the Settlement, no water would be released for restoration
purposes in the driest of years; thus, no reductions in deliveries to Friant contractors
would be made due to the Settlement in those years. Additionally, in some years, the
restoration flows released in late winter and early spring may free up space for
additional runoff in Millerton Lake, potentially minimizing reductions in deliveries
1 NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
later in the year — assuming Millerton Lake storage is replenished. Consequently,
how deliveries to Friant water contractors might be reduced in any given year would
depend on many factors.
Regardless of the specifics of how much water might be released for fisheries
restoration vis-à-vis water diverted for off-stream purposes, there will be impacts to
existing surface and groundwater supplies in and around the Friant Division Service
Area and adjustments in local economies. Although some opposition to the
Settlement and its implementing legislation remains, the largest and most directly
affected stakeholders (i.e., the majority of Friant water contractors, their
organizations, and environmental, fisheries, and community groups) support
proceeding with the Settlement Agreement, in lieu of going to trial. For some
groups, going to trial risks considerable uncertainty and expense.
Congressional authorization and appropriations are required for full
implementation of the Settlement. If Congress does not act on the legislation, some
fear that the court will order a remedy, which may differ from the Settlement, and
which may have more severe consequences for area water users and third parties. A
key legislative issue is how to finance Settlement implementation, specifically how
to resolve congressional Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) issues.2 Other challenges are
how to achieve the Settlement’s dual goals of fisheries restoration and water
management, and how to address concerns of stakeholders not party to the
Settlement, without disrupting the negotiated agreement.
This report provides an overview of topics related to the Settlement that are
relevant to congressional deliberations. The report includes a discussion of the San
Joaquin River, the Settlement, its legal history, and pending legislation. It also
provides a brief discussion of fisheries restoration, water management, funding,
economic, and third party issues. The report concludes with a brief discussion of
how the Settlement relates to other California water supply and resource management
issues.
San Joaquin River Settlement and Impacts
Background
The Settlement in the lawsuit Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers,
involves operation of Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River — one of the largest
federal dams of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP) in
California. As shown in Figure 1, Friant Dam and the Friant Division of the CVP
are situated in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV); however, the
San Joaquin River flows north to the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers Delta
confluence with San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). Hydrologically, the Friant Division
Service Area extends into the Tulare basin. Agriculture in these areas is highly
2 House and Senate budget rules require offsets for certain spending measures, including
those that include new mandatory (direct) spending. Finding an offset — that is, reducing
spending elsewhere — to fund a new program, especially one for several hundred million
dollars, is an often difficult task.
dependent on irrigation; much of the irrigation water is surface water supplied by the
Friant Division. Many growers also use groundwater, conjunctively managing their
surface and groundwater supplies. This conjunctive management improves seasonal
and multi-year water reliability for growers.
Figure 1. San Joaquin Valley
The SJV, an eight-county region extending 250 miles from Stockton in the north
to Bakersfield in the south (Figure 1), is both rapidly growing and economically
depressed. (For more information on challenges facing the SJV, see CRS Report
RL33184, California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition, by Tadlock
Cowan.) Yet, the 27,280 square mile SJV is home to five of the nation’s ten most
agriculturally productive counties, as measured by value of total annual sales. The
Friant Division Service Area includes four of these counties: Fresno, Tulare, Kern,
and Merced. The SJV faces significant environmental and natural resource
challenges, including the court-ordered restoration of the San Joaquin River
discussed in this report.
Friant Division. The CVP is a multi-unit, multi-purpose reclamation project
administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) under federal law,
including the Reclamation Act of 1902 and amendatory acts (known as Reclamation
Law), the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), various other federal
environmental and administrative laws, and various state laws. The Friant Dam was
built on the San Joaquin River by Reclamation in the early 1940s. It stores the San
Joaquin River’s flow in Millerton Lake, the reservoir behind the dam, from which
water for irrigation and other purposes is diverted into two canals. Reclamation
delivers the impounded water to 28 irrigation and water districts in the Friant
Division pursuant to various types of water service contracts, many of which
originated in the 1940s. The Friant Division serves irrigation and water districts in
the Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties (Figure 2).
Unlike most Reclamation projects, the Friant Division (dam and distribution
facilities) is operated in a way that diverts nearly all the San Joaquin River’s flow
away from the River.3 By the late 1940s, Reclamation’s operation of Friant Dam had
caused long stretches of the river to dry up. Portions of the San Joaquin River
upstream of its confluence with the Merced River remain mostly dry today, except
during flood events. Reclamation’s operation of Friant Dam largely destroyed
numerous species of native fish from the Upper San Joaquin River, including spring-4
and fall-run Chinook salmon. The diverted water helped develop and continues to
support a diverse agricultural economy from north of Fresno to Bakersfield — the
Friant Division Service Area.(see Figure 2).
Chinook Salmon Runs. While water diverted from rivers helped establish
California’s vibrant and valuable agricultural economy, some California fisheries
have declined since the 1940s — particularly commercial salmon fisheries — due to
water diversions and other factors.
3 A 1950 court ruling on the diversion of San Joaquin River flows noted that the court could
find no other instance in which Reclamation was proposing to divert the entire flow of a
river. The case involved rights of individuals downstream to continue to receive water from
the river, as well as water for downstream fisheries and recreation. Eventually, water rights
holders below the dam were granted water annually; however, no water was allocated to in-
stream uses below the dam. Even though retaining water for in-stream uses (recreation,
ecosystem health, fish and wildlife, and scenic values) is a relatively modern concept or
value, there were local, and vocal, opponents of the proposed diversion of the river. By the
court’s count, there were some 1,000 farmers and ranchers below the dam who might be
negatively affected. (Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950)). Some years later,
Reclamation built the Trinity project, which diverted a significant portion of the Trinity
River to other CVP water districts. Trinity River flows have also been very contentious and,
per administrative actions recently upheld by a court ruling, are also to be increased to
support and restore dwindling fisheries.
4 San Joaquin River flows are needed to allow adult salmon to swim upstream to their
spawning grounds, to provide habitat for juvenile salmon, to allow juvenile salmon to swim
downstream in the spring through the lower river, and to dilute toxic and saline drainage to
maintain a minimum level of water quality.
Figure 2. Friant Division and Water Contractors
Historically, Central Valley spring-run Chinook were found throughout the
Central Valley — from the northern Sacramento River drainage area to the southern
portions of the San Joaquin drainage. The Middle and Upper San Joaquin River
historically supported two or more independent populations of spring-run Chinook
salmon. Most spawning by spring-run Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River
occurred upstream of the current location of Friant Dam. Historical spawning runs
may have exceeded 200,000 fish annually, ascending the river as far as Mammoth
Pool (about 1,000 meters elevation), which lies about 50 miles above Friant Dam.
Today Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon are listed as threatened under the
ESA;5 however, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon have been entirely
extirpated from the San Joaquin River drainage, and currently inhabit only the
Sacramento River drainage.6
Native fall and late-fall-run Chinook salmon continue to spawn in small
numbers in the San Joaquin River tributaries such as the Mokelumne, Stanislaus,
Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers. These fish spawn at lower elevations in these
tributaries and have been less affected by dam construction than were spring-run
Chinook salmon. In addition, there is significant artificial production of fall-run
Chinook salmon by California Department of Fish and Game hatcheries on the
Tuolumne, Mokelumne, and Merced Rivers.7 Fall-run Chinook salmon are not listed
under the ESA, but are identified as a species of concern.8
Recent Legal History. Litigation involving waters of the San Joaquin River
spans several decades. Litigation resulting in the most recent Settlement, however,
can be traced to a 1988 lawsuit. This lawsuit and the negotiated Settlement
Agreement are discussed below.
NRDC v Rodgers. During the late 1980s the Friant Division water users
sought renewal of their long-term water service contracts with Reclamation.
Beginning in 1988, a coalition of environmental groups and anglers led by the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the contract renewals in
federal court on a number of environmental grounds. In addition to claims that the
process under which Reclamation had begun contract renewals violated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.) and that the lack of
water in the river violated the ESA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544), the plaintiffs argued
that Reclamation had violated Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (43 U.S.C.
§ 383). That section provides that Reclamation will act in conformity with state laws
“relating to the control, appropriation, use or distribution of water used in irrigation.”
The state law that is at issue here is California Fish and Game Code § 5937. Section
5 70 Fed. Reg. 37160, June 28, 2005.
6 J. M. Myers, et al., Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and
California, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35 (1998), pp.
7 Ibid, pp. 120, 146, 194-195, 199-201.
8 69 Fed. Reg. 19975, Apr. 15, 2004.
pass over, around or through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be
planted or exist below the dam.”
The claims have been litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California. The district court has reviewed the application of § 5937 to the
problem at hand on several occasions since 1988 and has issued several decisions.
In 2004, the District Court issued another decision regarding the application of §
It stated: “There can be no genuine dispute that many miles of the San Joaquin River
are now entirely dry, except during extremely wet periods, and that the historical fish
populations have been destroyed.”9 The court did not declare what amount of water
was necessary to satisfy the law or declare any other type of relief; rather, it set a
The Settlement Agreement. Faced with the prospect of a court-imposed
remedy, and mounting legal fees in preparation for trial, the parties (NRDC et al.,
Reclamation et al., and Friant long-term water service contractors) began a series of
settlement negotiations in late 2005, and came to a tentative agreement in June 2006.
The terms of the Settlement were then vetted with selected stakeholders, finalized,
and presented to Congress in September 2006 — the final Stipulation of Settlement
was filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, September 13,
The stated goals of the Settlement are twofold: (1) to restore and maintain fish
populations in “good condition” — the § 5937 standard — in the main stem of the
San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River; and (2)
to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to the Friant long-term water service
contractors that may result from both interim flows and restorative flows provided
in the Settlement. To accomplish these goals, the Settlement calls for numerous
actions, some of which need congressional authorization and appropriations. Further,
appropriations authorization is needed to finance settlement implementation as
envisioned under the Settlement. The Settlement states that if legislation is not
enacted by December 31, 2006, the Settlement may become void at the election of
a party, at which point litigation might resume. While implementation legislation has
been introduced (H.R. 4074, H.R. 24 and S. 27), it has not been enacted. To date, no
party has elected to void the Settlement.
Legislative Context
In September 2006, the settling parties presented the Settlement, including its
legislative proposal, to various Members of Congress. The parties hoped
implementing legislation would be enacted prior to adjournment of the 109th
Congress. However, numerous entities who were not party to the Settlement (i.e.,
third parties), objected to the legislative proposal included in the Settlement, as well
9 NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
as the swift time line imposed by the Settlement Agreement.10 Shortly thereafter,
many third parties met with the Settlement parties and certain Members of the
California delegation. An agreement was reached to address certain third party
interests; in exchange, these third parties agreed to support new legislation. Although
many parties who had opposed the draft legislation in September 2006 supported the
new legislation, other parties emerged that were not part of the new agreement,
resulting in further opposition to Settlement legislation.11
San Joaquin River restoration Settlement legislation was introduced in early
December 2006 (H.R. 6377 and S. 4084); however, no action was taken on the bills
before adjournment of the 109th Congress. The Settlement bills were reintroduced
in the 110th Congress as H.R. 24 and S. 27. Hearings were held in both houses of
Congress (before the House Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee,
March 1, 2007; and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee, May 3, 2007). On November 5, 2007, H.R. 4074 was introduced as
implementing legislation with provisions addressing congressional PAYGO rules.
Implementation of the Settlement calls for construction of numerous projects and
other activities that could cost between $250 million and $1.1 billion. Federal
funding for these projects and activities is sought by the parties and is contemplated
under the Settlement.
Federal budgetary and funding issues, as well as the viability of attaining the
water management goal appear to be key points of contention at this stage. For
example, funding mechanisms included in the current legislation would require a
budgetary offset under congressional PAYGO rules — according to some, a difficult
task in today’s budget climate. An overall complication for Congress in considering
San Joaquin Settlement legislation is that although the Settlement aims to end a 19-
year lawsuit and comports with a court ruling, the Settlement would affect others
outside the Friant Division Service Area. Another complication is the prospect that
funding for the San Joaquin River Settlement may divert funds from salmon
restoration projects in other river basins. Lastly, other recent events potentially
limiting water exports from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta confluence
could significantly affect implementation of the recirculation portion of the water
management goal and has caused increased concern among some stakeholders.
These issues, among others, are discussed below.
If Congress does not act on the legislation, some fear that the court will order
a remedy, which may differ from the Settlement, and which may have more severe
consequences for some area water users and third parties.
10 Testimony presented before the House Resources (renamed House Natural Resources in
January 2007) Water and Power Subcommittee, Sept. 21, 2006, Oversight Hearing on the
San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act.
11 Testimony presented before the House Resources Water and Power Subcommittee, Sept.
21, 2006, Oversight Hearing on the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act, and testimony
before the House Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee, March 1, 2007.
Settlement Goals and Implementing Legislation: Key Issues
As noted above, the settling parties agreed that it would have two goals: (1) a
Restoration Goal: “... to restore and maintain fish populations in ‘good condition’
in the mainstem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the
Merced River, including naturally-reproducing and self-sustaining populations of
salmon and other fish...”; and (2) a Water Management Goal: “... to reduce or avoid
adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that
may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration flows provided for in this
Settlement...”.
In agreeing to these goals, parties acknowledged that the historical operation of
Friant Dam resulted in significant portions of the San Joaquin River drying up in
most years, with detrimental consequences for fisheries downstream from Friant
Dam. They also agreed that achievement of the Restoration Goal by 2025 may not
accomplish all desired results, but that efforts to achieve such results would result in
public benefits (e.g., improved downstream water quality and increased recreational
opportunities). They further acknowledged that the implementation of the Settlement
would occur over many years and agreed to cooperate in good faith to achieve the
dual goals of the Settlement. Some obligations are spelled out in the Settlement;
moreover, the Settlement establishes a “framework” for accomplishing Settlement
goals through activities such as environmental review, design, and construction.
Restoration Goal. Restoring San Joaquin River fisheries is the aim of the
Restoration Goal and several details and obligations are included in the Settlement
Agreement. Parties acknowledge that achievement of the Restoration Goal will
require a combination of channel and structural improvements along the River below
Friant Dam, as well as additional releases of water from the Dam. The Settlement
lists several improvements to be implemented no later than December 13, 2013, with
certain allowances for events beyond the control of the Secretary of the Interior.
These “Phase I” improvements relate to modifying and improving the capacity of the
San Joaquin River to accommodate new releases and range from creating a bypass
channel around existing facilities to screening various canal entrances and modifying
structures to provide fish passage. A second set of improvements — “Phase II” —
would include further channel modifications, and/or isolation of certain gravel pits.
This second set of improvements would be completed not later than December 31,
The Settlement also calls for specific “Restoration Flows” — additional releases12
of water from Friant Dam in accordance with certain hydrographs included in the
Settlement. The hydrographs establish certain “base flows” for each of six water year
types (for a description of water year types see Appendix A); however the Secretary
may also make “buffer flows” available up to an additional 10% of restoration flows,
based on recommendations of a Restoration Administrator. The Secretary may
12 A hydrograph is a graph depicting the volume of river flow over various time periods.
The hydrographs referred to in the Settlement include proposed restoration flow release
schedules by month for each of 6 different water year types. For more information on water
year types, their basis, and potential impacts of water supply reductions, see Appendix A.
purchase from willing sellers water to achieve the restoration goal and to mitigate
unexpected seepage losses downstream. After commencement of restoration flows
(following a period of interim flows), spring and fall-run Chinook salmon would be
reintroduced by no later than spring of 2012.
Restoration Goal Issues. Although significant sums have already been
spent on ecosystem restoration activities in the San Joaquin River watershed, there
is no comprehensive (including the Upper San Joaquin River) program for
specifically restoring San Joaquin Chinook salmon such as that contemplated under
the Settlement. Many of the founding principles of the Settlement rely on existing
salmon restoration studies conducted over the last decade or more. These studies
have been carried out by a variety of sources, including the federal government, local
entities, academics, consulting groups, and expert witnesses, some of which have
been hired by different parties to the Settlement. Studies and expert reports that
focused on water flows for salmon restoration ultimately led to the restoration flow
levels established under the Settlement; however, some uncertainties remain. For
example, while there has been much discussion and study of historical spring-run
Chinook salmon levels, and the potential for their reintroduction — some of which
appears to be based on other relevant cases of salmon restoration in California —
there appears to be still some uncertainty as to whether flows established under the
Settlement and other Settlement efforts will be sufficient to successfully reestablish
Chinook salmon populations in the Upper San Joaquin River.
Expert reports and rebuttals prepared during litigation have identified and
evaluated numerous factors relevant to the successful reintroduction of Chinook
salmon to the San Joaquin River. Given the complexity in the species’ life cycle, and
the complexity of the factors which influence its survival, restoration success cannot
be predicted nor guaranteed with certainty. Among the more important factors are
the quantity water flow and its timing, fish passage and diversion entrainment, water
temperature and levels of dissolved oxygen, water quality, holding habitat, spawning
habitat, and stock selection and genetics. Because Chinook salmon in the Upper San
Joaquin River would be at the extreme southern extension of their historical range,
all or many factors may need to be favorable to permit this species to complete its
migratory life cycle. While some contend that all these factors indeed can be
favorable, others point out that all these factors, many beyond human control, may
not be favorable in any single year, leading to population stress and decline, if not
total failure in some years. The question could reasonably be asked whether factors
will be favorable in enough years to allow periodic migratory success sufficient to
sustain a Chinook salmon population in the San Joaquin River above its confluence
with the Merced River.
The San Joaquin River restoration will be complicated in several respects (e.g.,
size of area to be restored, southern limit of the species’ range, potential lack of
unique genetic stock,13 extreme degradation of existing habitat, and potential climate
13 It is not clear if the runs of Chinook salmon which populated the Upper San Joaquin River
were uniquely genetically structured to withstand warmer temperatures and whether existing
Central Valley Chinook populations that might be used for re-introduction might contain
(continued...)
change). Concerted attempts to restore salmon habitat in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River basins have produced encouraging results and success in some cases,
but total success has been hard to claim in the short time these restoration efforts
have been underway. As many of these projects have been conducted on small
drainage areas, it would seem there is little precedent in California for the major
restoration effort contemplated for the San Joaquin River. On the other hand, it
could be argued that extensive restoration efforts in the Klamath River Basin have
in all but one case at least maintained runs and avoided listing under the federal ESA,
while many other nearby populations have been listed.
Water Management Goal. The water management goal as outlined in the
Settlement includes two key parts: (1) an agreement to develop and implement a plan
for the recirculation, recapture, reuse, and exchange or transfer of Restoration flows
for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts to Friant long-term contractors; and
(2) establishment of a “Recovered Water Account” to make up for water losses
experienced by Friant long-term contractors. Water made available by the Secretary
under the new account would be priced at a total cost of $10 per acre-foot. To
implement the water management goal, the Settlement provides for a water
accounting system, whereby the Secretary of the Interior is to monitor and record
reductions in water deliveries to Friant Division long-term contractors that have not
been made up by recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange or transfer of Restoration
flows or replaced or offset by other water programs or projects undertaken or funded
to mitigate water delivery impacts caused by the restoration flows.
Water Management Goal Issues. Some fear that water deliveries for off-
stream purposes will be reduced directly, in a one-for-one fashion, to create
restoration flows. However, as anticipated under the Settlement, the relationship of
increased restoration flows and water delivery diversions would not necessarily result
in a 1:1 trade-off. For example, in some years much of the restoration flows might
be met with floodwaters. Also, under the Settlement, no water would be released for
restoration purposes in the driest of years; thus, no reductions in Friant deliveries
would be made due to the Settlement.
Additionally, it appears Friant managers may have considerable flexibility in
managing supplies and balancing deliveries with other available sources. How much
less water Friant contractors might receive will depend on several factors: how much
is needed for restoration flows (based on specific water flow recommendations
included in the Settlement); what type of water year is declared; what type of water
contract water users have (i.e., how firm);14 what mitigation or conservation efforts
13 (...continued)
that genetic capability. Given suitable habitat conditions, anadromous fish generally possess
the capacity and capability to successfully adapt and colonize new habitat or re-colonize
historical habitat.
14 There are several different types of contracts used in the Friant Division. Some receive
water on a higher priority basis than others, and therefore are considered more “firm” than
others; some are for long-term deliveries, and some are temporary, one-year contracts. For
more information on the variety of contracts and definitions of Class I, Class II, and § 215
(continued...)
might be instituted; and how much water might be available to make up losses from
the Recovered Water Account. Further, the overall impact on individual water users
will depend, in part, on their access to other available water supply sources (other
than deliveries from Friant Dam.)
Using two available data sources15 (which do not account for improvements in
water management that may dampen the Settlement’s impact on agricultural and
municipal users), it appears that annual water supplies for the Friant Division Service
Area would be, on average, 15% to 16% less under the Settlement, than average
supplies under current operating protocols. (See Appendix A for an analysis of
available estimates of water supply reductions and a description of data sources.)
Although the average reduction could be 15% to16%, water supply reductions could
range from no reduction, to as high as 34% reduction in some years. The total
average annual reduction in the volume of water delivered under the Settlement is
estimated to be 204 thousand acre-feet (taf) or 225 taf, depending on the source
(Steiner 2005, and BOR 2006, respectively); these estimates include cutbacks in
temporary water that is made available in wetter years (i.e., water that is not
contracted for on a long-term basis). In other words, this estimate includes reduction
in both contract water and temporary water delivered by the Friant Division. These
estimates can probably be viewed as an upper limit to average reductions that might
occur under the Settlement. The average annual reduction in the long-term water
service contract deliveries (i.e., not including temporary deliveries) under the
Settlement, is estimated at 144 taf less than average annual long-term contract
supplies without the Settlement.16
Almost half of the Friant contractors have access to other, non-Friant surface17
water supplies (mostly from local river and stream sources) and 75% use
groundwater supplies. Therefore, for three-quarters of the contractors, the reductions
in Friant Division deliveries represent a reduction in one of multiple supplies. The
level of reductions experienced by individual water districts would vary depending
on their water service contracts. That is, the reduced delivery experienced in a given
year by an individual water district would largely depend on how “firm” is the
14 (...continued)
water, see Appendix A.
15 As part of its analysis of the Settlement Agreement, CRS collected and reviewed available
information on the effects that proposed increased releases for fish restoration from Friant
Dam could have on future deliveries by the Friant Division. The analysis largely relies on
two available data sets on the estimated reductions to Friant water supplies under the
Settlement: (1) Expert report of Daniel B. Steiner, Effects to Water Supply and Friant
Operations Resulting From Plaintiffs’ Friant Release Requirements, September 16, 2005
(hereafter referred to as Steiner 2005), prepared for Friant Water Users Authority; and, (2)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Friant Division Allocations Based
on SJR-Settlement Exhibit B Hydrographs for Restoration Releases, table released
December, 2006 (hereafter referred to as BOR 2006).
16 Steiner 2005.
17 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Needs Assessment, 2004.
district’s Friant water supply contract.18 Contracts with first priority delivery (known
as Class I contracts) generally are held by the districts which serve municipalities and
agricultural users without sources to other supplies — areas often in the foothills not
underlain with adequate or reliable groundwater supplies.
Existing data assume Reclamation reduces “supplemental” water deliveries
before first priority deliveries. These data estimate that average annual reductions in
the Friant Division long-term water service contract water deliveries for individual
Friant water districts would range between 5% and 27% — the low range being
cutbacks to contractors with relatively firmer Friant Division contract supplies (46%
of contractors) and the high range applicable to those with only supplemental Friant
Division contract supplies (7% of contractors). All districts with supplemental Friant
Division contracts (known as Class II contracts) have groundwater or other surface
water supplies, so the reduction in Friant deliveries under the Settlement would
represent a reduction in one of their supplies.
Regardless of the specifics of how much water might be released for fisheries
restoration vis-a-vis water diverted for off-stream purposes, there will be impacts to
existing surface and groundwater supplies in and around the Friant Division Service
Area. Pertinent questions, to which there are no obvious answers, are how will water
users adapt, how much water might be regained, and at what cost?
Possibilities exist to partially offset lower off-stream deliveries through water
conservation, efficiency measures, water transfers and marketing, groundwater
storage, and new infrastructure. However, at this time, it is unclear to what extent
these measures could mitigate the lower deliveries, at what cost, and which measures
might occur as part of the Settlement’s water management goal or as part of other
state and local water development efforts (such as expanded groundwater banking
and conjunctive use).
Federal Financing. The Settlement includes several new financing
mechanisms. San Joaquin restoration legislation based on the Settlement (H.R. 24
and S. 27) would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement terms
and conditions of the Settlement in cooperation with the State of California, and
authorize appropriations to carry out federal responsibilities. While the legislation
includes an authorization of $250 million in appropriations, it also includes several
provisions involving new funding mechanisms which, once established, would not
be subject to annual appropriations by Congress. Rather, funding via these
mechanisms would provide sources of dedicated funding to implement the
agreement. Although funding provision language, included in proposed legislation
in Exhibit A of the Settlement, differs somewhat from the funding provisions in H.R.
24 and S. 27, it appears the funding mechanisms themselves are not substantively
different.
Issues. Because the Settlement funding relies on redirecting existing federal
revenues from the Friant Division into a new, permanent restoration account, among
other financing mechanisms, the legislation has run into difficulties regarding its
18 See Appendix A for a description of the different types of contracts and water supplies.
financing provisions. CBO has estimated the total federal share of the program as
outlined in H.R. 24 to be $500 million; $430 million through 2017, and another $70
million through 2026. (See Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 24, San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act, CBO Cost Estimate, April 18, 2007.) Because the
bill includes new direct spending, it would require an offset for such spending under
congressional PAYGO rules. Restoration sponsors have been working to reduce the
bill’s budget score, and therefore reduce the potential offset needed. However, any
change in the Settlement’s financing formulas would require new agreement among
the settling parties and may prove difficult.
Additional Issues. Water supply impacts may also have both positive and
negative economic consequences. A review of other water supply reduction studies
suggest the Settlement would have the largest, and mostly negative effect on the
agriculture industry — at least in the short term — because most of the water
diverted from the San Joaquin River is currently used to irrigate crops. However, it
is not clear how much efforts to reduce water supply losses will also mitigate
agricultural production losses. On the other hand, the region may benefit from
increased recreational expenditures and investment in San Joaquin River restoration
activities, as well as increased downstream water supply and water quality benefits.
The Settlement will also affect communities and interests not party to the
Settlement. For example, Friant Division water users would likely experience
reduced water deliveries, but the new water releases would affect downstream
communities and landowners farther north who were not party to the lawsuit. The
majority of the San Joaquin riverbed areas that would experience increased flows
under the Settlement are not adjacent to, and are mostly distant from, the Friant
Division Service Area. (See Figure 2.) Similarly, communities and landowners
adjacent to lands served by Friant Division water might experience changes in
groundwater quality and availability, and increased prices for substitute water.
Another complication is the prospect that funding for the San Joaquin River
Settlement may divert funds from salmon restoration projects in other river basins.
In particular, Trinity River restoration proponents are concerned that San Joaquin
River restoration as contemplated under the Settlement and implementing legislation
might result in less funding for Trinity River restoration. These “third party”
concerns, including possible groundwater supply impacts, are discussed below.
Agricultural Impacts. The San Joaquin Valley is among the nation’s most
productive farming regions. Ranked by value of production, four of eight San
Joaquin counties — Fresno, Tulare, Kern, and Merced — are among the top five
agricultural counties in the United States. These four counties, along with Madera
County, are the five SJV counties containing lands that directly receive water from
the Friant Division. The value of crop and livestock products sold across these five
counties totaled $9.3 billion in 2002, accounting for 36% of the value of California’s
total agriculture production and 5% of all U.S. agricultural production.19
19 Farm-level value. Does not include retail value markup or value added through food
processing. Data taken from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture
(continued...)
At least eight studies have attempted to identify impacts to the agricultural
sector due to temporary or permanent water losses.20 However, there are substantial
differences in reporting criteria and analytical approaches across each of the studies,
making such estimates difficult to compare and/or validate. In addition, estimated
economic, social, and environmental benefits are dispersed across broad segments
of California’s population; there is similarly a high degree of variability due to
constraints related to methodology or data. As reported in the studies that use
economic models to quantify the potential farm and regional economy effects, most
studies agree that a reduction in available irrigation water supplies could lower gross
farm revenue because of expected reductions in crop acreage and/or yield.
Studies that most closely approximate proposed reductions under the Settlement
— those focusing on estimated effects for reductions of up to 200,000 acre-feet
annually in the SJV — often employ a similar methodological approach, but with
differing underlying assumptions and data, spanning a range of possible scenarios
and outcomes, and often resulting in a wide range of estimated costs and benefits.
Accordingly, these studies report a range of estimated farm impacts. Some studies
further project lower farm profits and higher operating costs, as well as negative
economic impacts to the broader regional economy and job markets. Some studies
report that these economic costs will likely be offset by other economic and societal
benefits, or other mitigating gains in the farm support services or non-farm sectors.
For example, estimates of the potential loss in gross farm revenue from
reductions in acreage and/or yield range from about $40-$180 million per year,
spanning possible outcomes during a full water year and a drought year (excluding
one high-end drought year estimate under one of the studies examined). Only two
of the studies reviewed by CRS provide estimates of changes in farm profits, but
19 (...continued)
(Washington, DC: 2002).
20 Citations for studies reviewed are: 1) C. Brown, G. Goldman, R. Howitt, and J. Siebert,
Impacts of Water Reallocations on the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, University of California,
December 1996; also C. Brown, G. Goldman, R. Howitt, and J. Siebert, “The Use of
IMPLAN with a Water Allocation and Production Model,” presented at the National
IMPLAN Conference, Minneapolis, August 1996; 2) Northwest Economic Associates,
Analysis of the Impacts of Surface Water Reductions on the Eastern San Joaquin Valley of
California, August 1997; 3) Robert B. McKusick, Economic Impact of Reduced Surface
Water Deliveries in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project (including a
supplemental September 2005 report), ENTRIX Inc., September 2005; 4) Michael
Hanemann, Rebuttal Expert Report, University of California, Berkeley, 2006; 5) Northwest
Economic Associates, Economic Impacts of the 1992 California Drought and Regulatory
Reductions on the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Industry, December, 1993; 6) L. Dale,
and L. Dixon, The Impact of Water Supply Reductions on San Joaquin Valley Agriculture
During the 1986-1992 Drought, RAND Corporation, 1998, accessed August 15, 2007 at
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR552.pdf]; 7) Bazdarich, M., and C.
Thornberg, “Benefits and Costs for California from Water Transfers,” October 2006,
accessed August 15 at [http://www.beaconecon.com/products/White_Papers/water
transfers.pdf]; and 8) D. Villarejo, Jobless After a Man-made Drought, prepared for the
Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission and the Fresno County Workforce
Investment Board, August 31, 2004.
across very different scenarios: One study reports possible losses in farm profits
reports ranging from 0.4% in a full water year to 6.7% in a drought year; another
study reports profit losses of 2% with water trading compared to 3% without water
trades between growing regions. Only two of the studies reviewed provide estimates
of changes in farm costs, again across very different scenarios: One reports farm
costs could increase by about $110 million during a drought year; another reports that
additional costs to crop producers would be only $11 million, with other costs to
dairies of $2 million (projected for the year 2025). A few of the studies reviewed by
CRS estimate changes in regional economic conditions and employment, with
varying results: One study estimates potential job losses ranging from 1,200 jobs in
a full water year to 17,900 jobs in a drought year; two other studies estimate job
losses ranging from 3,200 to 10,400. Finally, only two of the studies reviewed by
CRS estimate the potential economic benefits or offsetting gains under the
Settlement: One study reports substantial monetary benefits approaching $1.8 billion
annually; another reports possible nonfarm gains that exceed estimated costs, with
net gains to the broader economy of $12.6 million during a drought year. (See
Appendix B for a summary of the studies.)
The substantial differences in reporting criteria and analytical approaches across
these studies, make such estimates difficult to compare and/or validate. As a result,
the estimated adverse economic effects and costs to the agricultural sectors under the
Settlement based on these studies should be viewed with caution. These estimated
changes in farm economic indicators based on these studies also should not be
assumed to be cumulative each year, since these results do not take into account for
the likelihood that farmers would take steps to adjust to a permanent water
reallocation and such studies do not take into account potential recirculation,
recapture and reuse or other water supply mitigation efforts contemplated under the
Settlement.
Non-agricultural Economic Impacts. There may be positive and negative
economic consequences of implementing the Settlement other than those
immediately related to Friant contractors concerned with agriculture, and those of
potential “third parties.” Possible economic effects include (1) potential costs to
municipalities for replacing lost water supplies; (2) potential costs related to lost
power generation; (3) potential benefits associated with enhanced recreational
opportunities; (4) benefits associated with improvements in water quality; (5) public
benefits associated with existence of environmental quality improvements; and (6)
economic impacts related to restoration projects. There may also be positive or
negative changes in land use values for land abutting the restored river.
While experts testifying prior to the Settlement noted potential municipal water
costs of approximately $78,000 and power costs of approximately $1.2 million
annually,21 other experts have estimated increased recreational and scenic benefits
ranging from $17.4 to $45.2 million annually.22 Further, existence values — the
value that some place on a restored river regardless of whether they actually use the
21 Expert Report of Dr. Robert McKusick on the Economic Impact of Reduced Surface Water
Deliveries in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. Aug. 2005, p. 63.
22 Rebuttal Expert Report of Professor W. Michael Hanemann, Case No. Civ-S-1658
LKK/GGH, 2006.
resource — are estimated in at least one study to range from $1.6 billion to $1.7
billion.23
In general, significant costs and benefits are expected to result from
implementation of the Settlement. Costs of the Settlement are concentrated in
agriculture and several other sectors, while the benefits related to existence and
recreation are dispersed over broad segments of the California population. Ideally,
comparisons of costs and benefits across all affected sectors and parties should be
assessed to inform policy options. Yet, expert reports reflected uncertainties related
to data and modeling, unstated or uncertain underlying assumptions, and insufficient
information to replicate results. Costs and benefits cannot be readily compared
because of the lack of standards and continuity in and among expert reports.
“Third Party” Impacts. Communities dependent on groundwater supplies
are also concerned about potential effects on groundwater quantity and quality.
While most communities in the area have adequate groundwater supplies, some do
not. Similarly, downstream communities and water and power users outside the
Friant Division Service Area are concerned about potential Settlement effects such
as increased flooding, groundwater infiltration, competition with existing financial
commitments, and management of threatened and endangered species and their effect
on managing land and facilities.
The Settlement Agreement states that the parties do not intend to adversely
affect others who were not party to the Settlement. However, changes in water use
in the area served by the Friant Division may affect resources and their use in other
areas. Actions directly affecting a specific group or interest are also likely to affect
neighboring interests through legal, market, and institutional interactions.
When the Settlement was disseminated, some landowners and entities not party
to the agreement expressed concern about the Settlement’s potential effects on their
interests. The House Resources Committee convened a hearing on September 21,
parties.” A list of potential third party concerns regarding implementation of the
Settlement identified during the hearing included:
!potential flooding and loss of crops and property in areas without
adequate river channels;
!possible operational constraints related to the protection of
reintroduced salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16
U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543);
!potential impacts on existing salmon populations in San Joaquin
tributaries and associated water uses;
!potential effects on surface and groundwater supplies, and water
rights; and
23 Ibid.
24 Oversight Hearing on The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, before the
Water and Power Subcommittee of the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of
Representatives, (Sept. 21, 2006).
!adequate program funding for Settlement implementation and other
non-San Joaquin restoration projects (e.g., Trinity River restoration).
After the September 21, 2006 hearing, third parties were asked for suggestions
to revise draft implementing legislation for the Settlement. Negotiations among the
Settling Parties, the State of California, and several third parties resulted in an
agreement to modify the draft legislation that had been included in the stipulated
Settlement Agreement. At a subsequent hearing of the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water and Power on March 1, 2007, testimony of several third
parties suggested that many of their previous concerns were resolved in the modified
legislation, H.R. 24 and S. 27, introduced in the 110th Congress. While many third
party issues appear to have been addressed, some others remain.
Groundwater Issues. For Friant Division contractors and nearby third
parties who use groundwater, decreased Class II water supplies may be among the
more important impacts from the Settlement. Class II supplies are often used by
water users in lieu of groundwater pumping, or to recharge groundwater supplies.
Some fear that increased groundwater pumping to replace the decreases in surface
supplies may degrade groundwater quality, especially for water systems currently of
marginal quality. Settlement participants anticipate that such impacts would be
limited by the component of the Settlement that requires the development and
implementation of a plan to recirculate, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer water
released for restoration flows. Significant uncertainties exist, however, as key
options — including some proposed projects to recapture and recirculate restoration
flows — would be subject to regulatory limitations and existing water delivery
commitments and priorities, as well as available funding.
Others are concerned that restoration flows down the San Joaquin River may
degrade shallow groundwater quality beneath the river, particularly in the lower
reaches. Waterlogging of soils and leaching of salt already present in the soil are
some key concerns. In addition, infiltration of restoration flows — especially in the
upper reaches of the river — seems likely to be substantial. Underground diversions
— groundwater pumping from wells near the river — of the infiltrated water may
increase infiltration rates above the estimates in the Settlement. This potential was
explicitly addressed by the Parties in the Settlement (Article 13(c)); however, it is
unclear how it may progress in practice. Any actions taken to curtail increased
infiltration from groundwater pumping may introduce conflict between groundwater
users and parties to the Settlement charged with redressing underground diversions.
This potential conflict, while beyond the scope of this report, may also raise legal
questions regarding how the State of California views surface water and groundwater
interactions.
In sum, the possible impacts that Settlement implementation may have on
groundwater quality and quantity are difficult to assess, as such effects will depend
on a substantial set of variables and uncertainties. While it is certain that the
restoration of flows from Friant Dam (Millerton Lake) to the San Joaquin River will
lead to changes in the way water is managed in the region, what is not known is what
specific water management changes might result and how water users might adapt
to reductions in water deliveries. Increased dependence on groundwater as a water
source in southern SJV potentially could worsen the quality of groundwater as
shallow irrigation wells recirculate groundwater and further concentrate dissolved
solids and other contaminants. This could degrade water quality in local drinking
water wells and irrigation wells, many of which are already of marginal quality.
There is expectation, however, that reduced surface water flows to the Friant
Division ultimately will lead to more efficient use of water through continuing
improvements in operations, infrastructure, and water management practices. At the
same time, increased river flows could raise the groundwater table and improve
groundwater quality outside the Friant Division Service Area beneath reaches of the
river where groundwater quality is currently impaired.
Concluding Remarks and the Larger Policy Context
The Settlement Agreement and subsequent implementing legislation are the
culmination of nearly two decades of discussion, argument, and study on whether and
how to restore fisheries below Friant Dam, a federally owned and operated facility
on the San Joaquin River. The most recent actions relate to a court decision that
Reclamation is operating the dam in violation of California state fish and game code.
The implications of this decision are far reaching for California water management
and for both the directly affected water users and the indirectly affected communities,
landowners, and water users. Several broad policy issues are raised by the
Settlement. These issues partially derive from constraints imposed by the pressure
to react to a settlement responding to a judicial ruling, as opposed to managing or
legislating on an issue prior to, or absent, such a settlement.
Another overarching issue is how San Joaquin River management ties into other
CVP management decisions, as well as state and local water systems. Both the CVP
and State Water Project (SWP) — a largely parallel state water supply system south
of the Bay-Delta — are operating under regulations that limit the amount (and
timing) of water that can be exported south out of the Bay-Delta. Recent court
decisions regarding the health of threatened Delta Smelt may constrain such future
exports. The degree to which some of the water management goals identified in the
Settlement might rely on moving water in and out of the Bay-Delta could affect the
ultimate ability to recapture, recirculate, and/or reuse San Joaquin River restoration
flows. At minimum, it appears the restoration effort will necessitate multi-year water
planning and investments, including having the funding on hand and infrastructure
in place to buy and put to use surplus water (e.g., for groundwater recharge), and to
buy water in dry years for those without sufficient access to groundwater, those with
primarily Class II supplies, or in the driest of years. Therefore, the future of water
resource management in the Central Valley is not just conjunctive water
management, but multi-year conjunctive management with the financial resources to
make it happen, in addition to integration of federal, state, local, and private
infrastructure projects. Whether Congress addresses this issue — in California and
elsewhere — given current water resource authorization and appropriations practices
and a restrictive budgetary climate remains to be seen.
While the issues discussed here have confronted prior Administrations and
Congresses, a Settlement Agreement was not reached until the U.S. District Court
acted, ultimately resulting in the difficult choices facing Congress today (e.g.,
budgetary, water delivery, and ecosystem health trade-offs). This is a common
dilemma for resource agencies implementing projects and programs which are based
on societal and political trade-offs made decades ago (e.g., agricultural industry over
commercial and sport fishing industries, or timber harvest over species habitat). It
is hard to say what is fair or just when such significant trade-offs were made decades
ago, causing harm to some, but providing benefit to others who then made financial
and livelihood decisions based on those policies. In the eyes of many, the San
Joaquin river restoration is an effort to respond to fisheries economic and ecological
damage begun 60 years ago; for others the potential of reduced water supplies for off-
stream use is a breach of promises made 60 years ago. For the court, it is a matter of
Friant Dam operations comporting with state law.
Appendix A:
Analysis of Existing Water Supply Impacts Data
Introduction to the Analysis and Summary of Results
The Settlement would use San Joaquin River water, which in recent history has
been diverted and delivered to Friant Division contractors for off-stream uses, to
maintain in-stream flows in the San Joaquin River for fish restoration. The
Settlement would reduce Friant water deliveries to water districts absent offsetting
measures. That is, the Settlement would redistribute a portion of the annual water
supply away from agricultural and municipal water districts to achieve the restoration
flows (based on hydrographs) agreed to under the Settlement. In a given year, how
much less water would be available for off-stream uses in the Friant Division Service
Area would depend largely on how much water would be released for fish
restoration. Following a protocol established in the Settlement, the restoration flows
would be determined annually based on the basin’s estimated runoff for the year.
Under the Settlement, restoration flows would be higher in wetter years and lower
in drier years. The quantity of water used for restoration flows and the quantity by
which water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the relationship would not
necessarily be one-for-one. For instance, in some of the wettest years, flood water
releases could provide a significant amount of the restoration flows, thereby lowering
the reduction in deliveries to agricultural and municipal users. Under the Settlement,
no water would be released for restoration purposes in the driest of years; thus in
those years, no reductions in Friant deliveries would be made due to the Settlement.
As part of its analysis of the Settlement Agreement, CRS collected and reviewed
available information on the effects that proposed increased releases for fish
restoration from Friant Dam could have on future deliveries by the Friant Division.
Few data are available on what actions Reclamation or water users might take to
mitigate reduced Friant water deliveries. Guidelines and other specifics regarding
Settlement implementation remain to be determined. Although broad conceptual
papers are available, decisions on one or more courses of action have not been made.
Therefore, the analysis in this appendix is limited to existing data and estimates
of water supplies, which do not account for water supply management measures that
could reduce the effects of the Settlement on agricultural and municipal water users.
The analysis largely relies on two available data sets on the estimated reductions to
Friant water supplies under the Settlement:
!Expert report of Daniel B. Steiner, Effects to Water Supply and
Friant Operations Resulting From Plaintiffs’ Friant Release
Requirements, September 16, 2005 (hereafter referred to as Steiner
2005), prepared for Friant Water Users Authority; and
!U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Friant
Division Allocations Based on SJR-Settlement Exhibit B
Hydrographs for Restoration Releases, table released December,
The two data sets are not identical, and both have some limitations for purposes
of this analysis. CRS used the most comparable elements of the data sets for the
analysis presented herein.25 The analysis herein was performed using both data sets
when possible. However, many of the figures in this appendix present information
from only one data set. Even though the data are imperfect — the estimates were
made assuming no changes in Friant Dam or other Central Valley Project (CVP)
operations, no changes in water use efficiency, and no other actions that might
mitigate reduced Friant water supplies — they give some idea of the range of changes
that water users might experience under the Settlement.
Using available data (which does not account for any improvements in water
management that may reduce the Settlement’s impact on agricultural and municipal
users), it appears that annual water supplies for the Friant Division Service Area
would be, on average, 15% to 16% less under the Settlement, than average supplies
under current operating protocols. Although the average reduction could be 15
to16%, water supply reductions could range from no reduction, to as high as a 34%
reduction in some years. The total average annual reduction in the volume of water
delivered (i.e., reduction in both contract water and temporary water delivered by the
Friant Division) under the Settlement is estimated to be 204 thousand acre-feet (taf)
or 225 taf, depending on the source (Steiner 2005, or BOR 2006, respectively) less
than average annual supplies without the Settlement. These average estimates
include cutbacks in temporary water that is made available in wetter years (but that
25 Both sources use the Millerton Lake drainage area’s past runoff conditions to illustrate
the impact that the Settlement might have on contract water supplies. Using actual historic
allocations as a starting point, BOR 2006 recalculates what contract water supplies (i.e.,
supplies to Class I contractors, Class II contractors, and for § 215 contracts) might have been
in the past if restoration releases under the Settlement had been in place for 1957 through
2005. The analysis in BOR 2006 combines Class II and § 215 water supplies. By using
historic allocations as a starting point, the BOR 2006 data set does not necessarily reflect
current Reclamation procedures for deciding allocations, and it reflects anomalies and
changes in operating protocols that would not necessarily be replicated in the future. For
example, 1958 was a year with high runoff in the basin; current operations would result in
some Class II and § 215 allocations. BOR 2006 does not show any such deliveries because
in 1958 these types of contracts were not in use. Class II contracts were not active until
1962, and § 215 water was first available mid-1995. Another example is from 1998; the
relatively low allocations in 1998 partially resulted from Kings River water being pumped
into the Friant Kern Canal to reduce flood potential in the Kings River basin. The BOR
2006 estimate includes data on the contract water supplies under the Settlement both with
and without the 10% buffer flows. In contrast, Steiner 2005 uses historic runoff data for
1922 through 2003 to model water diversion and delivery under the Settlement. The
modeling applies current water management regimes and contracts with and without the
Settlement to the historic runoff data; in other words, Steiner 2005 applies the current Class
II and § 215 contracts to the entire 1922 to 2003 time period. Unlike BOR 2006, the
analysis in Steiner 2005 distinguishes between Class II and § 215 contracts. Although some
data for 2004 are available in Steiner 2005, the last year for which Steiner 2005 presents a
complete analysis is 2003. The model used in Steiner 2005 accounts for the distinction
between runoff water year (Oct. to Sept.), the restoration flow year (Feb. to Jan.), and the
contract year (March to Feb.); BOR 2006 simplified its analysis by not differentiating
between the various kinds of timeframes, instead basing the entire analysis on the runoff
water year (Oct. to Sept.).
is not contracted for on a long-term basis), and thus these estimates can be viewed
as an upper limit to average reductions that might occur under the Settlement. The
average annual reduction in long-term water service contract water deliveries (i.e.,
not including temporary deliveries) under the Settlement, is estimated at 144 taf less
than average annual long-term contract supplies without the Settlement (Steiner
Almost half of the Friant contractors have access to other, non-Friant surface
water supplies (mostly from local river and stream sources)26 and 75% use
groundwater supplies. Therefore, for at least three-quarters of the contractors, the
reductions in Friant Division deliveries represents a reduction in one of multiple
supplies. However, because it is difficult to get reliable data on all non-federal water
supply source, the extent of other supplies and their accessability and reliability is
unclear. In some cases both other surface and groundwater supplies appear to be
substantial, in other cases not. Table A-1 shows the diversity of water supplies;
however, non-federal supplies are not quantified.
The level of reductions experienced by individual water districts would likely
vary depending on their water service contracts. That is, the reduced delivery
experienced in a given year by an individual water district would largely depend on
how “firm” is the district’s Friant water supply contract. Contracts with first priority
delivery (known as Class I contracts) generally are held by the districts which serve
municipalities and agricultural users without sources to other supplies — areas often
in the foothills not underlain with adequate or reliable groundwater supplies.
Existing data assumes Reclamation would reduce “supplemental” water deliveries
(known as Class II water) before first priority deliveries. These data estimate average
annual reductions in Friant Division long-term water service contract deliveries for
individual Friant water districts would range between 5% and 27% — the low range
being cutbacks to contractors with relatively firmer Friant Division contract supplies
(46% of contractors) and the high range applicable to those with only supplemental
Friant Division contract supplies (7% of contractors). All districts with supplemental
Friant Division contracts have access to groundwater or other surface water supplies.
Possible actions that may partially offset reduced off-stream deliveries include
water conservation, efficiency measures, water transfers and marketing, groundwater
storage and banking, water pricing (e.g., the Recovered Water Account), and new
infrastructure. However, at this time, it is unclear to what extent these measures
could mitigate the lower deliveries, at what cost, and which measures might occur
as part of the Settlement’s water management goal or as part of other state or local
water development efforts. Further, some Class II supplies are used in lieu of
pumping groundwater, to recharge groundwater, and to conjunctively manage
seasonal or yearly water supplies. Because of this complexity, it is unclear what
effect water conservation and efficiency measures (which could reduce inflows to
groundwater) might have on long-term water demands and supply management.
The first part of this appendix provides an overview of water supplies in the
Friant Division Service Area, including not only releases from Friant Dam but also
26 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Needs Assessment, 2004.
other surface water and groundwater supplies. The next part of this appendix
discusses how water needs for restoration flows under the Settlement might affect
Friant Division water supplies. It addresses potential effects of the Settlement on
aggregate Friant Division contract water supplies; it then analyzes estimates of the
reduction in supplies for individual water districts (contractors). This appendix
attempts to present data that illustrate not only the average annual water supply
reductions under the Settlement, but also the variation that might be experienced
annually. This appendix does not discuss specific effects of the Settlement on
groundwater supplies and potential economic impacts of water reductions and
increased restoration flow. Where reductions in water supply are discussed, they are
relative to long-term average water deliveries, not the full amount of water supply
contracts.
Water Supplies in the Friant Division Service Area
The Friant Division Service Area of the CVP extends from just north of the
Merced/Madera County line north of the San Joaquin River, southeast to Bakersfield,
CA. (See Figure 2.) Much of the area is naturally well-endowed with both surface
and groundwater supplies, and has benefitted from extensive federal investment in
the development of surface water supplies, as well as investment in private and
public groundwater recharge projects. The waters of the service area support a
substantial farm and food processing economy, as well as a growing population. The
area is bisected by several large rivers and streams; the largest surface water source
for the Friant Division Service Area is the San Joaquin River, which lies in the
northern part of the service area. San Joaquin River water is stored behind
Reclamation’s Friant Dam in Millerton Lake and is delivered to long-term
contractors (also referred to as water users or water districts) via the Madera Canal
and Friant-Kern Canal. Friant Dam and the two canals are managed as part of the
federal CVP. Even though the area is relatively rich in water resources compared to
much of the West, groundwater overdraft has been a perennial problem since the area
was intensely developed for agriculture early in the 20th Century.
Runoff entering Millerton Lake (i.e., the Millerton Lake drainage area) averages
1,700 taf, but can vary widely; from 1922 through 2004, runoff has varied from a low
of 362 taf in 1977, to a high of 4,642 taf in 1983 (Steiner 2005). This large variation
can lead to management difficulties, particularly in extremely dry and extremely wet
years. Millerton Lake has a capacity of approximately 500 taf,27 which is insufficient
to provide multi-year storage. As a consequence of its capacity, the reservoir is
operated on an annual basis and may refill multiple times in a wet year. Because the
lake does not have multi-year storage, the quantity of water available for delivery in
a given year is largely a function of that year’s runoff.
In non-flood years, all but sufficient flows to satisfy water right holders below
the dam (i.e., riparian releases representing approximately 117 taf annually in recent
years) is diverted away from the San Joaquin riverbed into the Friant-Kern Canal and
Madera Canal just below the dam. These canals transport the water for delivery to
Friant water users. Once the riparian water rights holders (Reach 1) remove their
27 [http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/friant.html#general], accessed July 27, 2007.
water, the river generally runs dry or with little flow for most of the year in the 24-
mile stretch between Gravelley Ford and Mendota Pool (Reach 2). (See Figure A-1
for a map of the river reaches.) Except when there are flood releases, the water in the
San Joaquin River between Mendota Pool and Sack Dam (Reach 3) is not San
Joaquin River water; it is CVP water imported from northern California through the
Bay-Delta. A group of CVP contractors known as the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors removes this imported Delta water from the river over the course of
Reach 3.28 After this stretch, the river is generally dry again for 46 miles from Sack
Dam to Bear Creek (Reach 4) except for inflows from groundwater and agricultural
runoff.
Reclamation historically has operated Friant dam to maximize water deliveries
in the Friant Division while first meeting water right obligations downstream — i.e.,
releasing water to the river only as necessary to meet downstream water right
obligations — and to manage flood waters. Because water deliveries to the Friant
Division (after downstream water right obligations are met) are maximized each year,
some reaches of the riverbed remain dry during portions of many years. According
to the 2004 ruling of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, California,29 this
management regime has resulted in untenable effects on downstream resources,
particularly anadromous fish, under California state law.
28 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors receive their water supplies via other CVP
facilities, principally, the Delta-Mendota canal and Mendota pool. These contractors retain
senior San Joaquin River water rights which predate construction of Friant Dam. These
contractors agreed to receive non-Friant CVP supplies in lieu of taking water directly from
the San Joaquin River, as they had done prior to construction of Friant Dam; however, if
such supplies are not available, they may take their supplies from Friant releases. In essence
these contractors entered into contracts “exchanging” their river diversion for a supply of
water from other CVP facilities, yet their priority right to San Joaquin water remains.
29 NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
Figure A-1. San Joaquin River Reaches
Surface Water Supplies: Friant Dam Releases. In January each year,
Reclamation makes a preliminary projection of how much runoff is expected in the
Millerton Lake drainage area. A formal estimate is made each February, and re-
calculated monthly throughout the spring and summer. In most years, approximately
70% of the runoff occurs in spring and early summer (April - July). Using these
projections, Reclamation decides how to “allocate” Friant water supplies. Water
releases at Friant Dam fall into several categories:
!Riparian flow releases are made to supply water to water right
holders below the dam who are not part of the Friant Division
Service Area and are not party to the Settlement. These releases
have been approximately 117 taf annually in recent years, and would
not change under the Settlement Agreement or proposed
implementing legislation.
!Flood releases may be necessary when forecast runoff is excessive
or when water inflow exceeds the capacity of the reservoir. When
additional releases above the minimum (riparian water rights
releases) need to be made, portions of the flood releases may be used
for temporary water contracts.
!Releases for diversion to canals that deliver project water to long-
term water service contractors in the Friant Division Service Area of
the CVP.
Surface Water Supplies: Friant Division Water Supplies. Twenty-
eight water districts in the Friant Division Service Area have long-term water service
contracts with Reclamation for the delivery of water stored behind Friant Dam (see
Table A-1). This water supplies approximately 1 million acres of farmland and
several cities and towns, including the City of Fresno. Water is delivered northwest
via the 36-mile Madera Canal, and south via the 152-mile Friant-Kern Canal. (See
Figure 2.) Annual deliveries are reported to average around 1,300 taf. In total,
approximately 15,000 farms are served by Friant water supplies. Friant water supply
deliveries and allocations fall into several categories:30
!Class I water, sometimes referred to as the “firm” supply,31 is the
first 800 taf of storable water (if available) in the Millerton Lake
drainage area in excess of instream rights; it is allocated to Friant
long-term water service contractors. It is delivered under contract to
districts with limited or no access to groundwater supplies, and as a
base supply to other districts. Class I supplies are insufficient to
meet the base supplies of all districts.
!Class II supplies are “supplemental” supplies. Class II water is
allocated and delivered only when Class I demands can be fully met.
Class II water often is used for irrigation supplies. In wetter years,
Class II water also is used to directly recharge groundwater supplies
through various means or used in lieu of groundwater (i.e.,
contractors use Class II surface water instead of pumping
30 Adapted from Friant Water Users Authority Briefing Book, handout entitled, About the
Friant Division, Sept. 2006, p. 2. For this appendix and to simplify comparison between
the Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006 data sets, CRS generally does not differentiate between the
allocations and deliveries. This appendix generally refers generically to water supplies.
BOR 2006 presents data on reductions in water allocations, while much of the data on
reductions presented in Steiner 2005 are in water deliveries. The differences between
allocations and deliveries are: (1) the losses in the canals (e.g., evaporation and infiltration),
and (2) not all allocated water is demanded by the water contractors (i.e., some water may
be allocated by Reclamation but is not delivered because of the lack of contractor demand,
especially in wetter years). Steiner 2005 calculated average canal losses at 63 taf (i.e., less
than 5% of average annual deliveries or allocations) and assumes that the allocated water
is demanded by the contractors. Because the allocations estimated by BOR 2006 represent
the quantity allocated before the canal losses occur, and the deliveries estimated by Steiner
2005 represent the quantity delivered after canal losses occur, the reduction estimates from
BOR 2006 may be systematically higher than the deliveries estimated in Steiner 2005, but
on average by only 5%. CRS consulted with Reclamation and others in an effort to identify
a systematic way to account for differences in Reclamation allocations and deliveries, but
no approach was identified. However, it appears that the two sets are reasonably similar.
31 Although Class I supplies are “firm” relative to other Friant supplies, they are subject to
water availability; consequently, the full contract amount may not be delivered in some
years.
groundwater when it is available), thereby meeting water demands
and partially restoring groundwater supplies.
!§ 215 “temporary” water may be made available when flood waters
must be released from Friant Dam. Under § 215 of the Reclamation
Reform Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-293), normal ownership and full cost
pricing limitations of reclamation law are waived for lands that
receive only a temporary (not to exceed one year) water supply.
Under § 215, the Secretary also is authorized to waive payments for
such supplies.
Class II and § 215 demands and deliveries are highly variable depending on
runoff quantity and timing and Reclamation operating and contracting procedures.
For example, there exists considerable financial incentive to take § 215 water in lieu
of Class II deliveries when § 215 fees are waived. When declaration of § 215 water
availability is made early in the season, many contractors reduce or sometimes forego
Class II deliveries. This complexity makes it difficult to estimate the impacts of
water supply reductions under the Settlement on Class II contractors.
Table A-1 lists the average annual Class I and Class II water supplies for the 28
Friant water districts, and the average § 215 delivery for all districts. (See bottom of
Table A-1.) Total Class I water supplies ranged from 200 taf to 800 taf between
1962 and 2003 (Steiner 2005); combined Class II and § 215 allocations ranged from
zero to 1,401 taf (BOR 2006). Average annual Class I, II, and §215 water supplies
in Table A-1 total to 1,281 taf. Table A-1 shows a Class I average of slightly less
than the full contract amount of 800 taf largely because runoff was insufficient in
drought years to allow Reclamation to fully meet Class I contracts.
Table A-1. Friant Contractor Annual Water Supply
and Supply Diversity
Avg. Est. Annual
Friant WaterNon-Friant Water Supply
ContractorsSupply (acre-feet)
Class IClass IISurface WaterGroundWater
Friant-Kern Canal
Arvin-Edison WSD37,70087,295Kern Riveryes
Delano-Earlimart ID102,54520,866noneyes
Exeter ID10,8395,322noneyes
Fresno ID21,006Kings Riveryes
Garfield WD3,299noneno
International WD1,131noneno
Ivanhoe ID7,2572,213Wutchumna Riveryes
Lewis Creek WD1,367noneno
Lindmore ID31,1036,162noneyes
Lindsay-Strathmore ID25,919Kaweah Riveryes
Lower Tule River ID57,68166,660Lower Tule Riveryes
Orange Cove ID36,946noneyes
Porterville ID15,0808,403Tule River and othersyes
Saucelito ID19,9819,187noneyes
Shafter-Wasco ID47,12511,091noneyes
Southern San Joaquin MUD91,42314,004noneyes
Stone Corral ID9,425noneyes
Tea Pot Dome WD7,069noneno
Terra Bella ID27,333noneno
Tulare ID28,27539,492Kaweah Riveryes
Madera Canal
Chowchilla WD51,83144,813Chowchilla Riveryes
Madera ID80,11352,096North Fork Willow Creekyes
San Joaquin River
Gravelly Ford WD3,921Cottonwood Creekyes
Friant Division M&I
City of Fresno56,550Kings Riveryes
City of Orange Cove1,320noneyesa
City of Lindsay2,356noneno
Fresno County Water Works 18141noneno
Madera County189North Fork Willow Creekyes
SUBTOTAL-Class I &II754,005392,531
SUBTOTAL-§ 215134,303
Sources: Columns 2 and 3 show data for the 1922-2003 period, Steiner 2005. Columns 4 and 5,
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Needs Assessment, 2004, provided to CRS
by Reclamation, July 2007; and CRS phone interviews with staff of Friant contractors July 2007.
Note: Many Friant contractors have several sources of water supply, some of which are substantial.
However, because it is difficult to get reliable information on non-federal supplies, quantities here are
unspecified. Additionally, information in this table may not reflect the entire scope of supplies
available to each district.a
Groundwater supplies are available; however, the groundwater is of insufficient quantity and quality
to contribute significantly to water supplies for municipal and industrial customers.
Other Surface Water Supplies. Many parts of the Friant Division Service
Area, particularly the southeast areas, have access to non-Friant surface water
supplies. Several other rivers and streams bisect the area, including the Kings River,
Cottonwood Creek, Johns River, Kaweah River, Tule River, Deer Creek, White
River, and Poso Creek. The Kern River terminates near the southernmost portion of
the Friant Division Service Area.
As previously noted, according to Reclamation water needs assessment data,
many (43%) of the Friant districts have access to other, non-Friant surface water
supplies, mostly from local river and stream sources.32 In most cases, local sources
are a much smaller percentage of total supplies than Friant surface water or
groundwater supplies; however, in a few cases (e.g., City of Fresno and Fresno
Irrigation District), it appears that other surface sources may supply more than 50%
of their water supply. Water imports into the service area have been relatively
modest; however, these may increase if Friant water deliveries are reduced. At the
same time, limited water availability, cost of alternate supplies, and regulatory
constraints on water transfers may restrict efforts to import water into the service
area.
Table A-1 (above) shows the diversity of water supply sources of the Friant
long-term water contractors. Columns 2 and 3 show average water supplies for the
Friant Division; columns 4 and 5 show other water supply indicators, such as whether
a district has access to other surface or groundwater supplies.
Groundwater Supplies. Drawdown of groundwater levels in the Friantth
Division Service Area as a result of pumping in the early 20 Century motivated both
Friant Dam construction in the early 1940s and efforts to reduce groundwater33
demand. Deliveries from Friant Dam reduced demands on the aquifer as Friant
water, in lieu of groundwater, was used for irrigation. Reduced pumping slowed the
rate of water table decline, but water table levels in the southern San Joaquin Valley
have not returned to pre-development elevations. Land subsidence, which occurred
as a result of groundwater pumping, slowed considerably as additional surface water
supplies became available and demand for groundwater dropped.
Facilities to pump groundwater are available throughout most of the Friant
Division. (See Table A-1.) The limited estimates of groundwater pumping that are
available indicate that water users in the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Fresno
Irrigation District, Tulare Irrigation District, Madera Irrigation District, Lower Tule
River Irrigation District, and Chowchilla Water District generally pump the largest
volumes of groundwater in the Friant Division Service Area.34 In contrast, water
users in the Garfield Water District, International Water District, Lewis Creek Water
32 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Needs Assessment, 2004.
33 Friant Water Users Authority, Friant Division Cumulative Groundwater Storage USBR
Water Supply Report & FWUA 2002 Update, Appendix A, Section 1, April 9, 2002.
34 Expert Report of Charles M. Burt, Ph.D., P.E., on Friant Service Area, Reasonableness
of Surface Water Use, Annual Gross Groundwater Pumping Requirement, and Estimated
Increased Energy Use Under the Spring Run Scenario by 2025, August 18, 2005.
District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, and Stone Corral Irrigation District typically
pump the smallest amounts of groundwater annually.35 Total volumes pumped in
the Friant Division between 1987 and 2003 range from a peak of over 2,000 taf in
Other groundwater resources have the potential to also be available for use by
Friant contractors. Groundwater banking — using dewatered aquifer space to store
water during wet years, so it can be pumped and used during dry years — is
increasingly being discussed and pursued in California. The water transport system
in the state increases the possibilities for beneficial use of groundwater banking.
Those connected to the transport system potentially could use banked groundwater
regardless of their own access to groundwater supplies. Groundwater banking, while
an opportunity, also has its costs and constraints. In California, pumping and canal
capacity and species-related operational issues may limit some groundwater banking
opportunities; further, the costs to bank and move water, or purchase banked water
may be higher than some users are willing to pay.
Contract Water Supplies Under the Settlement36
The Settlement establishes a framework for achieving both restoration and water
management goals. The viability of attaining both goals is uncertain and will depend
upon many factors. Currently, the annual volume of water diverted for off-stream
uses by Friant water contractors is a function of water availability (which depends
on precipitation, storage capacity, and flood flow management), minus the riparian
releases for water right holders below the dam. Under the Settlement, the quantity
of water available for diversion to Friant contractors would be a function of water
availability, minus the riparian releases for downstream water right holders and
releases for restoration flows.
35 Ibid.
36 In the portion of this appendix analyzing aggregate reductions to Friant water supplies,
CRS largely restricted analysis to the years 1962 to 2003, and does not distinguish between
Class II water and § 215 water. These parameters were chosen in order to use data from
both BOR 2006 and Steiner 2005, and to present the data and analysis in as consistent and
simple a format as possible. The following points explain why these parameters were
chosen. (1) 1962 is the lower time limit of the analysis because Class II water was not made
available until 1962. The absence of Class II water allocations prior to 1962 makes the BOR
2006 data from 1957 through 1961 sufficiently different from the current water allocation
protocols to warrant its exclusion. (2) 2003 was selected as the upper time limit of the
analysis because that was the last complete year in Steiner 2005. (3) BOR 2006 grouped
Class II and § 215 water; comparison of the data sets was facilitated by merging Class II and
§ 215 data from Steiner 2005. In the portions of this appendix analyzing estimated annual
reductions for individual Friant water districts, CRS used Steiner 2005 data because no
district-level data were available in BOR 2006. The longer period — 1922 to 2003 —
available in Steiner 2005 was used, since it was not necessary to shorten the period to fit
with the BOR 2006 data. Steiner 2005 contractor-level data are available for both Class I
and Class II water, but not for § 215 water. Therefore, the contractor-level analysis is
limited to Class I and Class II water.
Under the Settlement Agreement as specified in Exhibit B, paragraph 2,
Reclamation would categorize runoff conditions for each year into one of six water
year types based on runoff conditions. Wet (wettest 20% of years) and Normal-Wet
(the next wettest 30% of years) are used to define the years with above average
runoff. Normal-Dry (the next 30%) and Dry (the next 15%) capture the years with
below average runoff, but not the years with the lowest runoff (i.e., the bottom 5%).
The bottom 5% are classified into Critical High or Critical Low. Critical low are the
driest of years; those years with less than 400 taf of runoff . Critical High are all other
years with runoff in the bottom 5%. Figure A-2 provides a graphical presentation
of the relative frequency of each of the water year types. Because only one year had
a runoff of less than 400 taf in the 1922 to 2004 data set, the frequency of a Critical
Low runoff year is shown as 1% in Figure A-2.
Figure A-2. Frequency of Water Year Types
The water year type is determined by comparing the runoff predictions for the
year to past annual runoff volumes in the Millerton Lake drainage area. These runoff
categories are used to select the restoration hydrograph to be used for a given year,
which forms the basis for monthly water releases. Paragraph 13, Section j, in the
Settlement states that the Secretary of the Interior shall develop guidelines for
“procedures for determining water year types...” which may affect how the
designation of water year type is implemented.37
37 An illustration of the significance of water year classifications and the methodology for
(continued...)
Each water year type is associated with an annual restoration flow regime (i.e.,
a hydrograph) in Exhibit B of the Settlement. In other words, each year the quantity
of water to be released from Millerton Lake for restoration would be determined by
the designation of the basin’s runoff as one of the six water year types. Under the
Settlement, Reclamation would release water to achieve the target restoration flows.
Multiple hydrographs were considered during litigation; the Settlement’s
hydrographs are based on the expert testimony of G. Mathias Kondolf prepared on
behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (plaintiffs) and are often referred
to as the Kondolf hydrographs.38
The restoration flows in the Settlement are higher in wetter years and lower in
drier years. The quantity of water used for restoration flows and the quantity of water
by which Friant water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the relationship
is not necessarily one-for-one. Many of the tables and figures in this appendix depict
estimates of lower Friant water deliveries under the Settlement. The data come from
two sources that make estimates based on the water quantities required to create the
flows in the six Kondolf hydrographs: Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006.
Limitations of Water Supply Estimates and Mitigation for
Reductions. Figures A-3 and A-439 show graphically the estimated reduced annual
Friant water supplies using the Steiner 2005 and the BOR 2006 data sets,
respectively; Table A-2 provides much of the same information in a tabular format.
Both sources used historic conditions as proxies for estimating the future effect of the
Settlement.40 The two figures and the table are ordered according to annual runoff,
with 1983 having the highest runoff and 1977 the lowest in the 1962 to 2003 period.
There are limits to these data sets due to a number of factors, explained below. Thus,
37 (...continued)
the classifications can be seen when comparing BOR 2006 with Steiner 2005. There exist
four differences in the classification of water year types used by BOR 2006 and Steiner
2005 (for years in which the data sets overlap). As shown in Table A-2, Steiner 2005
classified four years in wetter water year types than BOR 2006. Classifying a year
differently may have significant implications because generally, the wetter the classification,
the more restoration releases are made. For example, in 1989 the runoff was 939 taf,
Steiner 2005 classified this runoff as Normal Dry (see Table A-2) which would lead to
restoration releases of 247 taf under the Settlement; for the same runoff, BOR 2006
classified 1989 as Dry which would lead to restoration releases of 184 taf under the
Settlement.
38 The option for a 10% buffer flow that could be used to augment the restoration base flow
established in the hydrographs was added prior to finalizing the Settlement Agreement. The
Steiner 2005 data set does not include estimates with the 10% buffer flows; the buffer flow
was added to the Settlement after Steiner’s report was completed. To take advantage of the
comparable elements of the two data sets and because the implementation of the buffer flow
remains to be determined, the analysis in this appendix does not address the 10% buffer flow
option.
39 See footnote 25 for an explanation of the 1998 data in BOR 2006.
40 The potential impact of climate change on water supplies, particularly snow pack in
California, has some observers questioning past runoff as a predictor of future runoff
quantity and timing.
ultimate impact on Friant water contractors is anticipated to be different than the
available estimates if the Settlement is implemented.
For example, the Settlement, in Paragraph 16, calls for measures to mitigate
lower Friant water supplies as restoration releases are implemented; these include
establishing a Recovered Water Account, and efforts to recirculate, recapture, and
reuse the restoration releases. The Friant Water Users Authority in February 2007
developed a report, titled San Joaquin River Restoration Program Water
Management Goal: Potential Programs & Projects, which briefly outlines numerous
projects that could be undertaken to mitigate or offset reduced water supplies.
However, no specific water management projects are identified as part of the
Settlement, nor is it clear how funding under the Settlement would be divided
between efforts to achieve the restoration goal and efforts to achieve the water
management goal. Consequently, the analysis in this appendix cannot estimate
potential savings and how these savings may reduce the magnitude of the reductions
in water supplies of the Friant water contractors.
There are additional reasons why available estimates could differ from the future
supplies of Friant water contractors operating under the Settlement. Guidelines on
how the Settlement would be implemented remain to be established and numerous
provisions in the Settlement provide for implementation flexibility. For example,
Paragraph 13, Section j of the Settlement Agreement states that the Secretary of the
Interior shall develop guidelines, including “procedures for determining and
accounting for reductions in water deliveries to Friant Division long-term
contractors...,” which will affect how Reclamation makes operational decisions at
Friant Dam, and thus allocation decisions. Both BOR 2006 and Steiner 2005 adopt
a reduction protocol (similar to the current protocol) for how to reduce contractor
water supplies to obtain water for the restoration flows. Both data sets presume
eliminating deliveries to § 215 contracts and Class II water before reducing Class I
water supplies. However, the guidelines to be established pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement could differ from the reduction protocol used by BOR 2006 and Steiner
2005. Further, districts may try to negotiate a different allocation for water supply
reductions.
Figure A-3. Estimated Friant Division Water Supply Under Settlement: Steiner 2005
(1962-2003, by decreasing runoff amount, not chronological order)
Figure A-4. Estimated Friant Division Water Supply Under Settlement: BOR 2006
(1962-2003, by decreasing runoff amount, not chronological order)
Table A-2. Annual Runoff, Year Type, Friant Water Supply, and
Estimated Reductions from Average Friant Supply
Under the Settlement, 1962-2003
Source: Data adapted from Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006. Italics indicate inconsistent
classifications.
Another example of flexibility provided in the Settlement Agreement, which
could result in contract water supplies varying from the BOR 2006 and Steiner 2005
estimates, is found in Paragraph 3 of Exhibit B of the Settlement. This paragraph
states that:
The Parties agree to transform the stair step hydrographs to more continuous
hydrographs prior to December 31, 2008 to ensure completion before the
initiation of Restoration Flows, provided that the Parties shall mutually-agree
that transforming the hydrographs will not materially impact the Restoration or
Water Management Goal.
This process may or may not materially impact Friant deliveries. The intent of the
process is to provide smooth operation of dam releases and to avoid large
fluctuations on a daily basis.
Table A-2 also illustrates the challenge of using estimates; it shows in italics
that the two data sources — Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006 — do not agree on how the
water year type classifications would be applied to historic runoff conditions. Four
discrepancies in their classifications are shown: 1989 (Dry/Normal Dry), 1993
(Normal Wet/Wet), 1999 (Normal Dry/Normal Wet), and 2003 (Normal Dry/Normal
Wet). (Footnote 12 describes the potential significance of these discrepancies.)
In summary, numerous factors (e.g., operational changes, water transfers and
acquisitions, recirculation, recapture, and reuse projects) would affect the ultimate
change experienced in diversions, water deliveries, and water availability for the
water districts in the Friant Division Service Area. Thus, estimates of water
reductions contained herein are simply estimates of the magnitude of how contract
supplies might be reduced based on best available information. Because of the lack
of available information and specific plans on possible operational changes, efforts
to mitigate reduced Friant deliveries, and the viability of offsetting reduced
deliveries, these estimates assume no change in operations and no water supply
mitigation projects.
Friant Contract Water Supplies — The Big Picture
Estimated Water Supply Reductions Under the Settlement. Table
A-3 displays average district water supplies for Class I and Class II water. The table
shows the water supply without the Settlement (which is also shown in Table A-1)
and the Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006 estimates for how much, on average, the annual
water supplies might be reduced under the Settlement. These figures are averages,
however, and do not represent the full range of reductions that might be experienced
in any given water year. The historical variation is depicted in Figures A-3 and A-4
(above). Figure A-5 uses the BOR 2006 data to show the relationship between the
volume of water released for restoration (in green) and the average annual reduction
in water deliveries to contractors (in red). The figure illustrates that the restoration
flows under the Settlement are higher in wetter years and lower in drier years. As
one can see from the figure, the quantity of water for restoration flows and the
quantity of water by which deliveries would be reduced are related, but the
relationship is not necessarily one-for-one. For instance, in some of the wettest years,
much of the restoration flows would be met by flood water releases, not reduced
deliveries. Under the Settlement, no water would be released for restoration purposes
in the driest of years.
The last column in Table A-3 provides the estimates of the average reductions
as a percentage of the average contractor’s Friant water supply (not contract amount)
— a range of 5% to 27%. These percentages represent reduction estimates only for
Friant Dam releases, not reduction as a percentage of all the water supply sources
(e.g., groundwater sources, other surface water supplies) that a district may have
available. The two previous columns in Table A-3 illustrate that a district’s average
annual reductions would largely be a function of its ratio of Class I and Class II
supplies. Districts with higher volumes of Class I water might experience less
average reductions, assuming future guidelines developed by the Secretary of the
Interior are based on the same or similar assumptions used in BOR 2006 and Steiner
Table A-3. Estimated Average Annual Reductions Average
in Friant Water Supplies
Avg. FriantAvg. ReductionReduction as %
Supply w/ow/ Settlement (af)of Avg. Supply
ContractorsSettlement (af)
Class IClass IIClass IClass IIClass IClassIITotal
Friant-Kern Canal
Arvin-Edison WSD37,70087,2951,91523,6555%27%20%
Delano-Earlimart ID102,54520,8665,2095,6545%27%9%
Exeter ID10,8395,3225511,4425%27%12%
Fresno ID21,0065,69227%27%
Garfield WD3,2991685%5%
International WD1,131575%5%
Ivanhoe ID7,2572,2133696005%27%10%
Lewis Creek WD1,367695%5%
Lindmore ID31,1036,1621,5801,6705%27%9%
Lindsay-Strathmore ID25,9191,3175%5%
Lower Tule River ID57,68166,6602,93018,0635%27%17%
Orange Cove ID36,9461,8775%5%
Porterville ID15,0808,4037662,2775%27%13%
Saucelito ID19,9819,1871,0152,4895%27%12%
Shafter-Wasco ID47,12511,0912,3943,0055%27%9%
Southern San Joaquin MUD91,42314,0044,6443,7955%27%8%
Stone Corral ID9,4254795%5%
Tea Pot Dome WD7,0693595%5%
Terra Bella ID27,3331,3885%5%
Tulare ID28,27539,4921,43610,7015%27%18%
Madera Canal
Chowchilla WD51,83844,8132,63312,1435%27%15%
Madera ID80,11352,0964,07014,1175%27%14%
San Joaquin River
Gravelly Ford WD3,9211,06327%27%
Friant Division M&I
City of Fresno56,5502,8735%5%
City of Orange Cove1,320675%5%
City of Lindsay2,3561205%5%
Fresno County WWD 1814175%5%
Madera County189105%5%
SUBTOTALS - CLASS I & II754,005392,53138,301106,3665%27%13%
SUBTOTAL - §215134,30363,39047%
TOTAL - Class I , II & §215754,005526,83438,301169,75616%
Source: Steiner 2005, 1922-2003 data.
Figure A-5. Estimated Restoration Flows and
Estimated Reductions in Friant Water Supplies
60 0
f)
500 (taWater Required for Restoration Flows
tityAvg. Annual Reduction in Friant Water
400uanSupply
r Q
30 0a te
l W
20 0n u a
n
A
10 0v g .
A
0
WetNormal-WetNormal-DryDryCritical HighCritical Low
Water Year Type
Source: Restoration flow volumes from Settlement Exhibit B; reduction estimates for 1962-2003,
BOR 2006.
Note: For clarity, this figure uses the BOR 2006 data instead of the Steiner 2005. Steiner accounts
for the distinction between runoff water year (October to September), the restoration flow year
(February to January), and the contract year (March to February). This realistic use of multiple
timeframes in the modeling produces odd results when aggregating the information for this figure.
Steiner 2005 and BOR 2006 estimates of average percentage reductions by
water year type, which are shown in Table A-2 and Figures A-3 and A-4, are more
fully discussed below. As noted earlier, these figures represent estimates based on
no changes in CVP operations or completion of other water management goals and
objectives. As such, they are likely to represent the high end of what, on average,
might be expected. As previously noted and as seen in Figures A-3 and A-4, within
each water year category, there exists substantial potential variation in the magnitude
of the reduction in contract water supply.
Figures A-6 through A-8 represent average estimated annual water supplies (in
blue) and reductions (in red) using the Steiner 2005 data for the period 1962 to 2003.
(See Footnotes 1 and 12 for an explanation of the selection of the 1962 to 2003
period.) Figure A-6 shows in graphic form by water year type the estimated annual
reduction in water deliveries under the Settlement, with the red representing the
reduction from the water supply without the Settlement and the blue representing the
quantity that would be available to contractors under the Settlement. For each water
year type, one can see the proportion of water projected to be reduced. Figure A-7
builds on Figure A-6 by displaying the proportion of Class I, Class II, and §215
supplies. Figure A-8 is a blowup of the red portion of Figures A-6 and A-7,
depicting the estimated reductions in the three types of supplies.
Figure A-6. Estimated Average Annual Friant Water Supply
Under Settlement by Water Year Type
(1962-2003; Steiner 2005)
2500f)
on (taReduction in Contract
2000tiSupplies
educClass I, Class II, and 215
RSupplies
1500l y
upp
S
1000y &
u ppl
r S
50 0a te
W
g.
0A v
WetNormal-WetNormal-DryDryCritical HighCritical LowAVERAGE
Water Year Type
Figure A-7. Estimated Average Annual Water Supply Under Settlement
by Water Year Type and Class
(1962-2003; Steiner 2005)
25 00
f)
(ta
2000ctionReduction in Contract Supplies
uSec. 215 Supplies
edClass II Supplies
1500ply RClass I Supplies
u p
S
&
10 00l y
u pp
r S
500a te
W
g.
A v
0
WetNormal-WetNormal-DryDryCritical HighCritical LowAVERAGE
Water Year Type
Figure A-8. Estimated Average Reduction in Water Supply by Water Year Type
(1962-2003; Steiner 2005)
350
300
250Sec. 215 Reduction
Class II Reduction
200ionClass I Reduction
t
150educ
Rf)
ly (ta
100upp
. S
50Avg
0
WetNormal-WetNormal-DryDryCritical HighCritical LowAVERAGE
Water Year Type
Average Annual Impact on Friant Water Supplies.
!According to available data for 1962 through 2003, annual water41
contractor supplies are estimated to be reduced, on average, 204 taf
(Steiner 2005) or 225 taf annually (BOR 2006) (see Table A-2),
which would represent between 15% and 16% of total average
annual water supplies (i.e., including temporary deliveries) for Friant
Division contractors.
Annual Impact on Friant Water Supplies by Water Year Type.
!Wet. Based on data for Wet years between 1962 and 2003, estimated
average annual reductions in contract water supplies could be 148 taf
(Steiner 2005, Figure A-8) and 176 taf (BOR 2006), which could
represent an average reduction of 8% or 9% of contractor annual
water supplies. The 1962-2003 data in Table A-2 shows that the
variation in the volume of the reduction and the significance of the
reduction as a percentage of water supply would vary for Wet years,
from 35 taf to 344 taf and from 2% to 17%. In Wet years, Class I
supplies generally would be unchanged.
!Normal-Wet. Based on data for Normal-Wet years (which have
lower runoff than Wet years) between 1962 and 2003, estimated
average annual reductions in contract water supplies could be 302 taf
41 Using a longer period from 1922 to 2003, Steiner 2005 estimated an average annual
reduction of 208 taf.
(Steiner 2005, see Figure A-8) or 320 taf (BOR 2006), which could
represent an average reduction of 18% or 19% of annual contract
water supplies. The Steiner 2005 data in Table A-2 shows that the
variation in the volume of the reduction and the significance of the
reduction as a percentage of water supply would vary for Normal-
Wet years, from 154 taf to 397 taf and from 9% to 29%. In Normal-
Wet years, Class I supplies generally would be unchanged.
.
!Normal-Dry. Based on data for Normal-Dry years between 1962 and
2003, estimated average annual reductions in contract water supplies
could be 225 taf (Steiner 2005, see Figure A-8) or 239 taf (BOR
of annual contract water supplies. The Steiner 2005 data in Table
A-2 shows that the variation in the volume of the reduction and the
significance of the reduction as a percentage of water supply would
vary for Normal-Dry years, from 85 taf to 279 taf and from 8% to
!Dry. Based on data for Dry years between 1962 and 2003, estimated
average annual reductions in contract water supplies for like years
could be 136 taf (Steiner 2005, see Figure A-8) or 181 taf (BOR
of annual contract water supplies. The Steiner 2005 data in Table A-
2 shows that the variation in the volume of the reduction and the
significance of the reduction as a percentage of water supply would
vary for Dry years, from 9 taf to 238 taf and from 2% to 33%.
!Critical High. There was only one Critical High year between 1962
and 2003 — 1976; based on the limited available data, estimated
contract water supplies reductions could be 71 taf (BOR 2006) or
or 17% of annual water supplies. In Critical High years, Class I
water might be reduced on average by 12% to 17%. Generally no
Class II water is supplied in Critical High years with or without the
restoration flows called for in the Settlement. Therefore, for Critical
High years, generally there is no expected reduction in Class II water
resulting from the Settlement. (See Figure A-8). Some Critical
High years without the Settlement could have § 215 water according
to Steiner 2005; these § 215 deliveries generally would not be made
under the Settlement. Steiner 2005 modeled 1976 to have 11 taf of
§ 215 water without the Settlement, and no § 215 water with the
Settlement.
!Critical Low. No restoration releases are to be made in Critical Low
years, thus there generally would be no changes to Friant Division
water supplies under the Settlement (see Figures A-3, A-4, and A-
To summarize, within each water year type, variation could exist in the quantity
and percent reduction in Friant Division water supplies for different contract types
(see Table A-2 and Figure A-8). It is unknown whether Reclamation would try to
(or could) limit this annual variation.
Friant Water Supplies: The Contractor-Level Picture
The analysis in this section is based on data from Steiner 2005. BOR 2006
provides no estimates of the impact of the Settlement on individual long-term
contractors. The longer data set available in Steiner 2005 allows the contractor-level
analysis to encompass a longer period — 1922 to 2003 — than much of the previous
section’s analysis. Steiner 2005 contractor-level data are available for both Class I
and Class II water. Data for §215 water at the contractor-level are not included in
Steiner 2005. Therefore, unlike the previous section, the analysis in this section is
limited to Class I and Class II water.
As noted earlier, reductions of individual contractors’ water supplies under the
Settlement depend largely on the contractor’s proportion of Class I to Class II
contracts and the water year type, which depend on the runoff in a given year.
!The average reduction for Class I contract deliveries is estimated at
(see Table A-3). The estimated average reduction for §215
deliveries is 47% (Steiner 2005).
!Many districts have both Class I and Class II contracts. Average
annual reductions in average annual Class I and Class II water
supplies are estimated at:
— 5% for the districts with only Class I contracts, representing 46%
of the contractors (i.e., 13 of the 28 districts);
— 6% to 15% for 36% of the districts (i.e., 10 of the 28);
— 16% to 20% for 11% of the districts (i.e., 3 of the 28); and
— 27% for the remaining 7% of districts (i.e., 2 of the 28, which are
Fresno ID and Gravelley Ford WD) with only Class II contracts.
(See Table A-3.)
!Under the Settlement, Class I water supplies would not be reduced
in Wet and most Normal-Wet years (see Figure A-8 for no Class I
reduction on average); that is, 800 taf generally could be delivered
to Class I contractors both currently and under the Settlement.
!Currently, Class I contracts often (but not always) are fully met in
Normal-Dry years; with the Settlement, estimates are that Class I
contracts would not be fully met in almost half (46%) of the Normal-
Dry years (Steiner 2005).
!Currently, Class I contracts generally are not fully met in Dry,
Critical High, and Critical Low years (see Figure A-7 for average
Class I deliveries below 800 taf). Under the Settlement, estimates
are that Class I water supplies would be lower in Normal Dry, Dry,
and Critical High years. (See Figure A-8.)
!The Class I deliveries in Critical Low years generally would be
unchanged by the Settlement because no restoration releases are
made.
!Under the Settlement, estimates are that Class II and §215 water
supplies would be lower in Wet, Normal-Wet, and most Normal-Dry
years, and somewhat lower in Dry years. (See Figure A-8.)
!Class II water generally is not supplied in most Dry and all Critical
High and Critical Low years (Steiner 2005); under the Settlement,
this would not change.
In Summary
The ultimate effect of increased releases for fish restoration efforts from
Millerton Lake on Friant water deliveries is difficult to predict. Using available data
(which does not account for any improvements in water management that may
dampen the Settlement’s impact on agricultural and municipal users), it appears that
annual water supplies for the Friant Division Service Area would be, on average,
15% to 16% less under the Settlement, than average supplies under current operating
protocols. Although the average reduction could be 15-16%, water supply reductions
could be as little as no reduction, to as high as 34% reduction in some years.
For three-quarters of the Friant contractors, the reductions in Friant Division
deliveries represents a reduction in one of multiple supplies. The level of reductions
experienced by individual water districts would vary depending on their water service
contracts. Existing data assumes Reclamation reduces “supplemental” water
deliveries before first priority deliveries. These data estimate average annual
reductions in the Friant Division long-term water service contract deliveries for
individual Friant water districts range to vary between 5% and 27% — the low range
being cutbacks to Class I contract supplies (46% of contractors) and the high range
applicable to those with only Class II contract supplies (7% of contractors). All
districts with supplemental Friant Division contracts (known as Class II contracts)
have groundwater or other surface water supplies.
It remains unclear to what extent water reductions might be offset by projects
and programs implemented pursuant to the Settlement, and at what cost. It is
possible that a portion of the cutbacks could be mitigated via efficiency gains, water
marketing (including voluntary sales and transfers), water pricing, groundwater
storage and banking, or new infrastructure development. However, the viability of
further improving efficiencies in the Friant Division, securing funding, and attaining
both the restoration and water management goals is uncertain and would depend on
many factors.
CRS-46
Appendix B
Table B-1. Studies of the Negative Effects of Lower Water Deliveries to Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley
UC (1996)NEA (1997)McKusick (2005)Hanemann (2005)
PurposeFuture effects of waterFuture effects of waterFuture effects of waterFuture effects of water
cutbacks from eastside SJVcutbacks from eastside SJVcutbacks from Friant cutbacks from Friant
(200 TAF annually).(200 TAF annually).(avg. 142 TAF).(avg. 142 TAF).
Crops12 crop categories (field12 crop categories (field10 crop categories (field10 crop categories (field
crops, fruit, nuts, andcrops, fruit, nuts, andcrops, fruit, nuts, andcrops, fruit, nuts, and
vegetables).vegetables).vegetables) and dairies.vegetables) and dairies.
iki/CRS-RL34237General Central Valley ProductionModified CVMP with otherFriant Division ProductionModified FDMP, with
g/wapproachModel (CVPM), groundwatergroundwater data and costs,Model (FDMP), with input-adjusted groundwater and
s.orequations, input-output model. with input-output multipliers.output model. other input data.
leak
Acreage67,200 acres (full water year)172,900 acres51,320 acres (2025)51,400 acres (no trading)
://wikiloss733,600 acres (drought year) (drought year)7,200 acres (w/trading)
http
Loss farm$41.7 million (water year)$179.8 million$159.3 million (2025)n/a
revenue$578.4 million (drought year)(drought year)
Farm costn/a$109.8 million$11.4 million (crops); n/a
increase(drought year)$2.3 million (dairies).
Profit lossavg. -0.4% (water year); n/an/aavg. -3% (no trading)
avg. -6.7% (drought yr)avg. -2% (w/ trading)
Other loss$6.2 million (water yr)n/a$85.1 million (personaln/a
(regional) $99.8 million (drought)income loss)
Affectedcotton, hay/pasture, grains,cotton, alfalfa hay, fieldcotton, vegetables, annual crops
crop acresalfalfa, field cropscrops, irrigated pasturehay/pasture, citrus
CRS-47
UC (1996)NEA (1997)McKusick (2005)Hanemann (2005)
AffectedMadera, Tulare, KernFresno, Tulare, KernKern (Arvin Edison),n/a
countiesTulare, Madera, Merced.
Benef its n/a n/a n/a >1$billion
Job losses1,229 jobs (full water year)10,420 jobs (drought year)3,210 jobs (2025)n/a
n/a = not available (usually not computed by study under review).
F” = thousand acre feet (1 acre foot equals approximately 325,900 gallons of water).
Compiled by CRS. Citations for studies reviewed:
iki/CRS-RL34237. Brown, G. Goldman, R. Howitt, and J. Siebert, Impacts of Water Reallocations on the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, University of California, December 1996; also
g/wrown, G. Goldman, R. Howitt, and J. Siebert, “The Use of IMPLAN with a Water Allocation and Production Model,” presented at the National IMPLAN Conference, Minneapolis,
s.or 1996.
leak
://wiki (1997) — Northwest Economic Associates, Analysis of the Impacts of Surface Water Reductions on the Eastern San Joaquin Valley of California, August 1997.
httpusick (2005) — Robert B. McKusick, Economic Impact of Reduced Surface Water Deliveries in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project (including a supplemental
ember 2005 report), ENTRIX Inc., September 2005.
emann (2005) — Michael Hanemann, Rebuttal Expert Report, University of California, Berkeley, 2006.
CRS-48
Table B-2. Comparison of Studies of the Negative Effects of Drought Conditions to SJV Agriculture
NEA (1993)RAND (1998)Bazdarich and Villarejo (2004)
Thornberg (2006)
PurposeHistorical effects of 1987-89Historical effects of 1987-89Historical effects of 1987-Historical effects of reduced
drought in all SJV counties.drought in Fresno and Kern91 drought in SJVwater supplies in 2001-2003
counties.(Fresno, Kern, Tulare).(westside SJV).
Cropsn/a3 crop categories (fieldAggregate regional farm3 crop categories (field
crops, fruit/nuts, vegetables).output in each county.crops, fruit/nuts, vegetables).
General Descriptive approach toCVMP and “Rationing”Econometric model ofAnalysis of acreage data,
approachassess farm revenue loss andmodels, comparing 1991 toaggregate farm output,comparing reduction in 2001-
iki/CRS-RL34237increased farm costs1987-1989 baseline.isolating drought effects.2003 to 1998-2000 baseline.
g/wAcreage172,000 acres (idle)56,000 acres to 83,000 acres,n/a42,500 fallow acres,
s.orloss33,300 acres (yield loss)compared to baseline.compared to baseline.
leak
://wikiLoss farmrevenue$157.1 million$9.8-$53.8 million, comparedto baseline.$121 million (1991)$58.7 million, compared tobaseline; plus farm closures
http
Farm costabout $259 million (groundn/an/an/a
increaseand surface water costs)
Profit lossn/an/an/an/a
Other loss$144.6n/a$155.3 million (loss)$83.2 million (including loss
(regional)to agriculture service sector)
Affectedmost field cropsmost field cropsn/afield crops, most bean crops,
crop acresprocessing tomatoes, onions,
beets, garlic, and melons
Affectedn/an/aFresno, Kern, Tulare (notn/a
countiesall statistically significant)
CRS-49
NEA (1993)RAND (1998)Bazdarich and Villarejo (2004)
Thornberg (2006)
Benefitsn/an/a$167.9 million (offsets); an/a
net gain $12.6 million
Job losses3,900 jobs (farm and region)n/an/a750 jobs
n/a = not available (usually not computed by study under review).
F” = thousand acre feet (1 acre foot equals approximately 325,900 gallons of water).
lculated by CRS based on reported farm sector losses and nonfarm sector gains for Fresno, Kern, and Tulare. 1991 estimates.
Compiled by CRS. Citations for studies reviewed:
iki/CRS-RL34237 (1993) — Northwest Economic Associates, Economic Impacts of the 1992 California Drought and Regulatory Reductions on the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Industry,ber, 1993.
g/w
s.orD (1998) — L. Dale, and L. Dixon, The Impact of Water Supply Reductions on San Joaquin Valley Agriculture During the 1986-1992 Drought, RAND Corporation, 1998, accessed
leak 15, 2007 at [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR552.pdf].
://wikich and Thornberg (2006) — Bazdarich, M., and C. Thornberg, “Benefits and Costs for California from Water Transfers,” October 2006, accessed August 15 at
http: / / www. b eaconecon.com/products/W hite_P apers/watertransfers.pdf]
o (2004) — D. Villarejo, Jobless After a Man-made Drought, prepared for the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission and the Fresno County Workforce Investment
rd, August 31, 2004.