Attachment B

DIRECTORS

COUNSELDante John Namellini

C E NTR A L D E LTA WAT E R AG E N CVDante John Non7eIIin Jr.

235 East Weber Avenue • P.O. Box 1461 • Stockton, CA 95201Phone 209/465-5883 • Fax 209/465-3956

August 3, 2010

Via email termpIandeItacouudil.c.gov

Delta Stewardship Council650 Capitol Mall, Fifth FloorSacramento, CA 95814

Re: Comments - Second Draft Interim Plan

Background

The sportfishing industry (ocean, estuary and tributaries), natural gas storage, fueltransmission line and Pacific Flyway waterfowl habitat should be included.

Declining Water Supply Reliability and Water Oualitv

This section should include an explanation that the SWP and CVP promised and the lawprovides that project diversions be limited to water which is surplus to the present and futureneeds including environmental needs of the Delta and other areas of origin. That both projectsare obligated to fully mitigate their adverse impacts and additionally provide salinity control forthe Delta. The SWP has the obligation to preserve fish and wildlife pursuant to Water Codesection 11912. The CVP has the fish and wildlife restoration obligations as per the CVPIAincluding the P.L. 102-575 section 3406(b)(l) obligation to ensure by the year 2002 naturalproduction of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams will be sustainable, on along-term basis, at levels not less than twice the average levels attained during the period of1967-1991. “Anadromous fish” means those stocks of salmon (including steethead), stripedbass, sturgeon, and American shad.” (Note: There is a separate program for the San JàaquinRiver between Friant Dam and the Mendota Pool.)

Water supply reliability has declined in major part due to the failure of the SWP todevelop as planned by the year 2000 an additional yield of 5 million acre feet per year of surpluswater from North Coast rivers to supplement Delta inflow so as to allow the delivery of the 4.25±million acre feet of SWP contract entitlement. The reliability of water supply has been furtheraggravated by the CVP addition of the San Luis Unit commitments in excess of 1 million acre

Delta Stewardship Council 2 August 3, 2010

feet per year without adding carryover storage and without a San Joaquin Valley drain with anoutlet for salts to reach the ocean. The resulting degradation of the San Joaquin River hasadditionally reduced supply due to the need for dilution and reduced opportunity for reuse andreclamation.

The SWP and CVP increased dependence on unregulated flow has resulted in violationsof water quality standards, increased salinity intrusion into Suisun Bay and the western Delta andreduced flushing flows for the Bay-Delta Estuary.

A realistic determination of the true availability of surplus water in the Delta watershed iscritical to proper planning and decision making. Present and future area of origin needs as wellas climate change and other factors need to be recognized. The planning for the CVP and SWPdid not contemplate the current reliance on unregulated flow within the Delta watershed and alsounderestimated the environmental water needs. Such planning reflects an average shortage ofnatural flow of 8 million acre feet per year over the 1927-34 dry cycle just to meet the needswithin the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Watersheds without exports. It is uncertain whetherand to what extent groundwater basins can be used to fill such shortage.

“Sea level rise” as it may affect the Delta needs to be independently and honestlyexamined. Historic in-Delta water elevation data needs to be examined to determine if in the last100 years there is a measurable increase. The low end of the predictions of seven (7) inches inthe next 100 years may in reality be zero (0). Delta levees can be raised. (Although in somelocations requiring greater effort to provide even the high prediction of fifty-five (55) inches overthe next 100 years.)

Sufficient outflow to maintain the “null zone” in Suisun Bay with variability to push thesaline intrusion farther toward the west in wetter years is the variability which sustained historicfish populations. Greater salinity intrusion into the western Delta and interior Delta is not areplication of historic conditions. The salinity intrusion in the months of August or September ofthe most critically dry years was not frequent or regularly re-occurring. Prior to the 1980’s “deal”to supply the Suisun Marsh duck clubs with water through the Montezuma Gates the Marsh wasto a great extent interconnected with the Suisun Bay and adequate water quality was providedthrough the interconnection with outflow. The Montezuma Gate supply has resulted in lessoutflow to Suisun Bay to the detriment of fish.

Declining Ecosystem Health

SWP and CVP reliance on export of unregulated flow rather than release of stored watercarried over from flood years and other periods of above normal precipitation has greatlycontributed, ifnot, caused the present crises for ecosystem health.

Delta Stewardship Council 3 August 3, 2010

Restoration focus on Pre-Gold Rush conditions in the estuary rather than Pre-SWP orPre-CVP and Pre-SWP misses the mark. Ecosystem conditions were relatively good until thelate 1960’s. This appears to coincide with the commencement of SWP exports from the Delta.

Prior to reclamation, the Delta was swamp and overflowed land. The evaporation offresh water from the swamp and overflowed land was far greater than what is consumed by thecurrent farming of the Delta. The major rivers and sloughs in the central and western Delta wereshallow in comparison to current conditions and there were hundreds of connecting sloughsrunning into and through the tule swamp. How and if such conditions were better foranadromous fish which would periodically get flushed into the swamp has not beendemonstrated. The reclamation of the swamp and overflowed lands pursuant to theencouragement of the United States under the Arkansas Act of 1850 and the resulting obligationof the State to reclaim the Delta has resulted in the current system of levees, channels anddredger cuts. Much of the organic soil of the swamp has oxidized due to burning, drainage,cultivation and wind erosion such that swampland restoration, even if arguably desirable, is notfeasible.

Diversions in the Delta impact fish to a lesser extent than the SWP and CVP pumpingplants not only because they are grossly smaller in capacity but because they divert a muchsmaller percentage of the flow from the adjoining channels and in most cases divert from nearthe bottom of the channels rather than higher in the water column preferred by sensitive fishspecies.

The Delta’s role in providing critical habitat for migratory waterfowl of the PacificFlyway should not be overlooked.

Threats to the Delta Communities and Economy

Subsidence should not be generalized. There are specific locations where subsidence is aproblem. Even on the islands in the western Delta with deepest peat soils there are areas wherethere is no remaining peat and no subsidence. In much of the Delta subsidence is not an issue.

Unreliable Storage and Conveyance

Providing salinity control for the Delta is a major purpose and obligation of both the SWPand CVP. Provision of salinity control and an adequate water supply for the Delta and otherareas of origin is promised pre-condition to the export ofwater from the Delta.

Aging of levees is typically beneficial in that consolidation of compressible foundationsoils increases with time and th further addition of soil to the levee section. Massive leveefailures during wet periods should not cause detrimental salinity intrusion into the Delta and thedifficulty in repair is greatly overstated.

Delta Stewardship Council 4 August 3, 2010

Water supply reliability to the areas dependent upon exports from the Delta is greatlydependent upon the pumping facilities and hundreds of miles of canals and pipelines most ofwhich are more vulnerable to earthquake and terrorist threats than Delta levees.

Reliability to urban areas in particular should be provided with the addition of desaltingfacilities for brackish and in some cases ocean water which could provide emergency suppliesand supplement water reclamation during other periods.

As explained previously, the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Watersheds cannot andnever were planned to supply the water needed by the SWP or the San Luis Unit addition to theCVP. Downstream and other storage can help better utilize wet period flows but due to thelength of historic six year droughts the ability to carry over sufficient amounts ofwater toprovide firm supplies in the 4th, 5th and 6th years is not possible.

Increasing Risks to People. Property and Infrastructure

Delta flood risks have in our view been overstated. There will be occasionally leveefailures however, Delta levees have been increasingly improved during and since the 1980’s.Numerous weak spots failed and were repaired and substantial efforts to mitigate the risk wereinitiated after the 1986 floods.

These comments are limited in scope and preliminary. The South Delta Water Agencyjoins in these comments.

Yours very truly,

DANTE JOHN NOMELLIMManager and Co-Counsel

DJN:ju

Attachment C

DIRECTORSGeorge Biagi, Jr.Rudy MussiEdwdrd Zuckerman

COUNSELDante John Nomellini

CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCYDanteJohnNomeIIinj,J

235 East Weber Avenue • P.O. Box 1461 • Stockton, CA 95201Phone 209/465-5883 • Fax 209/465-3956

January28, 2011

Via email de1tan1ansconingde1tacouncil.ca.gov

Ms. Terry MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council980 Ninth Street, Suite 1500Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Notice of PreparationDraft Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Plan

Dear Ms. Macauley:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following comments:

Project Objectives

To develop a plan to achieve the “Coequal goals” of “providing a more reliable watersupply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem” it isnecessary to include an evaluation and recognition of the limited availability ofwater in the Deltawatershed. CEQA allows a baseline which reflects current conditions. The SWRCB for D-1641and CALFED for its Record of Decision used levels of exports in their baselines which areunsustainable. The result of course was an environmental document which did not appropriatelyreflect the unmitigated impacts to the enviromnent and inflated the projected availability ofwater.

Surplus Water from the Delta Watershed Is Not Sufficient To Sustain Desfred Levels ofExports

The planning for the State Water Project did not anticipate that the project would beoperated after the year 2000 without five (5) million acre feet per year of supplemental waterfrom North Coast watersheds. Attached hereto are the title page and excerpts from DWR’sDecember 1960 Bulletin 76 report to the Legislature on the Delta Water Facilities. A completecopy of the Bulletin 76 report is being forwarded by separate email. The enlargements andhighlights are mine. Exhibit A is the title page. Exhibit B is page 13 where it is shown thatreduction in natural inflow due to upstream development and build-up in exports require theimportation of the 5,000,000 acre feet from the north coast. Exhibit C is a blowup of the graph

Ms. Terry MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council 2 January 28, 2011

from page 13. It shows the expected increase in demand and timing of the planned imports fromthe North Coastal Projects. Exhibit D is a blowup of the graph from page 11 which shows thetiming and specific projects included in the plan. None of the North Coast Projects wereconstructed due in major part to wild at scenic river legislation and rejection of the Dos Riosproject.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of the hydrographs from page 116 of the WeberFoundation Studies titled “An Approach To A California Public Works Plan” submitted to theCalifornia Legislature on January 28, 1960. The highlights and margin notes are mine. Exhibit Fincludes pages 113 through 118 of the Weber Foundation Studies which explains the State WaterPlan source of the data and adjustments.

The 1928/29-1933/34 six year drought period reflected on Exhibit E shows the averageyearly runoff is 17.631 million acre feet with local requirements of 25.690 million acre feet.There is a shortage during the drought period within the Delta Watershed of 8.049 million acrefeet per year without any exports. It is questionable whether the groundwater basins can besuccessfully mined to meet the shortage within the watershed let alone the export demands. Acomparable review of the hydrograph for the North Coast area reflects that surplus water couldbe developed.

The hydrology supporting the State Water Project planning explains why the developmentof the North Coast Projects was deemed necessary to sustain the SWP exports. Currentunimpaired flow determinations by DWR which are set forth in Exhibit G show an even greatershortage for the 1929-1934 drought in that the average unimpaired flow is only 13.12 millionacre feet, not 17.631 million acre feet as used in the SWP planning. Exhibii G also reflects thatfor the 1987-1992 six year drought the average unimpaired flow was even lower, i.e., 12.71 vs.13.12 million acre feet.

In addition to the lack of precipitation in the Delta watershed to meet local and exportneeds are the environmental needs. Water is needed for mitigation ofproject impacts and theaffirmative obligations for salinity control and fish restoration.

The planning for the SWP and CVP underestimated the needs to protect fish both as toflow requirements and carryover storage required for temperature control. In 2009 after only two(2) dry years, the SWP and CVP violated the February outflow requirements claiming thatmeeting the outflow requirements would reduce storage below the point necessary to meet coldwater requirements for salmon later in the year. Although they lied and the real reason for theviolation was the ongoing pumping of the natural flow to help fill San Luis Reservoir, theincident clearly shows the inability of the projects to provide surplus water for export in the 4th5th and 6th years of a six-year drought. There is evidence that droughts longer than six years arepossible.

Ms. Terry MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council 3 January 28, 2011

Reliability of Water Supply Also Applies to the Water Needs Within the Delta and OtherAreas of Origin.

In addressing the reliability of water supply for the purpose of export from the Delta, itmust be recognized that the exports are limited to water which is truly surplus to the present andfuture needs of the Delta and other areas of origin and the affirmative obligations of the projectsincluding provision of salinity control, an adequate water supply for the Delta and restoration offish.

The cornerstones to the export of water from the Delta by the SWP and CVP are thepromises and law that exports are limited to such surplus water.

Exhibit H includes the October 12, 1948, promise from Secretary of the Interior Krug that“There is no intent on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation ever to divert from the SacramentoValley a single acre foot ofwater which might be used in the valley now or later.” Exhibit I is acopy of Water Code section 11460 which codified the promises and made it clear that theapplication would be to the “watershed or area wherein water originates, or an area immediatelyadjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom.” Exhibit 3 includesthe sections related to WC 11460. Not included is WC 11128 which applies WC 11460 and WC11463 to any agency of the State or Federal Government undertaking construction or operation ofthe projects. Exhibit K is a copy of WC 11207 which provides that “Salinity control in theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta” is a primary purpose of Shasta Dam. Exhibit L is a copy of the1960 ballot argument in favor of the California Water Resources Development Bond Act whichspawned the State Water Project. Ofparticular note are the following representations:

“No area will be deprived of water to meet the needs of another nor will any area be asked to payfor water delivered to another.”

“Under this Act the water rights ofNorthern California will remain securely protected.”

“A much needed drainage system and water supply will be provided in the San Joaquin Valley.”

Exhibit M contains copies of Water Code sections 12200 through 12205 commonlyreferred to as the “Delta Protection Act.” These sections added by Statutes of 1959 confirm theprojects obligations to provide salinity control and an adequate water supply for the Delta.

WC 12204 provides that “In determining the availability of water for export from theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta no water shall be exported which is necessary to meet therequirements of Sections 12202 and 12203 of this chapter.” The requirements are salinity controland an adequate water supply. Exhibit N which is a copy of page 12 of the above-referencedBulletin 76 interprets the Delta Protection Act.

Ms. Teriy MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council 4 January 28, 2011

“Tn 1959 the State Legislature directed that water shall not be diverted from the Delta foruse elsewhere unless adequate supplies for the Delta are first provided.”

As related to the Peripheral Canal or Tunnels or any other isolated conveyance facility,the requirements of WC 12205 are particularly relevant.

“It is the policy of the State that the operation and management of releases from storageinto the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ofwater for use outside the area in which such wateroriginates shall be integrated to the maximum extent possible to permit fulfillment of theobjectives of this part.” The objectives include salinity control and an adequate water supply.Conveyance facilities which transport stored water to the export pumps with no outlets orreleases to provide salinity control and an adequate water supply in the Delta would not comply.

The export projects must fully mitigate their respective impacts. Failure to require suchfull mitigation is a shift of the cost of the project to someone else. The State Water ResourcesDevelopment Bond Act was intended to preclude such a shift in costs. See also Goodman v.Riverside (1993) 140 Cal.App.3d 900 at 906 for the requirement that the costs of the entireproject be paid by the contractors. Water Code section 11912 requires that the costs necessaryfor the preservation of fish and wildlife be charged to the contractors. The term “preservation”appears to be broader than mitigation and appears to create an affirmative obligation beyondmitigation.

Title 34 of Public Law 102-575 referred to as the Central Valley Project ImprovementAct in section 3406(b)(l) authorizes and directs the Secretary of Interior to enact and implement aprogram which makes all reasonable efforts to ensure by the year 2002 natural production ofanadromous fish (including salmon, steelhead, striped bass, sturgeon and American shad) will besustainable on a long term basis at levels not less thantwice the average levels attained duringthe period of 1967-1991.

Reliability of water supply for exports from the Delta should include a clear confimiationof the types and numbers of years when no water will be available for export and provideestimates of the amounts that might be available in other years. Care should be taken to modelcarryover storage with due consideration of temperature, flow and area of origin requirements todetermine the firm yield available for export.

Protecting. Restoring and Enhancing the Delta Ecosystem Should Not Be Focused OnConditions Prior To Reclamation of the Delta.

The Delta Swamp and Overflowed Lands were fully reclaimed by about 1925. SeeExhibit 0 from said above-referenced Bulletin 76. Due to subsidence of peat soils fromoxidation, erosion, compaction and other causes, much of the land is below sea level and if

Ms. Terry MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council 5 January 28, 2011

levees are breached or removed would become a waterbody with some riparian vegetation. Sucha condition would on average evaporate or consume much more water than present uses. SeeExhibit P.

Fish species in the Delta appeared to be doing well until the increase in SWP operationsin the early and mid 1970’s. See Exhibits Q, R, S and T. The CVPIA focus is on averages for1967-1991. The most dramatic decline in fish species is more recent and includes the periodfrom about 2000 to the present. The plight of the fisheries was recognized back when the stripedbass index was recognized as the indicator for the environmental health of the Bay-Delta estuary.In 1978 the SWRCB found that “To provide full mitigation ofproject impacts on all fish speciesnow would require the virtual shutting down of the project export pumps.” See Exhibit U. TheSWRCB also found that protection of Suisun Marsh would require an additional two (2) millionacre feet of fresh water flow in dry and critical years. See Exhibit V. Exports were not shutdown and the two (2) million acre feet was not provided for the Suisun Marsh. See Exhibit W.

Tn 1987 a review was made by Luna Leopold of the Rozengurt, Herz and Feld 1987Analysis of the influence of water withdrawals on runoff to the Delta-San Francisco Bayecosystem (192 1-1983): Paul F. Romberg Tiburon Center For Environmental Studies, Tech.Rept. No. 87-7. The review reflected that use of the “Four River Index” rather than the totalrunoff into the Delta distorted the planning of the SWP and CVP and concluded that it wasimperative to preclude any additional diversions of water from the Delta system. See Exhibit X.I will provide by separate email copies of the referenced analysis.

Additional Comments

The secondary planning area should include all of the southern portion of the State thatcould be potentially served with water from the Delta on the Colorado River, the interrelationshipof the supply from the Colorado River to demands for exports from the Delta should not beignored. The restructuring of water rights, measuring and reporting of surface and ground waterand making water use inefficiency the equivalent of waste and unreasonable use are all toolswhich we believe will be used to destroy the water rights in the Delta and other areas of origin.Protection of such rights is critical to protection of the Bay-Delta watershed. The cost andexpense of producing data which is of limited value is unjustified. Water use in the watershedsof origin is not wasteful in that flow into the Delta and into the usable underground is benificial.Transfers outside of the watersheds of origin should be the focus of concern. The cornerstone ofprotection of the Delta is limiting exports to water which is truly surplus to the present and futureneeds of the Delta and other areas of origin including environmental needs. The SWP and CVPmust not only mitigate their impacts in the Delta, upstream of the Delta (spawning habitat, coldwater, etc.) and restore the San Joaquin River both as to fish and, drainage from the CVP serviceareas on the west side, but must meet their affirmative obligations; to provide salinity control andan adequate water supply for the Delta; restore the natural production of anadromous fish

Ms. Terry MacauleyDelta Stewardship Council 6 January 28, 2011

(including salmon, striped bass, sturgeon, etc.) to twice the 1967-1991 levels as required by theCVPIA and integrate to the maximum extent possible all releases from storage for export toprovide an adequate water supply and salinity control for the Delta (WC 12205). We opposeisolated conveyance and support maintaining the common Delta Pool. We support selfsufficiency and reduction in reliance on the Delta. Delta levees should be improved with asufficiently funded locally managed levee program with a robust emergency response capability.South Delta permanent agricultural barriers should be installed with low lift pumps or theequivalent to provide adequate water quality and water levels. Channel improvements withdredging/setbacks in the south delta in the areas where export pumping greatly impacts waterlevels/sedimentation and in the north and south forks of the Mokelumne and the connections tothe Delta cross channel should be evaluated. Features of the Delta corridors proposal and fishscreens at the cross channel and export facilities should be evaluated. Operational control of theSWP and CVP should be given to an independent watemiaster who is directed to and wants toprotect the Bay-Delta watershed. Delta outflows should be restored with interconnections toSuisun Marsh. A determination should be made as to the present and future water needsincluding environmental needs within the Delta and other areas of origin and what water andunder what conditions water is truly surplus arid available for export. Restoration ofhabitatshould be directed at the post reclamation condition with particular emphasis on outflow and theSuisun marsh. The Delta economy should not be destroyed to mitigate for export projectimpacts. Exports must be restrained to avoid such impacts. Without the 5 million acre feet ofwater per year that the SWP was supposed to develop from the north coast region by the year2000 the water supply planned for export by the SWP does not exist. Similarly the water supplyfor the San Luis Unit was not supported by new development of yield. Planting ofpermanentcrops dependent upon surplus water should be at the risk of those planting and the allocation ofexport water should be insulated from political management. Improvement of Paradise Cut withan intake farther upstream, channel improvements, and some levee setbacks should be evaluated.A diversion point west of the Delta should be evaluated. We oppose the BDCP proposedconversion of agricultural land to habitat and instead urge enhancement of the habitat of the in-channel berms and afready flooded islands and cuts. Diversion and or spreading of flood waterupstream of the Delta to recharge groundwater basins and provide flood control appears to havepromise.

Your very truly

DANTE JOHN NOMELLIN, SR.Manager and Counsel

ST

AT

EO

FC

AL

IFO

RN

IA5T

AT

CW

CL

AR

Ft(

AV

QN

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

WA

TE

RR

ESO

UR

CE

S. S

.nm

•).I

W.

-i.’

-P

jfrj

sh.

noliI

nm

m‘,-

nt

Df)lo

ofW

trIN

Lw

)J’k

.fr

c&

te?l

itL

,.orn’

mo•

cfg?

..rc

nw

iiw

-j.o

’pr’

’rl*1t.

iii,

r’th

i.of

‘‘f3

or

on’y

iOln

-th

,li.

n1p

?on

i‘a

nl*

ri

ofco!,

>3.e

w3

-k’c

do

•s.a

kd

frcove

purc

o,*

.b

nto

e4

B-

,.r,i

’hn

po,t

fyin

4fl

.Ii.

ott

ue

ino

ts4qw

qp

h1l

.II.

wf:

b.

rn.otl

odop

444o

-fl

‘o

n4o

i,t

on

fudR

1od.f

ictv

nl-

4sf.

dby

I”c’i

nnP

ti,

RE

PO

RT

TO

TH

EC

AU

FO

RN

IAS

TA

TE

LE

GIS

LA

TU

RE

ON

TH

E

DELT

AW

ATER

FACI

L1TI

ES4

4:.

ASAN

INTE

GRAL

FEAT

URE

OF

THE

STAT

EW

ATER

RESO

URCE

SDE

VELO

PMEN

TSY

STEM

ED

MU

ND

C.

BR

OW

N

_______

HA

RV

EY

0.

BA

NK

SG

over

nor

Dir

ccto

r

Dece

mbe

r,19

60

EX

HIB

ITA

EX

HIB

ITB

B0

60

The

natu

ral

avai

labi

lity

ofgo

odqu

alit

yw

ater

inth

eD

elta

isdi

rect

lyre

late

dto

the

amou

ntof

surp

lus

wat

erw

hich

flow

sN

AT

UR

AL

toth

eoc

ean.

The

grap

hto

the

righ

tin

dica

tes

the

hist

oric

and

EFF

EC

Ts

oc

UP

ST

qEA

Msort

QU

AU

TY

eT

SIN

PAN

1IO

F.

..

OE

PL

ET

IOI4

SC

HW

RID

ES

PE

RU

IU.I

ON

proj

ecte

dav

aila

bilit

yof

wat

erin

the

San

Joaq

umR

iver

atA

nti-

EX

POR

TS

PAR

TS

OF

WA

T(R

och

cont

aini

ngle

ssth

an35

0an

d1,

000

part

sch

lori

des

per

mill

ion

part

sw

ater

,un

der

long

-ter

mav

erag

eru

noff

and

wit

hout

spec

ific

rele

ases

for

salin

ityco

ntro

l.It

may

beno

ted

that

even

unde

rna

tura

lco

nditi

ons,

befo

rean

ysi

gnif

ican

t ups

trea

mw

ater

deve

lop

men

ts,

ther

ew

asa

defi

cien

cyof

wat

ersu

ppli

esw

ithi

nth

esp

eci

fled

quah

tylu

nirs

fts

antic

ipat

edth

at,

wit

hout

salin

ityco

ntro

lre

leas

es, u

pstr

eam

depl

etio

nsby

the

year

2020

will

have

redu

ced

the

avai

labi

lity

ofw

ater

cont

aini

ngle

ssth

an1,

000

ppm

chlo

ride

sby

abou

t60

perc

ent,

and

that

expo

rts

will

have

caus

edan

addi

tiona

l30

perc

ent

redu

ctio

n

I— iIW

PG

*1S

FR

OM

NO

RTH

COA

STA

LP

R0Jf

C1i—

I..(_

AV

ER

ASE

NA

TU

RM

.D

ELTA

INF

LO

W—

...,

-

isao

ooo

Solo

DEL

TAW

ATE

RQ

UA

LITY

WIT

HO

UT

SAL

INIT

YC

ON

TR

OL

40

SO 0NA

UB

AL

1I5

00

EN

POR

TI

TOSO

UT

HE

RN

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

SO-

eco

e*v

aaa

5140

0

DE

LlA

AW

DA

REA

S

NA

TURA

L16

0019

2019

401*

9010

80

USE

OF

DEL

TAW

ATE

RS

UP

PL

IES

1680I

2000

The

mag

nitu

deof

the

past

and

antic

ipat

edfu

turç

uses

ofw

ater

inar

eas

trib

utar

yto

the

Del

ta,

exce

ptth

eT

ular

eL

ake

Bas

in,

isin

dica

ted

inth

edi

agra

mto

the

left

.It

may

beno

ted

that

,w

hile

the

pres

ent u

Pstr

eam

use

acco

unts

for

redu

ctio

nof

natu

ral

infl

owto

the

Del

taby

alm

ost

25pe

rcen

t,up

stre

amde

velo

pmen

tdur

ing

the

next

60ye

ars

will

depl

ete

the

infl

owby

anad

ditio

nal

20pe

rcen

t.B

yth

atda

teab

out

22pe

rcen

tof

the

natu

ral

wat

ersu

pply

reac

hing

the

Del

taw

illbe

expo

rted

toar

eas

ofde

fici

ency

bylo

cal,

stat

e,an

dfe

dera

l pro

ject

s.In

addi

tion,

econ

omic

aldev

elop

men

tof

wat

ersu

pplie

sw

illne

cess

itate

impo

rtat

ion

ofab

out

5,00

0,00

0ac

re-f

eetf

wat

erse

ason

ally

toth

eD

elta

from

nort

hco

asta

lst

ream

sfo

rtr

ansf

erto

area

sof

defi

cien

cy.

E>

FO

Ifl

TO

SQ

UT

HE

PN

CA

LIF

OR

P.IA

—

a—

—t’*.,a...

—

EX

PQ

ITS

TS

*NJO

UIW

‘LL

EY

:c4

NT

PJJ_

VL

LE

YI’J&

T8T

AT

WA

TP

RcI

LIT

IL

Id

I II i

EX

PR

DB

TO

SAN

FR

AN

CIC

QI

AIA

.Nb

CO

AS

TA

LA

RE

JI

0L

TA

AN

DI

IPF

ST

EE

AM

LJS

EI

II

SI

II

Ia

I—

‘—

II

II

I--

I9Q

QF

ZO

2000

2020

US

EO

FD

EL

TA

WA

TE

RS

UP

PL

IES

VE

RA

GN

AT

uft

L,

OE

LT

.

IMO

RT

SF

RQ

bI4

NrI-

QA

T

——

——

—

-J z I— w UI

aIQ

I’4.

ãTU

PA

L

EX

HIB

ITC

e—

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

—

KL

.AM

AT

HR

IVE

RN

O.

I

1

TR

INÔ

lYR

IV

ER

NO

2

-

1

5—

——

——

——

——

I

4-----

IV

•

2U7’JZ

II

I

-

I—

-—

--—

—.—

-—

______

____ —

.--,-—

____r—

.’r.

w—

_’_

_i,

-—

I—

—w

pg_

t*7it

e•P

0—

——

—-.

....L

.—

——

——

_.L

_.L

_-,

—_.__

*960

1970

1980

1990

2000

20*0

2020

WA

TE

RS

OU

RC

ES

AN

DU

SE

S

EX

HIB

ITD

iir

—IrT

...

_

—

.—

—-

a

•

[II

‘1

§II.a•4

I

4.’

(40NO

(4II

*

2

2IC

2

474

C

IrnA

.rn

II,.,44

1917-Il

‘SI’.’,

191920

112011

192213

192314

I924

1925‘26

126-21

1127•l

1121•291129-30

130-31

193112

a(113314

03415

I9,3S-3

111111

“59-39

1,41-47

042-43

194344

194415

046-47

__

I

EEEffTF

124-95

‘9,7-I,

1118-19

99-20

02*21

1921-22

1922-23

192314

192425

1125-26

*926-27

1927-Il

‘921-29

192150

1950-51

1931-32

t932-331933-34

l934-

1$1939-37

‘957-3,

1939-40

1940-41

1941-42

1942-43

1943-44

04445

945-46

‘S4647

11

_____

ii

-ii—

LIj—

LUI—.-

iL,_j_t’

1r—II

___

Ift

I’‘I

m‘a

In0

‘aIn

l.00zrz

C20II•1I

9-Lc 4lII

Ii

4I7

I—4

ItOI-II

I(4*IA0•W-

—1a

4Q

‘2

*

20 a‘U)

w

140

‘.40z

-I

I4

2a4I

‘‘I

1

-

j.11

III

Ip

.‘ Bsie premises and basic data are a prerequisite tony sound planning program. In order that the plannu’g be practical and usable, the premises must behstic and acceptable and the data must be factual.For these reasons a detailed discussion of premisesand basic data is included in this report.

I . planning cannot arise above the levels establishedI the premises. If they are limited, so is the plan‘. niag. If they are false or erroneous, so is the plan

ning. if they are vague, or in conflict with each other,coxitra1y to important facts, then the planning

based upon these assumptions is indefinite, confusedand. without certain goal. It is not easy to choose andformulate basic premises for studies such as these.

The basic premises are not self-evident. They mustbe searched for. They have evolved as the, result ofmuch research and exploration. They have withstoodthe erosion of countless tests. As stated here they arebelieved to be genuinely basic and completely sound.

PREMISE ONE

ALL OF THE WATER RESOURCES AVAILABLE TOTHE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD ‘ EVENTUALLY BE DEVELOPED BY AND EQUITABLYDISTRIBUTED FOR THE USE OF THE PEOPLEOF CALIFORNIAThis premise is of prime importance. It colors,

hunts and conditions all valid thinking regardingwater resource development. Its ac3ceptance invalidatesat once much of the “project planning” which hasheretofore been accepted as proper. It also estabhahes a standard by which all water developmentprojects and all segments of projects must be tested.

When this premise is accepted, any project mustbe rejected which develops a water resource for thebenefit of a segment of the population to the detriment or neglect of another portion of the population.Also projects must be rejected which are wasteful ofWater in that a more beneficial (economic) use of theWater could be made at some other place. Also rejected are projects which apply a water resource toa present use which will prevent its utilization at some..uture date for a much more important use.

The acceptance of this premise requires that everyuse to which any project is put be evaluated in termsof maximum benefit to the whole population, andsince the distribution of water limits the distributionof population, water project planning and populationplanning (land use) must be co-ordinated. The planning agency must be concerned with the ultimate economic return to be derived from each acre-foot ofwater.

We will run out of available water resources inCalifornia before we run out of land suitable for irrigation. There is ultimately no overall state surplus ofwater. A continually expanding population will, intime, bring us face to face with a very real shortageof fresh water.

Where is California’s Water Supply?The basic premise that all of the water resources

of California must be developed requires that thesearch for available water supplies be realistic andfactual. All the existing information and data regarding water supplies must be critically studied and reviewed. New data must be collected. It is only withinthe past few years that anyone has attempted to formulate a “water balance sheet” for the State of California. The first such “water balance sheet” to bepublished appears as Table 3-5 in the State WaterPlan (1956 edition).

The figures in this Table 3-5 propose that there is anexportable surplus of 21.22 million acre-feet of waterin the north coastal area of California, and in theSacramento River basin, which can be transported tovarious water deficient areas in the State.

Critical analysis of the data in Table 3-5 indicatesthat the figures given for “mean runoff” and “safeyield” are too large to be used as a basis for planning the complete development of California’s waterresources. The “mean runoff” figures as used in thistable are derived by finding the average runoff for aperiod of 53 years (1894-1947).

Tables and bar graphs of the estimated natural runoff of principal streams of the north coastal area andof the Central Valley follow.

SECTION V

BASIC PREMISES

IMPORTANCE OF BASIC PREMISES

(113)

EXHIBIT F(g, p4.5,$

TABLE III

ESTIMATED SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF1917-18 TO 1946-47

FROM NORTH COAST AREA(Klcimotli R near Requa, less Kiamath R. at ICena, Eel R. at Scotia, Van

Duzen R. at Bridgevlil., Mad R. at Sweasy Dam, Russian R. atGuerneville)

The Central Valley Area has been subdivided intothree parts:

1. Sacramento Valley above Sacramento.2. The northerly part of the San Joaquin Valley,

including the Tuolimme River Basin and all ofthe area to the north of it, to the SacramentoValley.

3. The remaining portion of the San Joaquin Valley, to the south of the Tuoltunne River Basin.

In each of these subdivisions the estimated runoffis divided into two parts. Part “one” includes therunoff of the streams estimated in Table 62. of “Bulletin No. 1, Water Resources of California, 1951.”

Part “two” includes the remainder of the runoff ineach subdivision of the Central Valley. The mean seasonal runoff therefor is derived from the quantitiesgiven in Table 61 of Bulletin No. 1, for the periodextending from 1894-95 to 194647. As an approximation of the runoff for each season, the seasonal distribution is assumed to roughly correspond to that of

a stream basin selected from Table No. 62, BuJ.IetinNo. 1, in each subdivision of the Central Valley. Byreason of the small runoff per square mile, from theseareas, as compared to that from the selected streambasin, the resulting quantities will tend to be toosmall for wet years and too large for dry years. How.ever, it is believed that the error will not be relativelysignificant for overall quantities. In the SacramentoValley, the runoff of Stony Creek, above canyonmouth, was selected; in the northerly part of the SanJoaquin Valley, the runoff of Calaveras River, atJenny Lind, was used; and in the southerly part ofthe San Joaquin Valley the runoff of Tule Riverabove Porterville was used as a criterion for seasonaldistribution.

In the Sacramento Valley, part “one “ includes therunoff of: Sacramento River near Red Bluff; FeatherRiver at Oroville; Yuba River at Smartaville; BearRiver at Wheatland; American River at Fair Oaks;Stony Creek above canyon mouth; Cache Creek nearCapay; and Putah Creek near Winters.

In the northerly part of the San Joaquin Valley,part “one” includes the runoff of: Tuolumne Rivernear La Grange; Stanislaus River near KnightsFerry; Calaveras River at Jenny Lind; MokelumneRiver near Clements; and Cosumnes River at Michigan Bar.

In the southerly part of the San Joaquin Valley,part “one” includes the runoff of: Kern River nearBakersfield; Tule River above Porterville; KaweahRiver near Three Rivers; Kings River at Piedra; SanJoaquin River above Friant; Fresno River near flaulton; Chowehilla River at Buchanan ))amsite; andMerced River at Exchequer.

The foregoing graphs indicate that the 1894-1947period contains a 17-year dry period (1917-1934).when the average natural runoff was only 72.3 percentin the north coastal area, and 71.0 percent in the Central Valley of the Department of Water Resources53-year average for these areas. Also these graphsshOw that during this 17-year dry period there occurred six years of extreme drought (1928-1934), asmany Californians can recall. During this six.yeardrought period the natural runoff in the CentralValley was only 52.2 percent of the average for the1894-1947 period. In the north coastal area the average dropped to 58.7 percent of the 53-year average. Ii’the single dry season of 1923-24, the runoff fell to126.6 percent of the 53.year average for the CentralValley, and 22.7 percent in the north coast.

For the purpose of these studies it is more realistifto base the water development planning on the watersupply which would be available to California in a 11-year dry period containing a series of drought yearSsuch as occurred in the period from 1917 to 198Such dry periods are inevitable. Neither the time of

114 WEBER FOUNDATION STUDIES

(In thousands of acre-feet)ea.en

Oct. 1-Hept. SO1917-18

-191919-20

-21-22-23-24

1924-25-26-27-28-29 —

1929-30

-82-33

6 year mean (1929-34)11’ year mean (1917-34 )

9,55118,521

6,78227,18113,6729,9804,272

23,03312,62425,49617,0979,133

12,4406,651

13,84314,1509,365

10,93013,70017,02118,73713,59837,32610,60723,62827,30224,18122,451

9,38516,83422,10910,36819,50416,240

18,820

-36-37-38-39

1939-40-il —

42

-44_1944-45

-46-47

13 year mean (1985-47 )30 year mean (191747) -

53 year mean (1894-47)As ised by Department ot Water Reaources

Oat. JSept.

1917

191

1924

192a

6--r.L192

17 71(191

1934

1931

494

I13 y(193

307(191

3y(13

iheiare1whi

Th€

05Upcperby

I

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

TABLE IV

ESTIMATED SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF, 1917-18 TO 1946-47FROM CENTRAL VALLEY AREA

(In thouic,nd of acre-feet)(Subdivisions)

2tscranento Va1esj N. Ban Joaquin VaiZey

115

B. Ban Jou4uin VaUey Total

Oct. 1 Part Part Part Pert Part PortRepS. 30 “one” “two” “one” “two” “two”

1917-18 1,080 3,258 307 4,609 171 20,848-19 16,832 2,130 3,070 141 4,176 254 26,603

1919-20 9,444 820 2,811 120 4,584 874 17,953-21 4,018 4,789 322 5,292 304 40,303-22 18,380 1,479 5,476 819 7,687 469 33,828-23 14,361 990 4,245 262 5,351 345 25,554-24 5,837 405 1,877 34 1,444 83 9,680

1924-25 17,674 2,348 4,550 230 4,681 306 29,789-26 — 13.012 1,412 2,317 95 8,517 166 20,519-27 26,381 3,610 4,943 262 6,707 444) 42,343-28 18,419 1,945 3,560 189 3,589 174 37,868-g 8,s 688 1,994 59 2,875 186 14,665

1929-30 14,616 1,306 2,579 96 2,935 156 21,668-31 6,292 458 1,198 2(1 1,559 67 9,587-32 14,016 856 4,684 201 6,884 442 27,08333 9,335 640 2,277 47 3,685 269 16,253

g, 785 1,744 88 2,148 74 14,100

)letj.

thebreaeto(Ho[iv

rnyoSa

r, aJrt c’lRivé

?S thatliéBea

nea

alle4RiveLigl

fich

allev:near

wealsSan

Daub,andi

-1947L934reentCen.uree-aphe oe:), a-yeantrar theavers,e. lall to,;ntr

listicjvaterarears[934.ie of

I

6-yr. mean(1929-1934) .10,899 788 2,412 84 8,848 199 17,230

17 yr. mean(1917-34) 1,458 3,256 164 4,219 251 23,484

1934-35 2,049 4,617 217 5,853 802 31,054-36 .._J.8,91’B 1,905 5,320 415 6,578 540 33,781-37 l4453 1,386 4,551 336 8,256 949 29,931-38 6,208 7,979 540 12,219 1,110 63,573.39 8,511 508 2,001 47 8,297 274 14,638

193940 -_ 24,912 9,143 5,801 302 6,486 650 40,794-41 31,517 7,030 ‘5,378 294 9,256 758 54,233-42 28,255 3,349 5,625 290 7,205 449 45,173-43 22,862 2,079 6,011 400 7,837 1,105 40,900.44 11,090 577 2,787 114 4,276 345 19,139

1944-46 1,274 4,780 222 7,129 640 80,028-46 18,908 1,737 4,363 170 6,735 314 81,277-47 11,014 710 2,349 71 3,647 185 17,976

13 yr. mean(1934-47) 20,0Q4 2,459 4,689 263 6,752 586 34,750

30 yr. mean(1917-47) 1,891 3,877 207 5,317 396 28,377

58 yr. mean (Aa used by Department of Water Resourcea)(1894-1947) , 2,591 4,468 288 6,044 456

their coming nor their duration is predictable. Theyare, however, facts which we must face and withwhich we must live.

The Wafer Supply “Balance Sheet”The following Table V repeats the form and figures

in State Water Plan Table 3-5. For comparison purposes new figures are shown in parenthesis ( ) basedupon the water supply available during a 17-year dzyperiod. (It is assumed that this,dry period is precededby at least three wet years and that all reservoirs

developed for year to year carry-over storage arefilled, at the beginning of the dry period.) Also, arestudy has been made of water requirements for allareas of the State.

These adjusted figures reveal an overall averageannual deficiency of water in California of 6.22 million acre-feet during a 17-year dry period. The sheetcan be made to balance by reducing the seasonal waterrequirements of all areas by 12.7 percent, or to nearlybalance by eliminating exports to the Lahontan area.(See notes following table.)

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING 117

TABLE V

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF WATER(Million Aae.Feet)

Figures is parenthesis—Mjusted to 17-year mean and restudy of seasonal r.qufremens.other figures—State Water Plan Table 3-5—Bulletin No. 3—May 1956.

Present rights for SeasonalSeasonal Seasonal defieleney

water surplus to be metflydrographic area Mean runoff Sale yield Import Export requirements for export by import Notes

OOABTALNorthCoataI 28.89 13.69 2.10 11.59 fl

(20.40) (18.10) (3.00) (10.10)

SanFranclacoBay 1.25 .53 .67 3.51 2.31 #2(.90) (.40) (.67) (3.30) (2,23)

Central Coastal—Monterey County South toVentura County 2.45 1.17 2.36 1.19 #3

(1.80) (1.00) (2.46) (1.46)

South Coastel—Loe Angeles County to SanDiegoCounty 1.23 1.15 1.58 2.87

(.90) (.80) (1.53) (5.55) (3.22)

NThAL VALLEYSacramento ElverBasin 22.39 18.44 7.72 9.63 #5

(15.60) (15.00) (9,00) (8.00)

Ban Joaquin and TulareRiver Basins 11.25 9.08 .67 16.31 7.90(7.90) (‘7.50) (.67) (16.60) (9.86)

LARONTANArea North of Mono Basin.. 1.84 .31 1.33 1.02

(1.80) (.81) (.31) (00)

MonoBasinandAreaSouth 1.33 .83 .82 5.40 4.84 #7(1.00) (.70) (.32) (4.02) (3.64)

Colorado Deeei-t .22 .08 4.15 5.62 1.39(.13) (.07) (4.15) (4.23) (.00)

CaEfornia’a Right to Colorado River Water. 5.36 5.36(5.36) (5.86)

lisquireonenta for works in Delta and Losses InTransport and Storage .* #3

(1.90)

Totals 70.85 50.84 6.35 6.85 50.62 21.22 21.52(49.98) (44.24) (6.35) (6.35) (50.46) (18.10) (20.41) #9

Average Anns1 Deficiency (.. .22)

Operation of Delta Worki only.

Notes on Wafer Supply “Balance Sheet”NOTE 1—The adjusted estimates are based on the 17-dry-

year (1917-1934) runoff of north coastal watersheds and are72.3 percent of the figure used by State Water Plan authoritlea.The adjusted yield, however, is only slightly less. The StateWater Plan figure of 2.1 million acre-feet for north coastal useis considered to be too low in the light of probable futureIndustrial developments in the north coastal area. A total useof S.0 million acre-feet of water appears to be a more realisticfigure. ThIs leaves a 10.1 mfflion acre-feet seasonal surplus forexport, which is only 87 percent of the amount estimated inthe State Water Plan. Even this amount is probably largerthan can be practically transported into the Central Valley.

Ncxrz 2—In the San Francisco Bay area the adjusted estimate based on the 17-dry-year period reduces the safe annualyield from local sources to 0.4 million acre-feet. Restudy of theulti ate seasonal requirements results no a figure of 3.3 mIllionacre-feet. The San Francisco Bay area now Imports 0.67 million acre-feet of water from the San Joaqujn Basin. (See NoteNo. 6.)

NoTE 3—The adjusted estimate based on the 17-dry-yearperiod Indicates that the safe annual yield in the central coastal

area is 1.0 million acre-feet of water. Restudy of the ultimateseasonal water requirement indicates that this area can utilize2.46 million acre-feet

NoTE 4—The south coastal area, which has an estimated ultimate annual water requirement of 5.5 mIllion acre-feet, wouldhave, during a 17-dry-year period, a safe annual yield of only0.8 million acre-feet. This area now has import rights amounting to 1.53 million acre-feet. (0.32 xn.a.f. from Mono and Owensbasins and 121 m.a.f. from the. Colorado River.) It must,therefore, import. 322 million acre-feet from some northernsource to meet it ultimate requirements.

Nora 5—Based upon the 53-year period (1894-1947) themean annual runoff in the Sacramento River Basin area i22.39 million acre-feet During the 17-dry-year period (118-1937) the average annual runoff is reduced to 15.6 mIllion acre-feet The safe annual yield Is estimated at 15.0 millIon acre-feetThe seasonal water requirements as estimated In the StateWater Plan are too low for a dry period. New acreage cominginto production is allotted less than two acre-feet per annum.Restudy of the ultimate water requirements of the SacramentoRiver Basin area indicates that 9,0 millIon acr-feet of waterper year would be needed to meet annual requirements duringsuch a 17-year dry period.

I

4

118 WEBER FOUNDATION STUDIES

Notes on Wafer Supply “Balance Sheef”—ConfinuedThe seasonal surplus available for export is 6.0 million acre-

feet of water, which is less than that required to meet defidencesin the San Joaquin and Tulare Basins.

Noun 6—Average runoff in the San Joaquin and Tulare Basinareas based on the 17-dry-year period (1917-1934) Ia estimatedat 7.58 million acre-feet, 10.1 percent of the 58-year (1894-1947)state total average annual runoff. The safe annual yield is estimated at 7.5 million acre-feet, and the seasonal water requirement is 16.89 million acre-feet. This area, which is thus deficientby 9.19 millIon acre-feet, exports 0.67 m.a.f. to the San FranciscoBay area, increasing Its total deficiency to 9.86 million acre-feetof water.

Considering the great Central Valley as one unit, the averageannual safe yield for the 17-dry-year period (1917-1934) is22.5 million acre-feet, and the combined ultimate water requirements are 25.69 million acre-feet. Consequently, during a 17-dry-year period such as 1917-1934, this area would suffer an averageannual water deficiency of 3.19 million acre-feet, or else. wouldrequire additloeal usable suviace and underground storage capacity of 3.19 X 17 = 54.2 million acre-feet plus about 10 percentfor carryover and transportation losses. This additional storedcapacity would have to be full at the beginning of the 17-yeardry period.

Norn 7—The problem of water for the desert areas of California is a very special one. The estimates of seasonal requirements in the desert areas are based on the available arabic landand not upon studies of economic yield per acre-foot of water.The State Water Plan (Bulletin No. 3) estimates that theseasonal water requirements for the irrigation of irrigable areasare 12.35 million acre-feet A restudy which discards landswhich obviously can be served with water only at the expenseof more productive lands reduces this seasonal requirement to9.58 million acre-feet. More critical studies should reduce thefigure even further. Water resources in the desert areas are.estimated at 5.23 million acre-feet. This includes an estimatedsafe yield of 1.08 million acre-feet, and a water right of 4.15million acre-feet from the Colorado River. These areas are nowprobably richer in water resources than any comparable desertareas on the face of the earth.

The average annual water deficiency of the desert areas asrevised for the 17-dry-year period (1917-1934) is estimated at4.18 mfflion acre-feet This is 66.8 percent of the average annualdeficiency for the entire State. (See Note No. 9.)

Nor’s 8—The State Water Plan (Bulletin No. 3) estimatesthat 0.72 million acre-feet of water is required for the operationof works in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. No allowanceis made fo losses in the storage and transportation of water.(An earlier version of Table 3-5 made an allowance of 1.74million acre-feet for the above combined uses.)

The Weber Foundation studies indicate that 1.90 millionacre-feet per annum must be allotted for the operation of Deltaworks and for losses in the transportation of water.

Noun 9—The State Water Plan “balance sheet” balances;that is, safe seasonal yield equals seasonal water requirements,and seasonal surplus for export equals seasonal deficiencies to bemet by import. The water supply figures adjusted to the 17-dry-year period (1917-1934) and the restudied seasonal requirementsdo not balance but indicate that during a 17-dry-year periodCalifornia would suffer an average annual deficiency of 6.22million acre-feet. The figures can be made to balance by reducing the seasonal water requirements of the various areas by 12.7percent or by having supplemental volume of more than 105million acre-feet of stored water supply at the beginning of sucha Critical period.

If the technical, financial, legal and political problems can besolved, a large part of such storage volume could be providedby ground water basin storage. Same potential surface reservoirsites, such as a Greater Monticello Reservoir and a Great KernCanyon Reservoir, could provide about 20 percent of thatvolume, and thereby make it possible to greatly extend theground water replenishment periods, and thereby increase thetotal input during wet periods.

PREMISE TWOTHE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF SPECIFIC

PROJECTS ESSENTIAL TO THE ULTIMATEDEVELOPMENT OF OUR WATER RESOURCESMUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THETOTAL DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCESPreliminary studies of proposed water development

projects are required to determine (1) The “engineering feasibility” (practicability) of the project, and(2) The “economic feasibility” (ratio between costand return) of the project. Inasmuch as the art of theeconomist is less “scientific” in its approach to thesolution of its feasibility problems than is the art ofthe engineer, much of the controversy regarding project feasibility arises in the economic field.

Many proposed water development projects, whichupon investigation prove to be feasible from an engineering standpoint, are judged to be (at a specifictime and place) “economically unfeasible” because nodefinite future value can be assigned to the necessity(demand) for water.

As population gains, and water development inCalifornia proceeds, and undeveloped water resourcesbecome scarce or more remote, then the limits of economic fea.sibiity approach the limits of engineeringfeasibility.

Water is a necessity. Ultimately the demand forwater will, exceed the natural usable supply and the“value” which can be placed upon water will be sumdent to justify as economically feasible any projectwhich is judged to be feasible or practical from anengineering standpoint.

Thus, in these studies, any water development project essential to the ultimate total water developmentplan, which is feasible from an engineering standpoint, is considered to be ultimately economically feasible. Studies of economic feasibility, separate from engineering feasibility, are important only in determining priorities for the specific projects in the totalwater development program.

Economic feasibility studies in the development ofCalifornia water resources rest heavily upon the“values” which are and which in the future will beplaced upon water development “byproducts” suchas power, sh production,. recreation, and navigation,and upon such special water expenditures as floodwastes and salt and organic pollution control.

Economic necessity wifi in the future engendermany technological advances which will extend thelimits of engineering feasibility. We will (it is sincerely hoped) solve some of the perplexing problemsinherent in the subsurface storage of water supplies.Certainly we will learn how to construct larger andlonger tunnels at lesser costs than prevail today. Wemay find ways to reduce loss of water by evaporationfrom storage reservoir surfaces. Our new understand-

jig ofitiad t

eöjildCal

4*ATEd STE

OTI

‘tar.develolasd t

aidereirrespwaterarea, i

xedevelohomeof ‘theaiidinion irmanspass”:North•writeaôres)tóthe

k. Con

come:(1)

“ (2)

(3)

\X

rt

Yea

rW

ater

Yea

rS

umW

ater

Yea

r Avea

ge

1929

11.2

4

1930

16.7

719

317.

7619

3219

.75

1933

12.2

819

3410

.1

1976

10.1

7

1977

6i7

1987

11.3

519

8811

.71

1989

18.3

819

9011

.72

1991

11.6

4

19.9

211

.45

20.0

712

.79

2008

13.7

1

EX

HIB

ITG

/

OO

ctober

J..,

]_91

-i-8

,S

ear

te.z

-y-

c±

the

Iterior

Kr,.

x,

ina.

pii

b2

..ic

sp

ecch

a.-

tO

ro

vil3

e,

ata-ted

:“L

et

me

sta.t,

c]ea.r

Ly

a.n

id±

inaJ_

1y-.

,th

e

In

terio

r-

Deax-trn

en

tis

±-1

1y

ana

co

nrp

1.e

-te

]y

tte.i

to

the

poL

icy-

-th

at

no

-w

ate

r‘w

hic

his

need

ed

in

the

Se.c

z-a

men

-to

Vall

ey

-w

121

be

sen

to

tit.

of

it.”

He

1c:

r.i

.Litent

on

thai

art.

;cf

rh

a.i

c-

arr.tS

.czn

vr

..

l’vrt

1r.

:’r.

tr.-

pa..

.i

a—

—--

of

WU

’!Z

L

in

th

Ley

“w

or

Late

r-.”

(taZ

t’

.-

7Z

)&

:1.9

).

On

Novem

ber

1.5

,2

.94

9,

Reg

ion

a.J

...D

ix

ecto

xK

ich

a.r

dL

.B

o1ce

r-ee.Z

tO

.

these

me.i

r.

po

licy-

ateteu

jan

-ta

an

ö.

siprni

zecI

them

in

aletter

‘to

Co

€r-

ea

Cl.

a.i

rg

le,

tin

g“W

ebeie-v-e

th

efcx

-eg

oin

gis

asi.

=e.x

y-

of

the

ma±

n

po1.i

cy-

sta

tezn

erzts

by

-G

o’rerrim

en

-t

officials

on

th

esb

3ect

of

iz-ta.t

ion

of

Secre.m

.e-to

va.L

ey

‘w

ate

r-to

the

San

Jo

a.a

izi

Val.ey.”

(S

ta.f

±9,

p.

79

9&

SB

I1.A

:19

)-

N

I’99

0at

pages

70

aid

71

EX

HIB

ITH

§11

460.

PrI

orri

ght

tow

ater

shed

wat

erIn

the

const

ruct

ion

and

oper

atio

nby

the

dep

artm

ent

ofan

ypr

ojec

tun

der

the

prov

isio

nsof

this

part

aw

ater

shed

orar

eaw

here

inw

ater

orig

inat

es,o

ran

area

imm

edia

tely

adja

cent

ther

eto

whi

chca

nco

nven

ient

lybe

supp

lied

with

wat

erth

eref

rom

,sh

all

not

bede

priv

edby

the

depa

rtm

ent

dire

ctly

or

ind

irec

tly

ofth

epr

ior

righ

tto

all

ofth

ew

ater

reas

onab

lyre

quir

edto

adeq

uate

lysu

pply

the

bene

fici

alne

eds

ofth

ew

ater

shed

,ar

ea,

oran

yof

the

inha

bita

nts

orpr

oper

tyow

ners

ther

ein.

(Add

edby

Stat

s.194

3,c.

370,

p.18

96.

Am

ende

dby

Stat

s.195

7,c.

1932

,p.

3410

,§

296.

)

EX

HIB

ITI

*1

14

53

WA

TE

RC

OD

E

are

full

yredeem

ed

and

paid

.(A

dd

ed

by

Sta

tr1943,

c.370,p.

1896.)

*11454.

Rate

san

dcharg

es;

eeza;

jfl4

miIlIea..

Slo

epro

vis

ions

Under

su

ch

reg

ula

tien

sand

up

on

su

ch

term

s,

lim

its

tionS

,and

condit

ions

as

itpre

seri

bes,

the

dep

art

men

tm

ay

do

any

of

the

foll

ow

ing:

(a)

Fix

and

esta

bli

sh

the

pri

ces,

rate

s,

and

charg

es

at

whic

hth

ere

so

urc

es

an

dfa

cil

itie

sm

ade

av

ail

ab

leby

the

pro

ject

shall

be

sold

an

ddis

posed

of.

(b)(

1)

Ente

rin

toco

ntr

acts

an

dagre

em

ents

and

do

any

and

all

thin

gs

wh

ich

Init

sju

dgm

en

tax

enecessaly

,convenie

nt,

or

ex

ped

ien

tfo

rth

eacco

mp

liah

men

tof

the

purp

oses

an

dobje

cts

of

this

part

.

(2’)

Th

eco

ntr

acts

and

agre

em

ents

may

Inclu

de

provi

sio

ns

for

the

lnd

em

riI

ad

on

of

part

ies

wit

hw

ho

mth

edepart

ment

Contr

acts

as

necessaty

toaccom

pli

sh

the

purp

oses

and

obje

cts

of

this

pert

,ex

cep

tth

at

the

con

tracts

and

ecinents

may

not

inclu

de

pro

vis

ion

sfu

rth

ein

dem

nit

)o

n,

inclu

din

gin

dem

nif

icati

on

for

any

costs

of

defe

nse,of

any

part

yto

tho

se

contr

acts

or

agre

em

ents

for

that

part

y’s

acts

or

orn

iasi

oru

.in

vo

lvin

gn

eg

lig

en

ce.

gro

ssn

eg

lig

en

ce,

reck

lessn

ess,

or

wil

lful

mis

conduct

or

for

acts

or

om

issio

ns

inv

olv

ing

negli

gence,

gro

ssn

eg

lig

en

ce.

reck

lessn

ess,

or

wil

lfu

lm

iscon

du

ct

on

the

part

of

that

part

y’s

em

plo

yees,

agents

,o

rcontr

acto

rs

(3)

The

Legis

latu

refi

nd

sand

decla

res

that

the

am

end

meri

tsm

ad

eto

this

su

bd

ivis

ion

duri

ng

the

19

97

port

ion

of

the

19

97

—9

8R

egula

rS

ess

ion

are

decis

rato

zy

of

mis

ting

law

.(A

dd

ed

by

Sta

ts1943,

c374

F-

1896.

Am

en

ded

by

Sta

ts.1957,

c.1

93

2;

p.3

41

0,

5293:

S%

aVs.

19

9Z

c.566

(B

.54

3),

51,

eff

Sept.

29.

19

9Z

)

*1

14

55

..R

evenue

requir

em

ents

-

The

depart

ment

shall

en

ter

Into

su

ch

contr

acts

and

fix

and

esta

bli

sh

su

ch

pri

ces,

rate

s,

and

charg

es

so

as

at

all

tim

es

topro

vid

ere

ven

ue

wh

ich

wil

laff

ord

suff

icie

nt

funds

top

ay

all

co

sts

ofopera

tion

and

main

tenance

of

the

wo

rks

au

tho

rized

by

this

part

,to

geth

er

wit

hnecessary

rep

air

san

dre

pla

cezn

en

tth

ere

to,

and

whic

hw

ill

pro

vid

eat

all

tim

ea

suff

icie

nt

funds

for

redem

pti

on

of

all

bonds

an

dpaym

ent

of

inte

rest

there

on,

as

and

wh

en

su

ch

costs

and

charg

es

beco

me

due

and

payable

.by

1943,

c.3

70

,p.

18

96

.A

mended

by

Sta

ls.1

957,

c1

93

.2,

p.3

41

0,

52

94

.)

AR

TIC

LE

3.

L.T

h4IT

AT

ION

OF

PO

WE

RS

11

46

0.

Pri

or

rig

ht

tow

ate

rsh

ed

wate

r.1

14

61

.P

urc

hase

ofw

ate

rshed

wate

rri

ghts

.1

14

.62

.O

ead

cn

of

new

pro

pert

yri

ghts

.1

14

63

.P

’hange

ofw

ate

rshed

wate

r.11464.

Co

vcy

an

ce

of

property

.1146i.

Revis

ion

of

ch

arg

es.est

abli

shed

byvou.

26

2

11

46

0.

Prio

rrig

ht

tow

ate

rsh

ed

wate

rIn

the

co

nstr

ucti

on

and

op

era

tio

nby

the

departm

entof

any

pro

ject

under

the

pro

vis

ion

so

fth

ispert

aw

ate

rshed

or

are

aw

here

inw

ate

rori

gin

ate

s,

or

an

are

aim

med

iate

lyadja

cent

there

tow

hic

hcan

co

itvenie

ntl

yb

esuppli

ed

wit

hw

ate

rth

ere

from

,sh

all

not

be

depri

ved

by

the

depart

ment

dir

ectl

yo

rIn

dir

ectl

yo

fth

epri

or

rig

ht

toall

of

the

wate

rre

asonably

requir

ed

toadequate

lysu

pply

the

benefi

cia

lneeds

of

the

wqre

rshed

,are

a,or

any

of

the

inh

abit

ants

or

pro

pert

yo

vecx

sth

ere

in.

(Ad

ded

by

Sra

ts.1

943,

c.3

70

,p

1896.

Anended

by

Sra

ss.1

95

7.

c.193

2,

p.3

4.1

45

296.)

-11461.

Pu

rrb

ase

ofw

ate

rshed

wate

rri

gh

tsIn

no

oth

er

way

than

by

purc

hase

or

oth

erw

ise

apro

vid

ed

Inth

ispert

shall

wate

rri

ghts

of

aw

ate

rsh

ect

are

a,

or

the

mhahjtts

be

impair

ed

or

curt

ail

ed

by

the

depart

ment,

bu

tth

epro

vis

ions

of

this

art

icle

shall

be

str

ictl

yli

mit

ed

toth

eacts

ari

dp

roceed

ing

so

fth

ed

ep

art

men

t.as

such,

ari

dshall

no

tapply

toany

pers

ons

or

sta

teag

enci

es.

(A

’.d

by

SE

aLr.

194

3,

c.370,

p.

1896.

Am

en

ded

by

Sta

fs.1

957,

c.1

932,p

.34

10,1

29Z

)

•11462.

Cread

on

of

nuw

pro

pert

yrig

hts

The

pro

vis

ions

of

this

art

icle

sh

all

no

tbe

so

constr

ued

as

toer

cate

any

new

pro

pert

yri

ghts

oth

er

than

again

st

the

depart

ment

as

pro

vid

ed

inth

ispart

or

tore

qu

ire

the

depart

ment

tofu

rnis

hto

any

pers

on

wit

hout

ad

eq

uate

co

mp

en

sati

on

there

for

any

wate

rm

ade

av

ail

able

by

the

co

nstr

ucti

on

of

any

wo

rks

by

the

depart

mcnt.

(Ad

ded

by

Ssa

ts.1

943,

c3

7O

p.

1896.

Am

end

ed

by

Str

4t5

.1957

,C

.19

32,p

.3

410,j

29

8)

--

*11463.

ofw

ate

rshed

wate

rIn

the

constr

ucti

on

and

op

era

tion

br

the

depart

ment

of

any

pro

ject

un

der

the

pro

vis

ions

of

this

part

,no

exch

an

ge

of

the

wate

ro

fany

wate

rshed

or

are

afo

rth

ew

ate

ro

fany

oth

er

wate

rshed

or

are

am

ay

be

mad

eby

the

depart

ment

un

less

the

wate

rre

qu

irem

en

tso

fth

e-w

ate

rshed

or

are

ain

wh

ich

theh

ng

eis

made

are

firs

tand

at

all

tim

es

mes

and

sati

sfi

ed

toth

eexte

nt

that

the

req

uir

em

ents

would

hav

ebeen

met

were

the

exchange

no

tm

ad

e,

and

no

right

toth

euse

of

wate

rsh

all

be

gain

ed

or

lost

by

reason

of

an

ysu

ch

exchange.

(Ad

ded

Z’

SS

ats

..1943,

c.370,

p.

1896.

Am

ended

by

Sea

ts..

19

57

,c.

19

32;p.

342

2,

52

99

.)

*11464.

Conveyance

ofp

rop

ert

yN

aw

ate

rri

ght.

reserv

oir

,cond

uit

,or

facil

ity

for

the

gen

era

tio

n,

pro

du

cti

on

,tr

an

sm

issio

n,

or

dis

trib

uti

on

of

ele

ctr

icpow

er,

acquir

ed

by-

the

dcpart

mcnt

shall

ever

be

sold

,gra

nte

d,

or

co

nv

ey

ed

by

the

depart

ment

soth

at

the

dep

art

men

tth

ere

by

isdiv

este

do

fth

eti

tle

toand

ow

ners

hip

of

it.

(Ad

ded

by

Sra

n.1

943,

c.3

70

,p

.2896..

Am

en

ded

by

Sta

ts. 1

95

7,

c.293

2,p.

3412.

13

00.)

*11465.

Rev

isIo

nof

charg

es,

esta

bli

shed

by

co

ntr

act

Th

edepsrtm

ent

sh

all

no

tm

ake

any

ch

an

ge,

alt

era

tion,

or

rvis

ino

of’

any

rate

s,

pri

ces,

or

ch

arg

es

esta

bli

sh

ed

by

any

contr

act

ente

red

into

purs

uan

tto

this

part

except

as

EX

HIB

ITJ

1’lI 141

II

‘£

§. 11207 ThImaE,T PUrPOSCS,

the foijoig purposes:(a) Impràvement of navigation

River to Red Bluff.(b) Increasing fl6äd protctiàn

Valley.(c) Salinity controJ in the

Delta.

Shasta Earn:: ha1I be cbistructed and=used primarily for

On the Sacrmeiito

n the Sacramento

Sacramento-San Joaquin

(d) Storage and stabilization of the water supply of theSacramento River for irrigation and domestic use. (Added by Stats.1943, c. 370, p. 1896.)

EXHIBIT K

Title THE CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BOND ACTYear/Election 1960 generalProposition bond (leg)pePopular vote Yes: 3,008,328 (51.5%); No 2,834,384 (485%)Pass/Fail PassSummary This act provides for a bond issue of one billion, seven hundred fifty million

dollars ($1,750,000,000) to be used by the Department of Water Resources for thedevelopment ofthe water resources of the State.

For Argument in Favor of California Water Resources Development Bond Act

Your vote on this measure will decide whether California will continue to prosper.

This Act, if approved, wiU launch the statewide water development programwhich will meet present and future demands ofall areas of California.ITbe program willnot be a burden on tbe taxpayer; no new state taxes are mvolved the bonds are repaidkoin t,roiiLcct revenues. though the sale ofw rod power. In other words, it wiayIfoiiitsclfUTbe bonds will be used over a period ofrunny years and will involve anapproximate ngnnI expenditure averaging only $75 million, as compared, for e,camplewith $600 million a year we spend on highways.

Existing facilities for furnishing witer for California’s needs will soon beexhausted because of our rapid population growth and industrial and agriculturalexpansion. We now ce a further critical loss in the Colorado River supply. Without theprojects made possible by this Act, we face a major water crisis. We can stand no moredelay.

Itwe fail to act to provide new sources ci water, land devuløpment in thegreat San Joaquin ViIley will siow to a halt by 1965 and the return of cultivated areas towasteland will begin. In southern California, the existing sources fwater wbici havenourished its tremendous expansion will reach capacity by 1970 and furtherdevelopment must wholly cease. In northern Califorma desperately needed flood controland water supplier for many local areas will be 1cnied.

This Act will assure construction fluids for new water development facilities tomeet Calirnia’s requirements now and in the future.l No area will be deprived ofweto meet the needs of another. INOt will any area be asked to pay tor water deltverd toanother.

To meet questions which concerned, southern California, the bonds will financecompletion ofall facilities needed, as described in the Act. Contracts for delivery ofwater may not be altered by the Legislature. The tap will be open, and no amount ofpolitical maneuvering can shut it off.

Under this Act the rater rights ci northern California will rernRhl securelyprotected.. In addition sufficient money is provided for construction of local projects tomeet the pressing nc.eds for flood control, recreation and water dclwer as in the noilh.

A much needed drainage system and water suppy will be provided in the SanJoaqaiu Valley.

Construction here authorized will provide thousands ofjobs. And the program willnourish tremendous industrial and fann and urban expansion which will develop anever-growing source of employment and economic prosperity for Ca]ifomian.

Our Legislature has appropriated millions of dollars for work in preparation, andconstruction is now underway. It would be tragic ifthis impressive start toward solutionof our water problems were now abandoned.

If we il to act znw to insure completion of this constructive program, seriousexisting water shorages will only get worse. The success of ow State is at stake. Vote“Yç’ for water for people. for progr, frutasj,erity1

EXHIBIT L

Di IIIIa

ipHi 4.,.‘

p

IIIII

ii

UTi

II

IIII

12

Del

taP

-rob

le

-

T/ c

-“.—

.

-—T

’/

•/.

-——

/..,

--

)-:

:;-•

.:.

V

—-.

..1

-,-.\

‘,

-I,

-*

-—_•i

‘“\

•‘

‘.w

.q

..

-•

I—

S

-<1’

-/

/

-.-

.2-

I•41

-,.

•/‘“

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

SAL

INIT

YIN

CU

RSI

ON

‘•

1920-1

960

Salin

ityin

curs

ion

into

the

Del

tare

sults

from

the

floo

ding

and

ebbi

ngof

ocea

ntid

esth

roug

hth

eSa

nFr

anci

sco

Bay

and

Del

tasy

stem

duri

ngpe

riod

sw

hen

the

fres

hw

ater

outf

low

from

the

DeL

tais

insu

ffic

ient

tore

pel

the

salin

ew

ater

.T

hena

tura

lfr

esh

wat

erou

tflo

wfr

omth

eC

entr

alV

alle

yw

ashi

stor

ical

lyin

ade

quat

eto

repe

lsa

linity

duri

ngsu

mm

erm

onth

sof

som

eye

ars.

The

firs

tkn

own

reco

rdof

salin

ityen

croa

chm

ent

into

the

Del

taw

asre

port

edby

Cm

dr.

Rin

ggol

d,U

.S.

Nav

y,in

Aug

ust

1841

,w

hose

part

yfo

und

the

wat

erat

the

site

ofth

epr

esen

tci

tyof

Ant

ioch

very

brac

kish

and

unfi

tfo

rdr

inki

ng.

Sinc

eth

attim

e,an

dpa

rtic

ular

lyaf

ter

the

turn

ofth

ece

ntur

y,w

ith

expa

ndin

gup

stre

amw

ater

use

salin

ityin

curs

ion

has

beco

me

anin

crea

sing

lygr

eate

rpr

oble

min

Del

taw

ater

supp

lies.

The

max

imum

reco

rded

exte

ntof

salin

ityin

curs

ion

happ

ened

in19

31,

whe

noc

ean

salts

reac

hed

Sto

ckto

n.Si

nce

1944

exte

nsiv

ein

curs

ion

has

been

repu

lsed

muc

hof

the

tune

byfr

esh

wat

erre

leas

esfr

omC

entr

alV

alle

yP

roje

ctst

orag

ein

Shas

taan

dFo

lsom

Res

ervo

irs.

Wit

hout

such

rele

ases

,sa

line

wat

erw

ould

have

spre

adth

roug

hab

out

90pe

rcen

tof

the

Del

tach

anne

lsin

1955

and

1959

.A

ltho

ugh

up

stre

amus

esm

ight

not

have

reac

hed

pres

ent

leve

lsin

the

abse

nce

ofth

eC

entr

alV

alle

yP

roje

ct,

salin

itypr

oble

ms

wou

ldst

illha

vebe

enve

ryse

riou

sdu

ring

mos

tye

ars.

Fur

ther

incr

ease

inw

ater

use

inar

eas

trib

utar

yto

the

Del

taw

illw

orse

nth

esa

linity

incu

rsio

npr

oble

man

dco

mpl

icat

eth

eal

read

yco

mpl

exw

ater

righ

tssi

tuat

ion.

To

mai

ntai

nan

dex

pand

the

econ

omy

of

the

Del

ta,

itw

illbe

nece

ssar

yto

prov

ide

anad

equa

tesu

pply

ofgo

odqu

alit

yw

ater

and

prot

ect

the

land

sfr

omth

eef

fect

sof

salin

ityin

curs

ion.

InV

S9th

Si•

eL

git

’re

wm

”-1

nt

heJir

tcd

/rir

nSc

D’f

ra;)

rrs

:w

nrc

‘nks

s.d

iqii

csi

tptl

en

ith

eD

e.x

efi

rrpr

ovid

.’J

EX

HIB

ITN

salin

ityin

curs

ion

and

wat

ersu

pplie

s

___

___

—

II

II

‘I

II

II

Ii

II

Ij

II

I

II

II

II

1I

II

II

II

iiI

jI

Il/I

3L__4_..__..4.___).___....

4_.__

1j_

_

II

I

IIT

QT

AL

I/

II

IvA

I.U

AT

ION

-.I

II

II

II/

YA

LUA

TIO

I.

-___

4_--

__4_

__-4

.74-—

—-

4—--H

II

II

LH

PI

Ii

II

II

II

—I

I0 m

ID‘1

002000

20

20

PRO

JEC

TE

DA

SSE

SSE

DV

AL

UA

TIO

NS

WIT

HIN

TH

EW

EST

ER

ND

ELTA

STU

DY

AR

EA

EX

HIB

IT0

Seve

ral

tow

nsan

dci

rics

arc

loca

tcd

in

the

upla

ndar

eas

and

7”

anin

dust

rial

com

plex

isex

pand

ing

intb

Del

ta.

Ear

lyindustrial

deve

lopm

ent

CC

flt

1-.:D

kind

red

prod

ucts

,st

eci

prod

ucti

on.

fibr

cb.:‘‘

budd

ing

activ

ityL

arge

wat

er-u

sing

rnd

Red

lrn’

tTh

Com

plet

epa

per

prod

ucts

,an

dch

emic

als,

have

dcv

-.

-

area

whe

rew

er,

rail,

and

high

way

tran

spor

tatio

n,co

uple

dw

ithw

ater

supp

lies,

has

stim

ulat

edgr

owth

.T

hem

anuf

actu

nng

empl

oym

ent

inth

isar

eaw

as

abou

t10

,000

peop

lein

1960

—-

rU

1T

IA

CC

VO

.OE

NT

=;‘

OE

dAII

PLA

IID

L(A

OO

VZ

ElE

VA

TIO

N5

FU

T)

WII

fWA

Yt

*110

-vI

mE

Vtl

.OP

EO

LA

ID

•,4

11

——

I

I*L

TA

L0W

.’N

0S,

AG

RIC

UIT

UJI

EII

l.O

WE

LE

VA

TIO

N0

FEE

T)

II

II

II

II

I I

1560

000

1140

1100

1020

TR

EN

DS

INL

AN

DU

SE

Ade

ep-d

raft

ship

chan

nel

serv

ing

com

mer

cial

and

mil

itar

yin

stal

latio

nste

rmin

ates

at

Stoc

kton

,an

dan

othe

ris

bein

gcon

stru

cted

toSa

cram

ento

.W

ater

-bor

nesh

ipm

ents

inth

eD

elta

amou

nted

to

abou

t 6,0

00,0

00to

nsan

nual

lyin

recent

years..

The

Del

taen

com

pass

esone

of

Cal

ifor

nia’

sm

ost

impo

rtan

thi

ghqu

ality

natu

ral

gas

field

s.S

ince

1941

the

fiel

dha

spr

oduc

edab

out

300,

000,

000

cubi

cfeet

of

met

hane

gas

for

use

inth

eSa

nFr

anci

sco

Bay

area

.W

ith

the

grow

ing

sign

ific

ance

ofre

crea

tion,

the

Del

taha

sbl

osso

med

into

am

ajor

recr

eatio

nar

eaat

the

door

step

sof

met

ropo

litan

deve

lopm

ent

inth

eSa

nFr

anci

sco

Bay

area

,Sa

cram

ento

,an

dSt

ockt

on.I

n19

60,

near

ly2,

800,

000

recr

eatio

n-da

ysw

ere

en

joye

din

this

boat

ing

won

derl

and.

I...

10*l0QIDc4

1.

101010011001010! 0 10011 1010100101 101.. 01010101101030 ID 1) ID

2 CJCVIC%IV.p... r

I-.

2

I._0I CVI (VI 101)1011) 1 10101011)1— 1. 01 CD — cI r._ 1)C’J 01 Pj 0I 01

10 In In C% i.i C%1 In C%J o ID — 1110111 In 1011)10 p- 311r-

tfl0C %10

1010 104Q 40 10 11) Cl ID ID . ID 10101010 II) 101010 IVIID 11) 10I1) e.i 0 e.I

1._ID 10 cIa (VI (VIal CIa 1% 1.-. .3 In 10 PS.. 10 Cli (V 1.. 1.. ‘010101010 1010 In

P.. IsP.- 1010 1Q10 P.- 1.- P.- — IDOl Is. Is Is 1010 CIa Is P.- (01.-ID P.-.- Cli - CIa

0!0!°10101010

Is 101011) C (VI 104010101010 p- - (VI (VI CII 10 Cli 10 - CIa 01 CIa

1010 ‘0 Is. Q (VIP.- 10 Is 10’QCD ID In .- .-.- — — -,- .- .- — ID In

1)C)InI .. I

.0

I- 100110 10IscI((li. ,s.rsIsI-COIn0l

CC’ IPIV

1001al0101Ol0l010l(VI0lOl(VIal01 iVIIslfl

10101010.—P110,-

101010 11)10011)10 0

— — — — — 1 — — — Cli — -. CII ._ . Cli III (11 C’iCd CII (II CIai- . p

Is. Is. is. is. Is Is Is. I-. rs Is. Cs. is. is. I._ Cs. Ps 1.. P Is. 1..-. P.. 1.. Ps Is Is. Is PS

4 d dd Q00 CIVIC dddc,c,c,aoc,

dcco —— e. — r — — — — — — — — — — — — n. — —— — — — 0 C —

UC1

S — — — — — — ,— — —. — — — — — — .— .- — — — — .— -.— .— — — — C. o

Cli Cli 1010.10 1010 1010101010 C. 101010 10101010101010101010 10I ‘0 . 10

8 (VI CII (IJ Cli C. Cli Cli Cli Cd Cli C. C. (VIC’JC.J Cli CII IIIC CJC.ClJ (1110 .

Hi1 1 In

—. CD I. •i

In I-.

8.2. 000

0 .II

1 V h

_

i 1EI

A—1O

Aqe.O Striped Bass Indices Frizin 1967-2010- 1 12173

1LJL—

—

I JIIIIIlskIuIihIII1JIhI.1I.4LTH70 72 74 7 70 8C 2 84 86 8’ 90 92 94 90 9 06 u8 8 V

Dab Sme Indices From 19674010

tcr;

i4t

0 10 7 1* 30 82 0! 88 90 92 94 96 8 00 C2 04 00 08 0

Langfln Smelt Indices From 1967-2010

3 4 4•

E4hJJ1jlJjJL111i1iiiJjILLu&bjJJ Z 14 ‘ 7* 80 ‘0 2 1 : 00 02 4 00 C8 10

EXHIBIT Q

American Shad Indices From 1967.20101

I-:-c

-

x

ILa7fl 12 74 7 7 M 8* ?. :8 94 9. ii.) ui

Ye

SplIttial Indices From 1957-2010‘VI

t4q-1

251*i.

2L0

:ii.1..L1iLAl..i.1L.b.7072T4797380*2349294%OaOe040624 W

Yea

Threadfln Shad Indices From ¶9614010

EjII1I1,J1J11JII1111iI11J68 19 72 74 76 i ‘2 34 8 20 *2 24 V6 8 00 02 04 951 08

ye.,,

EXHIBIT R

DR

AF

T1-4

-Il

Pro

duct

ion

(nat

ural

prod

ucti

onofa

llra

ces

for

the

Cen

tral

Val

ley)

Goa

l99

0.00

0(F

inal

Res

tora

tion

Plan

)1,

000,

000

-—

Adu

ltcs

capa

nent

(Cal

cula

tod

inC

l-I1

NO

OK

PRO

Dus

ing

Gra

ndT

abin

-riv

eres

cape

men

t dat

a)B

asel

inc

(Mill

san

dFi

sher

)19

92-2

009

Ave

rage

427

.74

9ci

800,

000

0

600,

000

1967

-199

1A

vera

ge=

497.

069

--—

—

400,

000

——

‘1

Ii‘I

I20

0,00

0

II0

--

-I

II

O00

C’

r‘C

00

ri

%C

00

C’

r’4

‘‘C

0(%

(‘0

00

‘‘C

%0

‘0‘C

t-r-

r-

t-r-

00

00

00

00

00

C’

0’

0’

0’

0’

IC

’C

’C

’0%

0%0’

0’

00%

0’

0%0%

0%0

’0%

0’

0’

0’

0%0%

0’

0’

0’

0’

0%C

’C

’C

’C

’C

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

—r-

ri

ri

ci

Fig

we

1.E

stim

ated

year

lyna

tura

lpr

oduc

tion

and

in-r

iver

esca

pem

ent

of

all

race

so

fad

ult

Chi

nook

Sal

mon

inth

eC

entr

alV

alle

yri

vers

and

stre

ams.

1952

-19

66an

d19

92-

2009

num

bers

are

calc

uLat

edin

CH

INO

OK

PR

OD

usin

gC

DF

GG

rand

Tab

in-r

iver

esca

pem

ent

data

(Mar

ch10

,201

0).

Bas

elin

enu

mbe

rs(1

967

-19

91)

are

from

Mil

lsan

dF

ishe

r(C

DF

G,

1994

).

EX

HIB

ITS

DR

AF

T1

-4-i

l

2(lfl

OO

Stee

lhea

d.St

celh

ead

estim

ates

are

deri

ved

from

dire

ctco

unts

atfi

shw

ays

and

atha

tche

ries

.S

ome

esti

mat

esar

eth

ere

sult

ofm

ark-

reca

ptur

eex

peri

men

ts,

and

som

ear

ea

vari

ant

calc

ulat

edby

divi

ding

hatc

hery

retu

rns

byth

ees

timat

edha

rves

trat

es.

1i’

00

Dou

blin

ggo

al13

.000

(abo

veR

131)

Don

ly:

info

rmat

ion

from

othe

rSa

cram

ento

Riv

ertr

ibut

arie

san

dth

eSa

nJo

aqui

nsy

stem

was

noti

nclu

ded

inM

ills

and

Fish

er(1

994)

for

the

base

line

peri

od)

—...

——

——

——

——

——

—_4

——

1100

00

--

-—

—

_______

1967

-199

1A

vera

ge6,

574

5(10

0 (I•

‘r

__i_,_I_.••\

c‘

AQ

\Th

()‘\

C‘

‘:i

•‘\

.\

.,

).‘

\

S..

\\

S..

\S

\\

\\

‘..

\•\

\\

\5,

-‘,

Figu

re36

.E

stim

ated

year

lynu

mbe

rofn

atur

alsp

awni

ngo

fstc

elhe

adon

the

Sacr

amen

toR

iver

,up

stre

amof

the

RB

DD

(Mill

san

dFi

sher

.19

94).

Dat

afo

r19

92-2

008

isfr

omC

DFG

,Red

B1u

ff20

08sa

mpl

ing

was

curt

aile

din

June

due

tohi

ghw

ater

tem

pera

ture

s.

EX

HIB

ITT

05183

6

e-acut.4

.T

ha

erite.r

La

in

the

draft

ag

reem

en

t-er*

x.caen

d.d

by

FL

ab

and

Gam

eand.

endorsed

by

the

Depa.r

tmant.

axd

ware

ertan

sirely

an

aly

zed

by

th

eB

casd

tff.

Based

on

.our

most

cu

rren

t

assesam

eis

t.th

efishary

standards

pxcvid.

significantly

hig

her

pro

tectio

nth

an

ex

istin

gbasin

plans.

Th

eS

trip

ed

Bass

In

dex

is

am

easu

re

of

yo

un

gb

ass

si.

srv

iu-.

al

thro

ug

htheir

first

su

meex

-.

The

Strip

ed

Bass

Index

would

be

71

un

der

wit

ho

ut

project

cond

i

tiona

(ie.

•theoretical

co

nd

itio

ns

wh

ich

wo

uld

ex

ist

today

in

th

eD

1ta

arid

Marsh

in

tiuc

absence

of.

.th

eG

yP

and

SW

P)

,63

iinaer

the

ex

istin

gb

asin

plans,

and

ab

ou

t7

9J,

unde

this

decis

ion

....

4W

hil

ethe

tands.r

ds

inthis

decisio

nap

pro

ach

wit

hou

tp

xoje

Ct.

-‘

le’.ls

of

protectio

nfo

x-

striped

baa

e,

there

ar.

man

yo

th

er

species,

su

ch

as

whit

ecatfish,

shad

and

salm

on.,

whic

hw

i.il

dnot

be

prcL

a-ts

to

th

lev

el.

To

praiid

ei!

L1

mL

tig

acic

rn

of

proec

1978

i*uct

,‘ber

specie’

ij4

req

ux

ev

irrveL

dai.

ncf

tlw

ojr,

exartp

-s

‘‘hr-

rure

tofp

tactio

nprovided

md

x-

this

decision

is

isonath

e1...

areaao

xiab

le

lev

el

of

pro

tection

un

til

final

determ

inations

are

mad

.cO

racath

—

ing

cross—

Delt

atrsnsfer

facility

ox’

other

means

to

mitigate

pro

ject

imp

acts

.

31

Ther.

is

so

me

in

dicatio

nthat

factors

other

than

th

ea.

cogs—

siderci

ira

tb

.B

oard

•a

analysis

of

with

ou

tp

roject-

lev

els

may

also

affect

striped

bass

su

rv

iv

sl.

The

effects

of

these

factors

are

such

that

th

.w

ithout

pro3.c

tlev

els

would

be

greater

than

71

.B

ow

ev

er,

th

.m

agnit

ude

of

this

impact

is

un

kn

ow

nand

cannot

be

quantified

at

thisti.

-1

3-

‘:

iiii

‘

EX

HIB

ITU

05

183

7D

1485

1978

ina

on

e—

thir

dreduction

in

com

bin

ed

tirm

ecp

ozta

b].e

yield

of

State

and

federal

pro3.cts.

In

th.o

xy,

the

existing

Basin

5B

Pla

nprpozts

to

provide

full

prc,t

ection

to

the

Marsh

.H

ow

ev

er

during

the

19

76

—7

7drought

when

the

basin

plan

was

in

•ffect

the

Marsh

.recei-

i,ed

little

if

any

protection

becau

se

the

ey

tc

alm

ost

ran

oi*

tof

wate

rand

ergency

regulations

bad

toh

em

pv

s.e

d

Th

isdecision

balances

the

Lim

itations

of

available

water

supplies

against

the

mitigation

responsibility

of

the

project..

Th

ish

al—

an

ce

is.

based

on

the

constitutional

man

date

“—

that

tb.e

wate

rresources

of

the

State

he

put

to

beneficial

use

toth

efullest

extent

of

wh

ich

they

ar-c

eapable.

.-

‘and

that

unreasonable

use

an

dunreasonable

df.r

.r-ain

be

prevented

(A

rticle

10

.S

ection

2C

alifornia

Constitution)

-

CT

PRO

VID

ED

The

Bu

rmau

,the

Dep

artm

en

t.F

ish

and

Gam

e,

and

U.

S..

Fish

an

d

Wildlife

Service

are

workin

gtogether

to

develo

palternativ,

wate

rsupplies

for

the

Marsh.

Such

alternative

supplies

app

ear

to

rep

—zasent

afeasible

and

reasonable

meth

od

for

pxot•ction

of

the

Marsh

nd

mitigation

of

th.

adverse

impacts

of

the

projects

-

Un

der

this

decision.

the

Dep

artm

en

tand

Bureau

are

required,

in

cooperation

with

other

agencies,

tod

ev

elo

pa

plan

for

Suis

un

Marsh

by

July

1.

1979.

The

Suis

uri

Marsh

pla

nsh

ou

ld

en

su

re

that

the

14

-

EX

HIB

ITV

r3jb.

‘L

.L1

?rot

ion

of

Su

Lau

nM

nrih

no

wco

uld

ha

az,o

rpli

shed

only

by

-requir

ing

up

to

2m

ilL

ion

acre—

feet

of

febw

ater

iztflow

indry

and

vr

rival

yi,

sr

in

dd

...t

ion

to

that

jruired

to

meet

thex

standard.

Th

tqquirim

ent

—,u

ldeut

ln-O

eI1s

Dver

or8

øTra

cyE

xpor

tsD

F3rs

Exp

orts

1923

1925

1929

1932

1935

1938

1941

1944

1947

1950

195.

319

5619

5919

6219

6519

6819

7119

7419

7719

8019

8319

8619

8919

9219

95¶9

9820

0120

04

EX

HIB

ITW

Figu

re6

Exp

orts

toth

eS

outh

excl

udin

gF

rian

t-

Ker

n

9 T 6

‘5

‘C

3 0

NO

SHU

TD

OW

NO

FE

XP

OR

TS

)

a

aa.

a0.

WI

ONlaBitaHiti000ii00

‘0noiaa,qaa r,.tt)

W*a0w.i’ifl000’0

O’fta‘aftri0:a

‘OC*$-’$I0ØOri00WI0

0OW0l%0aian

Wi0WII0:ii0•o’aaaz‘o’l01€

‘OOft04Iii,,0Zft0“I‘1

•‘aa•ri0

Hiat’N0’O0OI9CWIow,0

0o’.aid:Ni’I’eilaWIi:TOWIWIWitoooaoL00000riOi’OO110WIWt?O’bOHW’lIiii0WI,OWW’P<t?I0WWIff?D’C0J

WIll‘4Cu.’1

i.’mOO’<0

fl4lLjl1.‘$l

r00’OftoLooa0sW00

r’WI10,A00ftj

oi.’ieO?ir0O’QBftI

ii’,jia’0l1C.fqP”WI

r)’BZ’l.OOaZ1rØQW1fta

ONa0ON0H.tWIWNU0

‘:NIWIa p400Q’(i

0aaNI,i’4000

WI

a‘1mWI00

WIV

a

a,

0III

a

a0

0

I

I

aa

0

INJ

a0’0‘1I,0C

Ift’Ølria0WIC00,“WIW’OHWI010ON0WI00C0ft0êW”iai3I0.OiaO’$‘s4N

W“1DI0ia0WI

:WIN‘1CDZWI*WI*<‘OIWIII0

Dl0’0‘0*0<4ii0r’qOWIlISbOnpallOIllrtI”N

0*0tWil0010.0ft0wOWWIWIa000,1110iiDR‘00D00r’O000010On

00O40p-I0IBI”aaiaa,aaOmWInaOriflWIl0.aa•0Ori’rftø

ii0010a.o’s’o0<aN.on.a’<DiaODWIrI010(0maB0W,.’rPOftOftq(IHOa.a0‘1$I’00•iaD•OoCOOlala0WIDWIN

iq,aV10*0*I.rilaVp(pOINiWI‘NOaw.ea.•0WOWIN010oe•a01’Dba

ooaN,iiiWI0ft0ao0a0.aB01”P‘OttO00WIN00.000$V0*WIZ’00N‘0oPtelD,bNr”Or’Di•‘1*0

anI’IWI$gOWIDOftWNiOttPMNI.’WIl.’ilOD00

II40WItt’<0‘

nooa’o.0tta.(0’O0

ft0Pt00.arIbs’ft00BDH‘1WIOV0N0 00e10

CN0ON*ttIIaat.’ea0

0WI(I.00OttO01)bWIOPt4DOC*08*0a*OrPwawap’10004ftWI

l.’rtIINI‘401(OttOC0SQNWIWIWFPPt10s’On<0WI0,so•0’#0’4V

rt‘10‘401’00’rtOtt01OftW0l1’<OCPWiC01,000a

00.CDli’’4iiWI

“N‘.onlaotO00001D0.ft40WIN000blab4I.’0WIHnO0HNiao000PtWIi4‘090010000’s’OOWI0DttwO01‘IONa01$*0FffPO%iV

•P108‘1Os”0010.

0(00l%0‘1WI01’1Ct

•5’10000W’Pa,t*ill

4l1’O010reOS0I0000rtZINWInWIOWl0*WIN‘INftN’s’0000

aWInO0WI•0.00011<

4i’ianO*0WIWIWI0’4WWWIOPtrtXOft001’0C<tt0WIWIbIt. 14$OWMnOrtO‘1’WIIWIOO’I’1*UI•)ai.noomooD.4Os.’0.4IcOp000•P.00110çt0.WI

711.o’o.WInosbala0*10010’8

,.‘010110.tOO00rta00C0

00IWIrIO001H00.t1%.01’00N”00Hi.B.’DOOrPt

1’1000.P100IWI

(ItOftD000NIIO’i01’.4,1IP(fl

.5W’l.’i.’WII01<rtOfl

aa(‘rOn010

0‘00WIflOe

00)‘.Os.’ll‘0bOs’.0010as’SI<WIWIlWINifti’lI9WWI(fl0’0SO01001000010

40.•I01000,p’

C,CWI1”WI0HV‘A

0

BCaN

tip

a

01aa0.

aMi

aWIWI

a. 0aCBa0

a0.

axaIPtWI

m

C,

z(‘Iz‘4C

N

C

Pt

0,C‘0‘0r‘IC

z

(P1

I-’(‘1

0‘P1

‘4zN

‘4$.10,

0z

Pt‘00

‘4

A0or ICCD

ft

0.N

tIe

(P1*00

5’OOw‘a.ifII

0CD-I’

coCD

WI

44,

Natu

ral

outf

low

less

Regula

ted

Ou

tflo

wavera

ge

valu

es

inm

illi

on

sof

acre

feet

Tim

eP

erio

dD

eple

tion

19

21

-19

29

.3.7

7

1930-1

939

3.7

9

1940-1

949

4.7

3

1950-1

95q

6.6

4

1960—

1969

8.7

4

1970-

1979

10.9

4

1980-1

962

12.7

0

Th

coucZ

uio

u,

my

stu

die

sco

nfir

mth

eg

en

era

].co

nclu

siq

ns

inth

eT

iburo

nreport.

Th

ed

ep

leti

on

sh

.ev

ebeen

massiv

eand

conti

nue

toin

crease.

?h

yhave

greatl

yin

creased

the

percenta

ge

of

years

of

critical

drought

inth

eD

elt

aand

the

Bay

.

1tj

my

professio

nal

oinio

that

no

set

of

stan

dard

of

wat.

rquali

tyca

hew

rit

that

cn

have

tEl

practial

effect

of

prote

cti

ng

the

ecosyste

mfr

om

fu

rth

er

degracati

ou

if

div

ersio

ns

increase

over

the

present

lev

el.

Because

fo

recast,

of

runoff

are

imperfect

the

effect

of

div

ersio

ns

ina

year

that

turn

so

ut

tob

edry

wil

lalr

eady

bare

taken

its

toll

on

th

ecosyste

mbefore

wate

rquali

tym

easure

ments

can

com

pare

the

condit

ion

wit

hth

estandards.

an3

oin

io

njb

eim

perati

ve

ste

ps

top

eclu

liezcefoth

uy

ditio4ix3ions

of

fzo

Attachment B

Age-0 Striped Bass Indices From 1967-2010124H

10tt’U

66 7’) 72 74 76 78 60 82 64 86 88 90 92 4 98 98 00 02 04 08 08 10

Delta Smelt Indices From 1967-2010

1600 ft9Ag-fl

i400SAl ‘es

1000 -

.1LIL

___

63 70 72 74 76 78 .30 82 64 86 3-3 (4) 92 94 06 98 00 02 04 Ct 08 10

Longfin Smelt Indices From 1967-2010

‘1W’

10A9.-U

•-‘AQss

14Q

I I . IIILJVi4Lab h LAflJf&&

91300ani +

600’)

1000

“I>-”)

5060

.S 4000

.3000

2’IOO

1000

060 70 72 74 7 78 80 62 86 86 90 22 91 20 :4) 00 02 (4 06 08 10

Year

i ceoo American Shad Indices From 1967-2010

90Q1) .18000 1 ebUAges I7000j60004

* I‘ 5O00 I

00II III IS i I I

1 T :4.4.14. . IiI.i II ii01

60 70 72 74 76 73 60 32 84 66 38 90 92 94 96 90 00 02 04 eo us ioYear

Splittial Indices From 1967-2010

250

200

iii IIJSIIaLqaa*,Ia67 70 72 74 76 79 80 82 84 36 08 90 92 94 94

rjA,,1t

hi Ags-0SkJ Aces

194 4 010

mLLWHH97 00 02 04 06 08 10

16000

14000

Threadfin Shad Indices From 1987-2010

L4Ch-

12000

10000

0020

E hIIII1IJIIIIIII.1IIIIdLd d Tãihi62 70 72 7-4 76 76 0 82 04 88 83 30 92 94 06 82 00 02 04 06 (iS 10

Year

DR

AF

T1-4

-11

Pro

duct

ion

(nat

ural

prod

uctiu

uof

all

race

sfo

rth

eC

entr

alV

alle

y)A

dult

esca

pem

ent (

Cal

cula

ted

inC

FIIN

OO

KPR

OD

usin

gG

rand

Tab

in-r

iver

esca

pem

ent d

ata)

—B

asel

ine

(Mill

san

dFi

sher

)19

92-2

009

Ave

rage

=42

7,74

9

I1A

Fig

ure

1.E

stim

ated

year

lyna

tura

lpr

oduc

tion

and

in-r

iver

esca

pem

ent o

f all

race

sofa

dult

Chi

nook

Sal

mon

inth

eC

entr

alV

alle

yri

vers

and

stre

ams.

1952

-19

66an

d19

92-

2009

num

bers

are

calc

ulat

edin

CH

INO

OK

PR

OD

usin

gC

DFG

Gra

ndT

abin

-riv

eres

cape

men

tda

ta(M

arch

10,2

010)

.B

asel

ine

num

bers

(196

7-

1991

)ar

efr

omM

ills

and

Fis

her

(CD

FG,

1994

).

Goa

l99

0,00

0(F

inal

Res

tora

tion

Pla

n)

I I1,00

0,00

0-

800,

000

-

600,

000

400,

000

200,

000

I19

67-1

991

Ave

rage

=49

7,06

9

/1

I

(_4

‘ci.

%0

“t’

.ooo

‘ci-

sooo

‘j-

so0

0fl

5050

05050

Nt-

NN

N0000000000

00

”0

0”

0”

0a

Os

0’

Q0

0”

0”

Q0

0’

,-

_4

--

—-

_4

.-.

-—

--

-—

-,-

-—

-

‘ci-

sooo

so.0

0O

sO

sO

sO

sC

C’

C0”

O’

Os

CC

CC

C’

‘‘

—-

‘c’

(‘

DR

AF

T1

-4-I

l

2000

0

Stee

lhea

d.S

teel

head

estim

ates

are

deri

ved

from

dire

ctco

unts

atfi

shw

ays

and

atha

tche

ries

.So

me

estim

ates

are

the

resu

ltof

mar

k-re

capt

ure

expe

rim

ents

,an

dso

me

are

ava

rian

tca

lcul

ated

bydi

vidi

ngha

tche

ryre

turn

sby

the

esti

mat

edha

rves

tra

tes.

.21)

000

Dou

blin

ggo

al=

13,0

00(a

bove

RB

DD

only

;in

form

atio

nfr

omot

her

Sacr

amen

toR

iver

trib

utar

ies

and

the

San

Joaq

uin

syst

emw

asno

tin

clud

edin

Mill

san

dF

ishe

r(1

994)

for

the

base

line

peri

od)

U,

——

——

——

——

——

——

e—

——

——

0 lOU

00

1967

-199

1A

vera

ge=

6,57

4

-50

00

1992

-200

8A

vera

ge=

1,12

7

0-‘

))

\o

‘‘

C,

‘\0

\C

,C,

\.\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\‘

‘V

Figu

re36

.E

stim

ated

year

lynu

mbe

rof

natu

ral

spaw

ning

of

stee

lhea

don

the

Sacr

amen

toR

iver

,up

stre

amof

the

RB

DD

(Mill

san

dFi

sher

,19

94).

Dat

afo

r19

92-2

008

isfr

omC

DFG

,Red

Blu

ff.

2008

sam

plin

gw

ascu

rtai

led

inJu

nedu

eto

high

wat

erte

mpe

ratu

res.

g

QB

anks

Expo

rtsFi

gure

6S a 7 8

Exp

orts

toth

eS

outh

excl

udin

gF

rian

t-

Ker

n

NO

SHU

TD

OW

NO

FE

XP

OR

TS

LI

A Ar

Li

—T

Xt

U-

--

:

:•4

fi

vw3

--

-,

U.

-.

.1

2-

I

U.•

0-

ii

.

1923

1926

1928

1932

1935

1938

1941

1944

1947

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1960

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1959

1992

1995

1996

2001

2004

05

18

36

ex

ecu

ted.

Th

ecriteria

in

the

draft

agreem

ent

wara

recorm

nen

ded.

by

Fish

arid

Gam

eand

etd

c,r

sed

by

the

Dep

a.r

tmeti

t.an

.d.

ware

ax

ten

—

ai’

%re

lyana].y

zed

by

th

eB

oard

staff.

Baa

ed

an.

ou

rm

aat

ctx

rran

t.

assessm

en

t,

the

fishery

stan

dard

sp

ro

rid

esig

nificantly

high

er

protection

than

ex

istin

gbasin

plan

s.

The

Striped

Bass

In

dex

is

am

easu

re

of

young

bass

su

ri’v

al

thro

ug

htheir

first

Si.

nm

uer.

Th

eS

trip

ed

Bass

Index

would

be

71

under

with

ou

tpro

ject

condi

tions

(i

.e

-,

th

eo

retical

conditions

wh

ich

wo

uld

exist

today

’in

.

the

Delta

and

Marsb

in

th

eabsence

of

the

GyP

ari

dS

WP

),63

und

er

th

eexisting

basin

plans,

ari

dabout

un

der

this

decision..

Wh

ile

the

standards

inthis

decisio

napproach

witho

ut

pro

ject.

level

ao

fp

ro

ceec

ion

for

striped

bass,

-there

are

many

other

species

,such

as

whit

ecatfish

,shad

and

salm

on.,

wh

ich

w0u.l

dnot

be

pro

tected

tothis

lere1.

To

proride

fu

ll

mitigation.

of

pro

jecti

NO

SHU

TD

OW

Nim

pacts

on

all

fishery

sp

ecies

no

ww

ould

require

th

eirtua1

INST

EA

D-

CR

EA

SE

DE

XPO

RT

slw

ttng

dow

nof

th

eproject

ex

po

rt

pu

mp

s.

The

lere1

of

pro

—

D14

8519

78

tectió

ni

px

-o’c

’id

ed

un

der

this

decisio

nis

no

neth

eless

a.re*sonia

ble

level

of

protection

un

til

final

determ

inations

are

mad

econ

cez’r

i—

ing

across—

Delt

atransfer

facility

or

oth

er

means

to

mitigate

project

imp

acts

.

3/

There

is

so

-me

indication

that

factors

other

than

th

ose

sidered

in.

th

eB

oard

san

aly

sis

of

with

ou

tp

ro

ject-

le’v

els

-..

may

also

affect

striped

bass

Sii

r’riv

al.

The

effects

of

these

factors

are

such

th

at

th

ew

ith

ou

tp

ro

ject

levels

wo

uld

be

greater

than

71.

Bo

we7

er,

th

em

.ag

nit

-uA

ef

this

inrpact

is

unknow

nan

dcannot

be

quantified

at

this

tim

e.

-.

13

-

‘400

r-4rn‘40

H

0rt

00H

(Ito

00

0

00

061Hro

0H

HoO‘ bRHftI.’.

0000

0

00,0

61H

mrnO

00H

H

H•0OO61i2fto

00rtF.t-0061O

rImDriOOH:•rtO0

OftG3DI-”ft0

0o

H‘tlHD

rtmmft‘0om

00061

trtOm

0

mrt

H0t-3HQci‘ OGo0rt6100HHO0o0‘Di61ft0

o‘brnl)ortOrtH0on.m.:rt’H..m61UH‘00I

Pi’61H0mQ.ft061m;fIP

Q4Hrtm

ftHftOJ0rto00t•0HHI00H

HO

rt’rirtH’GaP30‘flflI-0HOft00OH4Ort000100

0H(1:0Hi00

mom.hftft610000ft

d(10t-

.

H

H00DHH0H

010Hft0ft0(0OH“000100

ftOHrtn0.O‘40ftHHiOft00Ih’4Hi

01•610H

0HHP3rtrt61(t

OHX0ft0’

H’000ID•HH(0(0F’H

OOrtOftrtrt‘u0rt(00)

OH0H

rtrtrt0

rt0OHim

II0(0Hi0H

HO0.0(0(0rtoft4

ftHHOH0ft

IIDrt00

,cm()(J.1:: 0H0•ft..

061

000

U‘

I)t.0

ft.4I4O4

HH

H‘rno

0)

I.’.t’(000HGo

.d,irt

ft1-300

0) l••H0)‘a)

‘4:U H0(0OH

oH

I.’,

B0)0000

QH0

0000eHOnHp.

rIOH0Hi,0(0.(0Oft

H1?ft

0)H

•4. 0H

.0

0

0061ftI-’,ft

ft

00

CD

01

(0Ii

rIO

61

0.(0rt

0O00)

fto

ft

ftrn.0HOftp.

ft610

D.

00

Oct0

GOOrtH00

itOft

0p.4

10

HO00•01

0

00

ftHI•Im0

61ti0

-D

0

ID

0U’

(j

C

Attachment E

DIRECTORSGeorge Biag;, Jr.Rudy MussiEdward Zuckerman

COUNSELDante John Nomeiljnj

C E NTR A L D E LTA WATE R AG E N CDante John NomeIlln4 J

235 East Weber Avenue • P.O. Box 1461 • Stockton, CA 95201Phone 209/465-5883 • Fax 2091465-3956

July 9, 2008

Via email mikemi®water.ca.gov

Mike MirmazaheriProgram ManagerDelta Levee ProgramDepartment of Water Resources1416 Ninth StreetSacramento, CA 94236

Re: Five (5) Year Levee Plan

Dear Mr. Minnazaheri:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a suggested five (5) year levee plan. Thissubmittal is intended to provide the overarching plan within which Districts would submit five(5) year pians outlining the intended levee work categories with rough estimates of cost. Thesework plans will necessarily change with conditions in the field and progress ofwork. The five(5) years included are 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. For 2008-09 wesuggest the same priorities. For Delta Levees Proposition 84 provided $275 Million andProposition 1E $500 Million for a total of $775 Million. For the five years it is assumed that atleast $100 Million will be available each year.

Our view of the need to preserve Delta levees extends to all of the present levee systems.The inter-relationship of the various islands and tracts due to seepage, wind wave generation andas habitat for both local and migratory fish and wildlife mandates that the plan should attempt topreserve all levee systems with due consideration of the Legislature’s concern that preservationof all may not be economicallyjustifiable. Outlined herein are the priorities and constraintswhich will provide economic support with appropriate justification.

The Legislature’s fmdings and declarations in Water Code sections 12981 and 12982provide the guidance in which we concur.

“ 12981. Unique resources with statewide significance; preservation

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the delta is endowed with manyinvaluable and unique resources and that these resources are ofmajor statewidesignificance.

Mike MirmazaheriProgram Manager 2 July 9, 2008

(b) The Legislature further finds and declares that the delta’s uniqueness isparticularly characterized by its hundreds of miles of meandeiing waterways andthe many islands adjacent thereto; that, in order to preserve the delta’s invaluableresources, which include highly productive agriculture, recreational assets,fisheries, and wildlife environment, the physical characteristics of the delta shouldbe preserved essentially in their present form; and that the key to preserving thedelta’s physical characteristics is the system of levees defining the waterways andproducing the adjacent islands. However, the Legislature recognizes that it maynot be economicallyjustifiable to maintain all delta islands.

(c) The Legislature further finds and declares that funds necessary tomaintain and improve the delta’s levees to protect the delta’s physicalcharacteristics should be used to fund levee work that would promote agriculturaland habitat uses in the delta consistent with the purpose of preserving the delta’sinvaluable resources.”

“ 12982. Public benefit from privately maintained levees

The Legislature further finds and declares that while most of the delta’slevees are privately owned and maintained they are being subjected to variedmultiple uses and serve to benefit many varied segments and interests of thepublic at large, and that as a result of the varied multiple uses of such levees,added maintenance costs are being borne by adjacent landowners.”

Although the smallest of islands may at first blush appear to be expendable, the habitatvalue (which in many cases is supported with private funds) would be lost. Such habitat value isextremely difficult to replace especially in terms of supporting habitat for waterfowl in thePacific Flyway and providing meandering shoreline. With increasing development along theentire west coast of the United States, the opportunity to preserve supporting habitat for thePacific Flyway is greatly diminishing. It is also extremely difficult to replace the meanderingshoreline habitat and meandering waterway recreational opportunity provided by even thesmallest levee systems. The impacts of seepage and wind-generated waves on surroundinglevees and lands are assumed to be less critical with the flooding of smaller islands however,significant impacts can still result. Scour in adjoining channels resulting from levee breaks oreven from the ongoing tidal flow ofwater in and out ofthe flooded area, scour from rerouting ofchannel flow (including the flow ofwater to the export pumps) and changes to the land surfacesuch as from oxidation of organic soils can result in major long lasting adverse impacts toadjoining areas.

Mike MirmazaheriProgram Manager 3 July 9, 2008

Limited Ability to Generate Local Revenue for Cost Share and Project Funding

The limited ability to generate revenue from local assessments to meet cost-sharingrequirements and to fund the levee work in advance of reimbursement is a primary constraintunder the Levee Subvention Program. Local assessments are based on allocations of the benefitsderived from the levee-related services provided by the local levee maintaining districts. In mostcases these are reclamation districts. Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII D increasesin assessments must be submitted to an assessment ballot proceeding where a majority protestbased on the maximum dollar amounts to be assessed will stop the assessment. The benefitallocations are typically based on land use where the ratios for allocation from one use to anotherare fairly well bracketed and the constraint is the agricultural use ability to pay. Furtherconsideration of ability to pay for districts which have significant agricultural use is unnecessaryas the limitations are clearly demonstrated by previous analysis. As to urban levee systems, it isimportant to continue to recognize that State funding is intended to provide contribution frombeneficiaries of the levee system other than the landowners within a particular district and to inpart compensate for damages to the levee system caused by users of the Delta other than thelandowners. We believe the funding priorities and cost shares set forth herein adequatelyaccount for ability to pay for all eligible districts including those with urban levee systems.

As presently structured, the Delta Levee Subvention portion of the Delta Levee Programcannot facilitate timely completion of urgently needed levee work. The substantial under-funding of the Delta Levee Subvention Program in recent years coupled with substantiallyincreased cost of meeting regulatory requirements has left most participating districts with verylittle capability to fund additional levee work.

FEMA Eligibility

FEMA is applying a very rigid interpretation of the requirements under the so-calledDelta Hazard Mitigation Plan (lIMP). Instead of the good faith progress approach applied inprevious years, FEMA has denied eligibility if any part of a levee system fails to meet HMPrequirements. For the 2005/06 flood event, the one (1) foot above the 100 year flood elevationrequirement was the greatest constraint. Portions of the Delta levees are settling and can beexpected to continue settling for many years to come. The crowns of levees on which countyroads and State highways are located are typically raised less frequently to reduce disturbance ofcostly road surfacing. Changes in historical benchmark elevations have added to the noncompliance. Although federal funding has not been made available to support the Delta leveeprograms, federal Disaster Assistance has at times been substantial. Priority funding is needed tore-establish and maintain lIMP compliance to help assure future FEMA assistance. HMPcompliance with a robust levee program should demonstrate a good faith effort on the part of theState and locals towards reasonably reducing the threat of future flooding. We would expectsuch effort to be recognized by FEMA.

Mike MirmazaheriProgram Manager 4 July 9, 2008

HMP is not an acceptable levee standard but rather a means of measuring progress tosatisfy FEMA. The PL 84-99 agricultural standard is viewed as the minimum acceptable level ofprotection against failure due to flooding. Any other higher levels of protection should bedetermined and prioritized by DRMS, Delta Vision, etc. and funding for those more expensivefixes would be expected to come from other sources of state money and other beneficiaries.

5-Year Plan

Defmitions - Urban Islands and Tracts are those with levee systems which protect areaswith existing and ongoing urban development where the levees have at one time been accreditedor are in the process ofbeing accredited as meeting FEMA requirements for urban development.

Non-Urban Islands and Tracts are those other than Urban Island and Tracts.

Project levee and non-project levee shall be as defmed in WC 12980.

Special Project Program - The Special Project portion of the Delta Levee Program shouldincorporate broader funding of needed levee work throughout the Delta. We suggest that theSpecial Levee Project program be separated into two parts: State Special Projects and LocalSpecial Projects.

The State Special Projects would continue the past practice with emphasis for the eight(8) western Delta islands thought to be most important to restrain salinity intrusions, assistancefor levees protecting the towns of Thornton and Walnut Grove and for other levee projects. Forthe 5 year planning period, the expenditures should be focused on levee improvement. Otherexpenditures including habitat enhancement should not exceed ten (10) percent of the amount offunding for the State Special Projects.

The Local Special Projects would be applied throughout the Delta to the non-project,non-urban islands and tracts other than the eight (8) western Delta islands. The first priority forthe local special projects should be funding ofwork necessary to achieve and maintain HMPrequirements on the non-project, non-urban islands and tracts and achieving and maintainingminimum project levee standards on project levees. This work should be funded 100% by theState. The non-project levee work should be designed to raise crown elevations to one (1) footabove the 100 year flood elevation plus an additional one-half (1/2) foot to account for periodiclevee settlement. For areas with public roadways the design should include the one (1) footabove the 100 year flood elevation plus an additional one (1) foot. For non-project levees, thecrown width should at a minimum meet the HMP required sixteen (16) feet but should seek toachieve a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet on levees without public roadways and the thencurrent crown width or twenty-eight (28) feet (whichever is greater) for levees with suchroadways. The HMP required all weather road on the levee crown must be included. The second

Mike MirmazaheriProgram Manager 5 July 9, 2008

priority should be funding ninety percent (90%) of the cost ofhabitat mitigation related to non-urban islands and tracts for all priorities of work including PL 84-99 and DWR Bulletin 192-82agricultural standards. The third priority should be funding ninety percent (90%) of the cost ofwork on non-project, non-urban islands and tracts to reach the PL- 84-99 or DWR BuL 192-82agricultural standard with a height of eighteen (18) inches above the 100 year flood elevationplus one-half (1/2) foot of additional elevation for levees without public roadways and one (1)foot of additional elevation for levees with public roadways. Crown width should be twenty (20)feet on levees without public roadways and the then current crown width or twenty-four (24) feet(whichever is greater) for levees with such public roadways.

Levee Subvention Program

$1,000.00 per mile deductible.

First Priority - 75% reimbursement up to $20,000.00 per mile for annual leveemaintenance.

Second Priority - 75% reimbursement for habitat mitigation.

Third Priority - 75% reimbursement for all levee work in excess ofFirst Priority work upto an additional $20,000.00 per mile including HMP work and work to meet the PL 84-99 orDWR Bul. 192-82 agricultural standards with an additional one-half (1/2) foot of crownelevation to account for periodic settlement on levees without public roadways and an additionalone (1) foot on levees with public roadways. Crown width should be twenty-two (22) feet onlevees without public roadways and the then current width or twenty-eight (28) feet (whichever isgreater) for levees with such public roadways.

Fourth Priority - Third priority work in excess of $20,000.00 per mile.

District Five Year Plans

Each participating district should provide a five year plan setting forth the generaldescription and estimated dollar amount of work proposed for each of the categories set forthabove assuming advances for the Subvention Program as currently applicable and payments bythe State for Special Projects as invoices are received. Special State Projects and Special LocalProjects will require specific plans and project review consistent with current practice. Localdistrict development ofplans, conduct of soil investigations and preparation of projectdocuments will be funded through the Local Special Projects at a cost share of 90% State, 10%Local.

Mike MirmazaheriProgram Manager 6 July 9, 2008

Additional Priorities Established Through the Annual Allocation of Funding to the FollowingCategories: (assumes One Hundred Million Dollars per year)

Delta Levee Subventions 12 millionState Special Projects 44 millionLocal Special Projects 44 million

If funding is insufficient to fund all acceptable projects in the Delta Levee Subventionand/or the Local Special Projects Categories for the particular fiscal year, the funding will beallocated within each category first, based on the specific priorities and second, prorated withinthe underfunded priority to fully fund a segment of qualifying work in each applying District.The proration will be based on the total lineal feet of acceptable levee work within theunderfunded priority which is included in the application of a particular district as compared tothe total lineal feet of acceptable levee work included in all applications for the particular fiscalyear in the specific priority. The District may elect to receive the funding available to providemaximum State cost share for a segment of the work and defer the remainder of the work in thepriority to a subsequent year. Any excess of funds within the Delta Levee Subventions or SpecialLocal Projects Categories shall be applied first to fund any shortfall in the other category withinthe particular fiscal year and second to supplement funding in the particular category in thesubsequent fiscal year.

OLLManager and Co-Counsel

DJN:jucc: David Mraz via dmraz@water.ca.gov

Locals

Attachment F

Sea Levels Online - State Selection Page 1 of 1

AlabamaAlaskaCaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorciiaHawaiiLou sian aMaineMarylandMassachusettsNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaOreaonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTexasVirqiniaWash inqtonWashington DCIsland Stations

Global Stations

San Francisco, CA 2.01 +1- 021 mmlyr

main paqe The mean sea level trend Is 2.01 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +1- 0.21 mnilyr based on monthly mean sea level data from1897 to 2006 whIch Is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years.

The plot shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal oceantemperatures, salinitles, winds, atniosphenc pressures, and ocean currents. The long-term linear b-end is also shown,including Its 95% confidence interval. The plotted values are relative to the most recent Mean Sea Level datumestablished by CO-OPS. The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in mIllImeters/year or a table Infeeticenturv (0.3 meters = 1 foot).

What Is Sea Level?Why does Sea Level chancje over time?What does Sea Level have tp do wltt, almate’

Back to Sea Levels Onlineb2mt I riroducts oroorams I oartnersNos education

Disciarrers Contact Us Privacy Potcy About COOPS For CO-OPS Employees Only Revised: I 2/09t2008 NOM / National Ocean Service

sea level trendsMean Sea Level Trend

9414290 San Francisco, California

If present, solid vertical lines indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station and dashed verticallines bracket any periods of questionable data.

Frequently Asked Questions:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrendslsltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 4/21/2011

Sea Levels Online - State Selection Page 1 of 1

AlabamaAlaskaCahforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeoraiaHawaiiLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaOreQonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTexasVirqi niaWashingtonWashington DCIsland Stations

Global Stations

main paqe

Juneau, AK -12.92 +43 mmlyr

The mean sea level trend Is -12.92 millimeters/year with a 95% confIdenceInterval of +1- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1936 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -4.24 feet in 100 years.

The plot shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal oceantemperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean cun-ents. The long-term linear trend Is alsoshown, including its 95% confidence Interval. The plotted values are relative to the most recent Mean Sea Leveldatum established by CO-OPS. The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year or atable In feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot).

If present, solid vertical lines indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station and dashedvertical lines bracket any periods of questionable data.

zrzzHAverace Interannual Interannualseasonal variation vaijatlon

cic! for all data since 1980

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is Sea Level?Whv does Sea Level chance over time?What does Sea Level have to do with Climate?

Back to Sea Levels Onlineoroducts I oroarams I oartiershlris education I hsi

Dsctaimers Contact liv Privacy Poticy Abont COOPS For CO-UPS Employees Only levised. 12109/2008 NOAA ! National Ocean Senace

Mean Sea Level Trend9452210 Juneau, Alaska

I

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/skrends/slirends_station.shtml?stnid=9452210 4/21/2011

Sea Levels Online - State Selection

AlabamaAlaskaCaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTexasVirginiaWashingtonWashington DCIsland Stations

Global Stations

main page The mean sea level trend is 0.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +1- 0.51 mmfyr based on monthly mean sea level data from1939 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.27 feet in 100 years.

Page 1 of 1

The plot shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuatIons due to coastal oceantemperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The long-term linear trend Is alsoshown, including Its 95% confIdence interval. The plotted values are relative to the most recent Mean Sea Leveldatum established by CO-OPS. The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year or atable in feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot).

If present, solid vertical lines Indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station and dashedvertical lines bracket any periods of questionable data.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What Is Sea Level?Why does Sea Level chanoe over time?What does Sea Level have to do with Climate?

Back to Sea Levels Onlinehomi I produc±s I proarams I oarbierstrlos educatioqi I

piscialmers Cccrtact Us Pctvacy Policy About CO-OPS For CO-OPS Empcees O,mj Revored. 1210912008 NOAA I National Ocean Ssvce

sea level trendsMean Sea Level Trend

9414750 Alameda, California

Alameda, CA 0.82 +1- 0.51 mmlyr

• L..weie everaQe sesonel I SQeC NOAAcydeved

045 Ier 95% conhidence WVeItLew meen .. level trendI—Lower 95%cflJ fr*wvJ

1900.0 1910.0 l920 1930.0 1940.0 1960.0 1960.0 1970.0 1960.0 1990.0 2000.0 2010.0

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750 4/21/2011

Exhibit 6-20. Changes in relative sea level along U.S. coasts, 1958-2008Millimeters per year

Mean relative seaLocation name Latitude Longitude level changeNawiliwili, Hawaii 21.96 -159.36 1.3361Honolulu, Hawaii 21.31 -157.87 1.2621Kahului, Hawaii 20.90 -156.47 1.8835Hilo, Hawaii 19.73 -155.06 2.6532Johnston Atoll 16.74 -169.53 0.5723Sand Island, Midway Is. 28.21 -177.36 1.395Guam, Marianas Is. 13.44 144.65 2.6003Pago Pago, American Samoa -14.28 -170.69 2.2878Kwajalein, Marshall Is. 8.74 167.74 2.087Wake Island 19.29 166.62 2.0405Bermuda 32.37 -64.70 1.5085Eastport, Maine 44.90 -66.99 0.9659Bar Harbor, Maine 44.39 -68.21 1.5721Portland, Maine 43.66 -70.25 1.0163Boston, Massachusetts 42.36 -71.05 2.2047Woods Hole, Massachusetts 41.52 -70.67 2.3719Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 41.29 -70.10 2.9368Newport, Rhode Island 41.51 -71.33 2.4958Providence, Rhode Island 41.81 -71.40 1.9739New London, Connecticut 41.36 -72.09 2.4 164Bridgeport, Connecticut 41.17 -73.18 2.3146Montauk, New York 41.05 -71.96 2.7699Kings Point, New York 40.81 -73.77 2.0713The Battery, New York 40.70 -74.02 2.7292Sandy Hook, New Jersey 40.47 -74.01 3.58Atlantic City, New Jersey 39.36 -74.42 4.3522Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 39.93 -75.14 3.5187Lewes, Delaware 38.78 -75.12 3.2052Baltimore, Maryland 39.27 -76.58 2.8429Annapolis, Maryland 38.98 -76.48 2.991Solomons Island, Maryland 38.32 -76.45 3.7482Washington, DC 38.87 -77.02 2.9554Kiptopeke, Virginia 37.17 -75.99 3.4554Gloucester Point, Virginia 37.25 -76.50 3.958Sewells Point, Virginia 36.95 -76.33 4.6204Beaufort, North Carolina 34.72 -76.67 2.832Wilmington, North Carolina 34.23 -77.95 2.198Charleston, South Carolina 32.78 -79.93 2.9447Fort Pulaski, Georgia 32.03 -80.90 3.2904Femandina Beach, Florida 30.67 -81.47 2.41 99Mayport, Florida 30.40 -81.43 2.5459Key West, Florida 24.55 -81.81 2.517Naples, Florida 26.13 -81.81 2.027Fort Myers, Florida 26.65 -81.87 2.229St. Petersburg, Florida 27.76 -82.63 2.6246Cedar Key, Florida 29.14 -83.03 1.7058Pensacola, Florida 30.40 -87.21 2.0069

Grand Isle, Louisiana 29.26 -89.96 9.2911Galveston Pier 21, Texas 29.31 -94.79 6.5704Galveston Pleasure Pier, Texas 29.29 -94.79 6.9176Freeport, Texas 28.95 -95.31 8.4887Rockport, Texas 28.02 -97.05 6.1652Port Isabel, Texas 26.06 -97.22 4.407San Diego, California 32.71 -117.17 1.7841La Jolla, California 32.87 -117.26 1.9505Los Angeles, California 33.72 -118.27 0.9553Santa Monica, California 34.01 -118.50 0.8125Port San Luis, California 35.18 -120.76 0.2763San Francisco, California 37.81 -122.47 1.579Alameda, California 37.77 -122.30 0.5961Crescent City, California 41.75 -124.18 -0.8903South Beach, Oregon 44.63 -124.04 2.3148Astoria, Oregon 46.21 -123.77 -0.3775Neah Bay, Washington 48.37 -124.62 -2.3007Seattle, Washington 47.61 -122.34 1.7332Friday Harbor, Washington 48.55 -123.01 0.9287Ketchikan, Alaska 55.33 -131.63 -0.4991Sitka, Alaska 57.05 -135.34 -2.0497Juneau, Alaska 58.30 -134.41 -13.5467Yakutat, Alaska 59.55 -139.74 -8.3745Cordova, Alaska 60.56 -145.75 4.9718Seward, Alaska 60.12 -149.43 6.9319Seldovia, Alaska 59.44 -151.72 -9.5183Adak Island, Alaska 51.86 -176.63 -2.8201Unalaska, Alaska 53.88 -166.54 -5.3827Magueyes Island, Puerto Rico 17.97 -67.05 1.3208

Figu

re3:

Gold

enG

ate

Ann

ual

Av

erag

ean

d19

-Yea

rM

ean

Tid

eL

evel

s9.

80

9.60

9.40

9.00

(8.

80t w 0

8.60

8.40

8.20

9.20

[—A

nn

ualA

vera

geT

IdJ

.---i9

.YearM

eanT

ide_j

—

..

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

L E

0.40

0.20

,.0

0

__

__

__

__

—

—

.—

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Yea

r

Not

e:T

his

figu

rew

asup

date

d12

1081

04

2000

CA

Wat

erPl

anU

pdat

e20

09V

ol.

4R

efer

ence

Gui

deP

age

4

Attachment G

EX

TR

AC

TS

OF

US

AC

EM

AY

23,2

007

CO

MM

EN

TS

The

assu

mpt

ion

that

the

23la

rge

wat

ersh

ed’s

100-

year

flow

sca

nbe

adde

dto

geth

erto

prod

uce

the

100-

year

Del

tafl

owis

mva

lid.

The

assu

mpt

ion

that

fail

ures

ina

leve

esy

stem

wil

lnot

sign

ific

antly

redu

cest

age

elev

atio

nsal

ong

chan

nel

isqu

esti

onab

le.

Aim

ual

mea

nnu

mbe

rfo

rse

ism

icle

vee

failu

res

is3.

41....

341

fail

ures

per

100

year

sw

hich

is34

1m

ore

than

obse

rved

inth

epa

st10

0iyears

....

Sure

ly,t

hese

num

bers

cann

otbe

cred

ible

resu

lts.

The

aver

age

of

7.35

floo

dfa

ilure

spe

rye

aris

thre

eLi

mes

the

(und

ocum

ente

d)2.

60nu

mbe

ran

dne

arly

6ti

mes

the

obse

rved

floo

dfa

ilur

era

tefr

om19

50to

2006

.T

hus,

asw

ith

the

seis

mic

fail

ure

num

ber

abov

e,th

isfl

ood

num

ber

sim

ply

appe

ars

way

outs

ide

the

boun

dsof c

redi

bili

ty.

Ret

urn

peri

ods

of2

.7or

5ye

ars

for

man

yle

vees

just

seem

inco

rrec

tand

inco

nipa

tibl

ew

ith

deca

des

of r

ecen

tda

ta.

Ove

rall

,th

ese

ism

icfr

agil

itie

ssi

mpl

yap

pear

unre

alis

tic

-w

ith

far

too

man

ybr

eaks

tobe

cred

ible

.

Fig

ure

6-40

impl

ies

that

for

aM

7.5

even

tth

isty

peo

flev

eeha

sa

10%

chan

ceo

f dis

plac

ing

10ft.

atal

lP

GA

s>0

10

.T

his

seem

sR

eall

yE

xtre

me.

Con

clus

ion

that

40%

of h

isto

rica

lfa

ilur

es(2

.6)

are

from

thro

ugh

seep

age

resu

its

inov

er10

per

year

isdi

ffer

ent

than

hist

oric

alra

tean

dne

eds

tobe

expl

aine

d.

At

firs

tgla

nce,

the

calc

ulat

edan

nual

num

bero

f fai

lure

sis

,to

bepo

lite

,“e

xtra

ordi

nary

”al

beit

nota

sex

trem

eas

the

seis

mic

resu

lts

abov

e.

The

esti

mat

ed30

orm

ore

isla

ndbr

each

esin

the

next

25ye

ars

due

tofl

ood

even

tsse

emto

ohi

gh/p

essi

mis

tic.

The

BA

Uas

sum

ptio

nth

atle

vee

cres

tel

evat

ions

will

notb

e.ra

ised

inre

spon

seto

incr

ease

dtid

alan

dfl

ood

elev

atio

nsis

notr

eali

stic

.1

ftea

sy,

3±1

may

bedo

able

for

100

year

so

f eff

ort