Planning & Management

Search Results

Browse All Documents

20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan
$0.00
Add to Downloads

20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 18, 2009...
Summary
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven-part comprehensive plan for improving the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. As part of this effort, the Governor...
In February 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven-part comprehensive plan for improving the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. As part of this effort, the Governor directed state agencies to develop a plan to reduce statewide per capita urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. This marked the initiation of the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (20x2020 Plan) process.

The 20x2020 Plan sets forth a statewide road map to maximize the state’s urban water efficiency and conservation opportunities between 2009 and 2020, and beyond. It aims to set in motion a range of activities designed to achieve the 20 percent per capita reduction in urban water demand by 2020. These activities include improving an understanding of the variation in water use across California, promoting legislative initiatives that incentivize water agencies to promote water conservation, and creating evaluation and enforcement mechanisms to assure regional and statewide goals are met. The 20x2020 Plan discusses these many activities in detail.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2015 Urban Water Management Plan

Add to Downloads

2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) | June 1, 2016...
Summary
Metropolitan’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has been prepared in compliance with Water Code Section 10608.36 of SB X7-7, which was enacted...

Metropolitan’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has been prepared in compliance with Water Code Section 10608.36 of SB X7-7, which was enacted in 2009, and Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, and became effective on January 1, 1984. This Act requires that every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban water management plan.

The Act requires urban water suppliers to describe and evaluate sources of water supply, efficient uses of water, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs. Urban water suppliers are required by the Act to update their UWMP and submit a complete plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. An UWMP is required in order for a water supplier to be eligible for DWR administered state grants and loans and drought assistance.

As with Metropolitan’s previous plans, the 2015 UWMP does not explicitly discuss specific activities undertaken by its member agencies unless they relate to one of Metropolitan’s water demand or supply management programs. Presumably, each member agency will discuss these activities in its UWMP.

The information included in the 2015 UWMP represents the most current and available planning projections of supply capability and demand developed through a collaborative process with the member agencies. Metropolitan’s Board recently adopted the 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Water Tomorrow (2015 IRP Update), which represents Metropolitan’s comprehensive planning process and will serve as Metropolitan’s blueprint for long-term water reliability, including key supply development and water use efficiency goals.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2015 Urban Water Management Plans: Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers
$0.00
Add to Downloads

2015 Urban Water Management Plans: Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 3, 2016...
Summary
The Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers (Guidebook) has been developed by Department of Water Resources to assist urban water suppliers in preparing 2015...
The Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers (Guidebook) has been developed by Department of Water Resources to assist urban water suppliers in preparing 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs or Plans). This guidance is intended to ensure the Plans will address the requirements of the California Water Code (CWC), provide useful information to the public about water suppliers and their water management programs, and provide a framework for water planning to minimize the negative effects of potential water shortages.

Water suppliers need not limit themselves to the requirements and recommendations found in the Guidebook. Suppliers may include any additional information that will assist in providing a full description of their water resources and water management.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area

Add to Downloads

2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area
City of Santa Maria | April 13, 2017...
Summary
This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions...
This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions of the June 30, 2005, Stipulation entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin litigation. The Stipulation divided the overall Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin into three management areas, the largest of which overlies the main Santa Maria Valley (the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, or SMVMA) and is the subject of this report. The other two management areas, the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) and the Northern Cities Management Area, are addressed in separate annual reports prepared by others.

The Stipulation, approved and implemented in 2008, specifies that monitoring shall be sufficient to determine groundwater conditions, land and water uses, sources of water supply, and the disposition of all water supplies in the Basin. Annual Reports for the SMVMA are to summarize the results of the monitoring and include an analysis of the relationship between projected water demand and supply. The Stipulation was preserved in the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) Decision of November 21, 2012, and in the Superior Court of the State of California (County of Santa Clara) Final Judgment of April 23, 2014. Thus, the Physical Solution criteria for monitoring and managing groundwater in the basin remain.

In accordance with the Stipulation, this report on the SMVMA provides a description of the physical setting and briefly describes previous studies conducted in the groundwater basin, including the long-term monitoring program developed for the SMVMA. As reported herein, the Twitchell Management Authority (TMA) commissioned the preparation of a monitoring program for the SMVMA in 2008, and its complete implementation is expected to provide the data with which to fully assess future conditions. This report describes hydrogeologic conditions in the management area historically and through 2016, including groundwater conditions, Twitchell Reservoir operations, and hydrologic and climatic conditions. As with all previous annual reports (commencing in 2008), the water requirements and supplies for agricultural and municipal uses are accounted, as are the components of water disposition in the SMVMA.

Conclusions drawn regarding water resource conditions are discussed, including any finding of severe water shortage, which is concluded to not be the case through 2016. Finally, recommendations are provided with regard to the intra-basin transfer of water from the SMVMA to the NMMA, possible enhancement of groundwater recharge, expanded assessment of water resource conditions, and continued implementation of the monitoring program for the SMVMA.

Janny Choi from Stanford University's Water in the West discusses the Santa Maria stipulation in the 2014 paper Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2017 Potable Reuse Compendium

Add to Downloads

2017 Potable Reuse Compendium
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | January 11, 2018...
Summary
Appropriate and necessary treatment and reuse of wastewater to augment existing water resources is a rapidly expanding approach for both non-potable and potable...

Appropriate and necessary treatment and reuse of wastewater to augment existing water resources is a rapidly expanding approach for both non-potable and potable applications. EPA recognizes that potable reuse of water can play a critical role in helping states, tribes, and c ommunities meet their future drinking water needs with a diversified portfolio of water sources. Beginning with the first pioneers in water reuse, Los Angeles County Sanitation Distric t (1962), Orange County Sanitation District (1976), and the Upper Occoquan Service Authority (1978), the practice has gained substantial momentum because of drought and the need to assure groundwater resource sustainability and a secure water supply. Long-term water scarcity is expected to increase over time in many parts of the country as a result of drought, growing water demand, and other stressors.

Across the U.S., there has been a notable increase in the deployment of technologies to augment existing water supplies through reuse of wastewater that has been treated and cleaned to be safe for the intended use. Indirect reuse usually involves passage of water through an environmental buffer (e.g., groundwater aquifer, lake, river) before the water is again treated for reuse. Direct reuse refers to those situations where treatment is followed by storage and use, but without the environmental buffer. Many drinking water systems rely on water treatment technologies to support indirect reuse of water (e.g., indirect potable reuse) and some drinking water systems now directly reuse wastewater after treatment (e.g., direc t potable reuse).

In 2012, EPA published the 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse to serve as a reference on water reuse practices . The document provided information related to indirect potable reuse (IPR), but only briefly described direc t potable reuse (DPR). Because of increased interest in pursuing potable water reuse, EPA is is suing the 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium to outline key science, technical, and policy considerations regarding this practice. This 2017 Compendium supplements the 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse to inform current practices and approaches in potable reuse, including those related to direct potable water reuse. EPA recognizes the recent water reuse publications from our stakeholders at the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the Water Environment and Reuse Foundation (WE&RF), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF). The 2017 Compendium is a compilation of technical information on potable reuse practices to provide planners and decision-makers with a summary of the current state of the practice. Specific knowledge and experience are drawn from case studies on existing reuse approaches.

EPA supports water reuse as part of an integrated water resources management approach developed at the state and local level to meet the water needs of multiple sectors including agriculture, industry, drinking water, and ecosystem protection. An integrated approach commonly involves a combination of water management strategies (e.g., water supply development, water storage, water use efficiency, and water reuse) and engages multiple stakeholders and needs, including the needs of the environment. Although EPA encourages an integrated approach to water resources management, it does not require or restrict practices such as water reuse. EPA acknowledges the primacy of states in the allocation and development of water resources. EPA, State, and local governments implement programs under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the quality of source waters to ensure that source water is treated so that water provided to the tap is safe for people to drink (e.g., contaminant specific drinking water standards). The SDWA and the CWA provide a foundation from which states can further develop and support potable water reuse as they deem appropriate.

EPA will continue to engage a broad spectrum of partners and stakeholders for input on where the Agency can provide meaningful support to states, tribes, and communities as they implement potable water reuse projects. EPA will also work with stakeholders, the scientific community , and the States to monitor and evaluate performance of water treatment technologies to ensure that potable reuse projects are implemented in a manner that protects the health of communities . This document is a collaborative effort between EPA, CDM Smith, and other key stakeholders. EPA acknowledges the importance of potable water reuse and looks forward to working with our stakeholders as the practice continues to be developed and deployed as an important approach to ensure a c lean, safe, and sustainable water supply for the nation.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps
$0.00
Add to Downloads

2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) | April 24, 2018...
Summary

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority
$0.00
Add to Downloads

2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority
Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, GEI Consultants Inc. | April 1, 2018...
Summary
The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017 Water...

The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017 Water Year (i.e., inclusive of months October 2016 to September 2017) in support of their pending Alternative Submittal. The Annual Report is intended for conveying monitoring and water use data to the State DWR on an annual basis to gauge performance of the groundwater subbasin relative to the sustainability goal set forth in a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or, for SCGA, the Alternative Submittal. As such, SCGA is including sufficient information to provide interested parties with sufficient background and supporting details to serve as a public communications document for subbasin management and to take the place of historic biennial reporting available on the SCGA website.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Commitment to Action: Advancing Integrated Water Management in California
$0.00
Add to Downloads

A Commitment to Action: Advancing Integrated Water Management in California
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 11, 2013...
Summary
This document highlights the key perspectives and recommendations that emerged during the Integrated Water Management Summit held in Sacramento on April 3, 2013. ...
This document highlights the key perspectives and recommendations that emerged during the Integrated Water Management Summit held in Sacramento on April 3, 2013. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) hosted the event in partnership with the Water Education Foundation and the California Water Commission, and would like to thank the 200+ attendees and guest speakers who participated in the Summit.

The goal of the Summit was to bring together water leaders from myriad agencies and organizations to share experiences and ideas on how we can effectively align to provide sustainable water resources services in the State, in the face of an uncertain future.

Most agree that the water management approaches we have been relying on for several decades are no longer sustainable given today’s economic climate, our changing environment and the need to supply safe drinking water, agricultural water and flood protection for a growing population, while also protecting and enhancing valuable environmental resources. The thoughtful presentations and informative discussions at the Summit served as an important milestone in the movement to shape a more cooperative and effective approach to water management in California.

The Summit launched a new campaign called “Water 360” to help refocus and strengthen the collective efforts of California’s water management community by advancing integrated water management. Integrated water management is a framework for planning and implementation that melds the objectives of improving public safety, fostering environmental stewardship and supporting economic stability to lead to sustainable water resource management.

Integrated water management is not a new concept in California, and great strides have been made in the last decade to utilize the approach, particularly at the regional level. The Water 360 Campaign builds on these early successes and calls for broader application across the entire state. DWR is prepared and committed to lead this effort in close partnership with other water leaders, particularly State, federal, and local agencies; and in collaboration with all stakeholders.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand
$0.00
Add to Downloads

A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand
Pacific Institute | August 31, 2016...
Summary
A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand provides communities, environmental groups, ratepayer advocates, and anyone interested in sustainable water supply planning...
A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand provides communities, environmental groups, ratepayer advocates, and anyone interested in sustainable water supply planning with the knowledge and tools they need to understand water demand forecasts.

Communities across the U.S. are faced with decisions about how to meet the needs of a growing population. To help make these decisions, water utilities often rely on forecasts that project water use 20 or 30 years into the future, consistent with the amount of time it takes to develop new supply infrastructure, such as desalination plants or reservoirs.

For much of the 20th century, water use in American cities grew in proportion to population and the economy. Since the 1980s, however, water use in communities across the United States has remained steady or declined despite continued population and economic growth, due to improved water conservation and efficiency and structural changes in the American economy.

While the water sector has undergone a fundamental transformation, the practice of water demand forecasting has been slow to keep pace. Water suppliers routinely overestimate future water demand based on often overstated estimates of population and economic growth and underestimates of the effects of water conservation and efficiency improvements. These inflated estimates of future water needs can result in unneeded water supply and treatment infrastructure, higher costs to ratepayers, and unnecessary environmental impacts.

The guidebook explains how water utilities forecast long-term water demand and reviews some of the approaches and methods commonly used by utilities and consultants. It also provides a set of best practices that can be used to create more accurate and robust long-range water demand forecasts. Some of these best practices include accounting for water conservation and efficiency improvements and land use changes, as well as ensuring transparency and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California

Add to Downloads

A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 4, 2003...
Summary
The Tule groundwater sub-basin is an agriculturally-intensive area located in the eastern-central part of the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Urban and agricultural...

The Tule groundwater sub-basin is an agriculturally-intensive area located in the eastern-central part of the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Urban and agricultural stakeholders in the Tule sub-basin depend on a combination of imported surface water and pumped groundwater to meet their water de- mands. The water service districts there receive surface water deliveries from the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP) (United States Bureau of Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP) (California Department of Water Resources), the Kings River (United States Army Corps of Engineers), or the Success Reservoir (United States Army Corps of Engineers). All of these surface water sources develop their supplies from run-off and snow melt in the foothills and watersheds of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The state of California is prone to recurring droughts, some lasting several years. During drought periods, irrigated agriculture depends more heavily on groundwater pumping as surface water supplies are generally less available. To buffer the effects of drought, districts in the Tule sub-basin have cooperatively managed their surface water and groundwater resources conjunctively. During a normal to wet year, excess available surface water supplies (e.g. releases for flood control) are used by some districts to recharge their groundwater reservoirs. However, a prolonged multi-year drought invariably leads to an increased dependence on groundwater pumping and overdraft of the groundwater sub-basin storage. In addition to climate variability, changes in future surface water supplies may also occur due to the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, which mandates that 400,000 acre-feet per year of CVP water be released from the Friant Unit into the San Joaquin River for restoration purposes.

To better understand the impacts of irrigated agriculture, fluctuating surface water supplies, and groundwater pumping practices on water levels and groundwater storage in the Tule sub-basin area, we developed a GIS-based con- junctive use model to study them. The study area is 541,580 acres in size and contains the entire Tule groundwater sub-basin and parts of the Kaweah and Tulare Lake groundwater sub-basins. The incorporated land in the study area is divided into 26 water service districts: 21 irrigation, water, or public utility districts; 2 major cities; 2 private contractors; and 1 water company. These districts are either completely or partially located within the study area. The study area is further delineated into 9,114 individual land units from a 1985 land use survey of Tulare County. Agriculture is the largest land use, compris- ing 72% of the study area. Native and urban land use comprise 22% and 4% of the study area, respectively. Semi-agricultural and special conditions (i.e. fallow) land use each comprise 1%. Twelve crops account for 95% of the area under agricultural production. Cotton, grain & grass hay, citrus, vineyards, and alfalfa individually represent 20.3, 18.6, 13.6, 13, and 10.3% of the total productive acreage, respectively.

Surface water supplies are distributed to the districts and ultimately to the individual land units by a surface water supply system. The surface water supply system in the model is divided into two parts: 1) an inter-district surface water channel network, and 2) an intra-district surface water distribution system. The inter-district channel network consists of the explicitly modeled source and diversion channels which import surface water into the study area and deliver it to individual districts. The intra-district distribution system con- sists of the implicitly modeled district channels (e.g. laterals, ditches, canals, farm turnouts) which deliver surface water to individual land units within each district.

The conjunctive use model consists of three loosely-coupled sub-models: 1) a surface water supply (SWS) model, 2) an unsaturated zone water budget (UZWB) model, and 3) a groundwater flow model. The base period of the study covers the fiscal water years of 1970-99. The purpose of the SWS model is to calculate the surface water balance for the source and diversion channels in the inter-district channel network. For each modeled surface water channel, the SWS model computes surface water deliveries from it to each district and conveyance losses from it due to evaporation and channel seepage. The primary model outputs are monthly surface water deliveries to each district and monthly seepage rates from modeled channels. The surface water deliveries became input for the UZWB model. The channel seepage became input for the groundwater flow model as localized aquifer recharge. The allocation of surface water within each district, via the implicitly modeled intra-district surface water distribution system, is estimated by the UZWB model.

The total imported surface water for 1970-99 from the CVP and the Success Reservoir are 13,329,262 and 4,653,501 acre-feet (af), respectively. The SWP and the Kings River imported the lesser amounts of 88,625 and 7,332 af, respec- tively. Annual CVP diversions varied from 125,970 af in 1977 to 679,298 af in 1993 with a 30-year annual average of 444,309 af. The Tule River and Pioneer Ditch both receive regulated releases from Success Reservoir. Tule River annual imports varied from 11,034 af in 1977 to 607,154 af in 1983 while the Pioneer Ditch varied from 3,445 af in 1973 to 5,874 af in 1990. The total natural runoff from the Deer Creek and White River from 1970-99 were 703,444 and 219,098 af, respectively. Deer Creek runoff varied from 4,082 af in 1992 to 103,716 af in 1983 while the White River runoff varied from 422 af in 1977 to 37,985 af in 1998.

From 1970-99, a total of 15 million af of surface water was applied by the service districts in the study area. The applied surface water varied from a low of 135,482 af in 1977 to a high of 708,293 af in 1996. The Lower Tule River Ir- rigation District and the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District together account for 59% of the total applied surface water while occupying approximately 40% of the incorporated area in the study area. Over the 30-year base period, an estimated total of 3.5 million af of seepage conveyance loss occurred in all sur- face water channels. Seepage in the Tule River, Deer Creek, and White River accounted for 85% of the total seepage. Total annual seepage varied from a low of 8,128 af in 1977 to 467,084 af in 1983.

The UZWB model then calculates the monthly water storage changes in the soil root zone and deep vadose zone of each land unit, where the land unit is the UZWB model scale of resolution. It also models the intra-district surface water distribution system by estimating the monthly allocation of surface water to individual land units within each district. The main model outputs were the recharge to the unconfined aquifer from surface applied water and precipitation, and the groundwater pumping demand from the unconfined and confined aquifers. The recharge and groundwater pumping rates became input for the groundwater flow model.

The total annual agricultural and urban consumptive use ranged from 865,800 af in 1970 to 1,246,700 af in 1999. The estimated total pumping ranged from 148,100 af in 1978 to 570,000 af in 1990. As expected, pumping was heaviest during the droughts of 1975-77 and 1987-92, and lightest during the wet years of 1973, 1978, 1982-83, 1995, and 1998. Precipitation totals varied from 177,800 af in 1990 to 974,400 af in 1998. Diffuse recharge from surface applied water ranged from 64,800 af in 1992 to 350,100 af in 1983.

The net aquifer recharge for the entire study area was computed by ag- gregating the aquifer recharge and groundwater pumping of each land unit to this scale and adding the contribution to aquifer recharge from channel seepage. The monthly net recharge was then summed to produce a cumulative annual net recharge from 1970 to each fiscal water year from 1971-99. The water balance computed for the entire study area neglects horizontal groundwater inflows and outflows through its vertical boundaries. Groundwater fluxes undoubtedly exist along these boundaries. However, net fluxes are likely small in comparison to the total changes in storage due to vertical stresses applied to the entire study area (e.g. groundwater pumping, evapotranspiration, applied surface water, channel seepage). Horizontal groundwater flow on the inter-land unit and inter-district scales is expected to be more significant. For computing a total water balance, however, we made the simplifying assumption that the study area behaves as a relatively closed system where the net horizontal groundwater inflows through its vertical boundaries are small. Invoking this assumption, we then use the cumulative net recharge as an estimate of the cumulative groundwater storage change in the aquifer system. Ideally, verification of these estimates is performed by comparing them with an objective measure of the study area aquifer storage changes. However, changes in groundwater storage are not directly observable and must always be estimated using non-direct measures. As such, an objec- tive measure for verification does not exist. As an alternative, we compare the water balance model results with those produced by the water-table fluctuation (WTF) method.

The trends in cumulative annual groundwater storage changes computed from the water balance and the WTF method from 1970-99 were quite similar. The minimum and maximum differences between them were 2,450 af (1980) and 752,387 af (1991), respectively. From 1970, the maximum amount of ground- water accumulation occurred in the spring of 1987 with the WTF method and the water balance estimating positive storage changes of 1,146,286 and 898,128 af, respectively. The maximum groundwater overdraft occurred in 1993 with the WTF method and the water balance estimating negative storage changes of 1,610,210 and 1,218,566 af, respectively. The 1987 and 1993 fiscal water years marked the beginning and ending of a major 6-year drought in California, respectively.

Finally, the groundwater flow model calculates the changes in water levels in the aquifer system subject to transient groundwater recharge and pump- ing stresses. A post-processing routine calculates the cumulative groundwater storage changes over each district and the entire study area for each stress pe- riod. An automated calibration of the groundwater flow model was performed to refine the conceptual model of the hydrogeology and to estimate the spa- tial distributions of the aquifer system horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The calibration period of the groundwater flow model is 1970-85 and the validation period is 1986-99.

Three different conceptual models of the aquifer system horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh, structure were evaluated in the calibration process: 1) Khas an exponential function of the specific yield, Sy, distribution, 2) Kh as a linear function of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil survey map- ping units, and 3) division of the model domain into square zones of uniform size. The models were calibrated against both spatially distributed hydraulic head targets and cumulative groundwater storage change targets for seven of the largest districts. The discretization of the model domain into uniform square zones provided the most robust Kh structure and produced the most reason- able estimates of hydraulic head and district groundwater storage changes from the three conceptual models over the 1971-85 calibration period. The calibrated model was then used to compute the annual net inter-district groundwater fluxes between adjacent districts. In general, groundwater flux directions were con- sistent with the large-scale hydraulic gradients. Annual inter-district net fluxes between adjacent districts ranged from negligibly small ( < 100 af) to as much as 80,000 af (e.g. net flux from Lower Tule River ID to Pixley ID). Net inter-district fluxes were generally a function of the local transmissivity, the length of the shared border between adjacent districts, and the differences in their surface water supplies.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details