General Plan

Conservation Element

BACKGROUND TO THE

1993 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED

The background section text and maps were not updated as part of the 2011 amendments to the County General Plan.

County of Sacramento

Community Planning and Development Department

(blank page)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

1. WATER PURVEYORS

There are currently twenty-eight water purveyors in Sacramento County (see Table 1). There are five different categories of water purveyor: Dependent water districts, Autonomous (independent) water districts, Cities, Private, and Mutual water companies.

TABLE 1

WATER PURVEYORS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY

<u>Types of Water Agencies</u>

<u>Dependent Water Districts</u>: Dependent water districts are dependent on the county government for their power to implement water use plans.

<u>Water Maintenance Districts</u>: The Sacramento County Water Maintenance District is operated by the Department of Public Works. Several small districts were consolidated for the express purpose of constructing and maintaining a water distribution system within limited geopolitical jurisdictions. Included within the County operated water district are the following service areas:

Valley Hi Greens, Arden Park Vista, Southwest Tract, Northgate 880, Sunrise, Hood, Grantline 99, Laguna, and Vineyard.

Maintenance districts may be formed for a number of purposes in addition to the operation and maintenance of a water distribution system. Some of the other common maintenance districts include both sanitary sewer and street lighting maintenance districts.

<u>Autonomous Water Districts</u>: There are four main types of autonomous water districts in Sacramento County: County water district, irrigation districts, California water districts, and community service districts. They are autonomous because each has its own independently elected governing body.

<u>County Water Districts</u>: Despite the name, all five "county water districts" are completely autonomous with elected governing bodies. Five county water districts were formed pursuant to the California Water District Act (Water Code Section 30000 et. seq.). The five are Northridge, Arcade, Florin County, Del Paso Manor County, and Rio Linda Water Districts.

<u>Irrigation Districts</u>: There are four irrigation districts located partially or wholly in Sacramento County. They include: Carmichael and Fair Oaks Water Districts and Citrus Heights and Galt Irrigation Districts. They were formed under the California Irrigation District Act (Section 20500 et seq. of the Water Code).

<u>California Water Districts</u>: There are two water districts in Sacramento County that were formed under the provisions of the California Water District Act (Water Code Section 35300 et seq.): They are the Clay and Omochumne-Hartnell Water Districts located in the southeastern section of Sacramento County.

<u>Community Services Districts</u>: The San Juan Suburban Community Services District provides retail and wholesale water to the northeast section of Sacramento County. Rancho Murieta Community Services District provides its own water system.

<u>Cities</u>: The following cities provide their own water service: City of Galt, City of Folsom, and City of Sacramento.

<u>Private Water Companies</u>: There are four private water companies in Sacramento County which are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. They include: Arden-Cordova Water Service, Citizens Utilities Company of California, Elk Grove Water Works, and Fruitridge Vista Water Company. These purveyors are owned by stockholders and are governed by State Statutes set forth in the Public Utilities Code.

<u>Mutual Water Companies</u>: There are four mutual companies in Sacramento County. These entities are not regulated by any governmental body, except that when a mutual water company is formed and it sells "securities," or shares of the water system to its users, it must be granted permission to do so by the State Department of Corporations. If a mutual water company is a

corporation (some of the smaller mutuals are not incorporated), it also files with the Office of the Secretary of State, like any other corporation. The mutual water companies in Sacramento County are: Tokay Park, Orangevale, and Natomas Mutual Water Companies.

Water districts are responsible for securing and developing their own water supply either through obtaining surface water rights from the United States Bureau of Reclamation or drilling wells into any aquifers which may underlie their jurisdiction. The boundaries of each district are shown on the map, Figure 3. This can be compared to the study areas which were drawn up for the Sacramento County Water Agency Water Plan Supplement done by the Boyle Engineering Corporation as seen in Figure 4.

<u>Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA)</u>: This Agency was formed through the Sacramento County Water Agency Act. Its purpose is to develop an overall statement on county water needs.

The SCWA has the following responsibilities:

1. To provide a program of groundwater management with the objective of halting and, if feasible, reversing the long-term decline in groundwater levels, and terminating the use of groundwater of undesirable quality in the urbanized area of Sacramento County.

2. To establish appropriate groundwater management zones which may include areas within as well as outside the City Limits and to levy and collect groundwater charges within such zones for the purpose of managing groundwater use and improving groundwater quantity and quality. The revenues from the groundwater management program are used to offset groundwater management costs incurred by the County Water Agency and to pay for the construction of surface water facilities provided by the City.

3. To establish surface water benefit zones outside the City limits which will be benefited by surface water supply provided by the City. The Agency can assess, collect and pay to the City appropriate amounts for the construction of the surface water facilities provided by the City.

4. The County and the County Water Agency shall share and guarantee any debt financing required for the expansion of existing or construction of new facilities by the City.

5. The County shall cooperate in providing members of a technical advisory committee to represent the County and County Water Agency in providing specific policy and action recommendations and guidance to achieve the objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding (see separate section on Memorandum of Understanding for explanation of this term).

⬚ figure

1. Metro Airport
2. Natomas Mutual
3. Rio Linda Water Dist.
4. Citizens Utilities
5. Arcade Water Dist.
6. Northridge Park Water Dist.
7. El Ranchito Mutual
8. Citrus Heights Irrigation Dist.
9. San Juan Suburban
10. Orangevale Mutual
11. City of Folsom
12. Fair Oaks Water Dist.
13. Carmichael Water Dist.
14. Del Paso Manor
15. Arden Cord.
16. Sacramento County Water Main. Dist.
17. Arden Cordova
18. Fruitridge Vista
19. Tokay Park
20. Florin County
21. Elk Grove Water Works
22. Omochumne Hartnell
23. Rancho Murieta CSD
24. Clay Water Dist.
25. Rancho Seco
26. Galt Irrigation Dist.
27. City of Galt
28. City of Sacramento

Figure 3

Water Districts

Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department

⬚ figure

Figure 4

Sacramento Water Plan

Subarea Map

Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department

A Technical Advisory Committee drafts agreements delineating the County's participation in the expansion of the American River Water Treatment Plant and the City's commitment in treating and wheeling water obtained by the County to areas outside the City's place of use.

<u>Sacramento County Water Agency</u>: The Sacramento County water agency is operated by the Sacramento County Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division, and is authorized to perform water supply, drainage and flood control for all of Sacramento County. Within the Water Agency, separate zones provide funds for specific projects in specific areas.

The current efforts of zone 40 and the proposed zone 41 to obtain surface water rights from the American River have received much attention. The purpose of both these zones is to try to secure surface water and/or additional groundwater rights in order to meet the water needs of their respective areas. The area to be served by zone 41 and the area already served by zone 40 are unincorporated areas which presently have no surface water entitlements. Both fund capital improvements through fees levied on water users. The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) is empowered to levy fees. The main difference between these two zones is that the zone 40 area has no water purveyors while the zone 41 area has four purveyors: Northridge Water District, McClellan AFB, Rio Linda Water District, and Citizens Utilities Company. By joining, these water districts are more capable of negotiating water rights from a stronger unified position. Finalization of zone 41 is dependent on agreement by the affected water purveyors with the terms of the SCWA for formation of zone 41. The following issues must be worked out and agreed upon: administration and boundaries of the zone, procurement of water entitlements, and construction of facilities to provide a continuous supply of ground or surface water to lands within the zone. No fees for the construction of these facilities may be levied by SCWA until an agreement has been reached.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

2. CURRENT SUPPLY

<u>Groundwater</u>

Groundwater is subsurface water occurring in the zone of saturation (below the water table) and moving under the control of the water table slope or gradient. Below the ground surface there are two zones: an unsaturated zone and a saturated zone. The unsaturated zone is that zone between the land surface and the water table and includes the capillary fringe. Perched water bodies may exist within the unsaturated zone. The saturated zone is that part of the water-bearing material in which all voids, large and small, are filled with water.

Precipitation, applied water irrigation, and stream flow enter the unsaturated zone from the surface and flow by gravity toward the saturated zone. The rate at which this water reaches the saturated zone depends on factors including the amount of precipitation or applied water available, soil type (sandy or hardpan), moisture content, and vertical permeability of the unsaturated zone. If only a small amount of water is applied or is available through precipitation, it may be consumed by evapotranspiration of the vegetative growth in the soil zone. Water that passes through the soil zone moves downward through the unsaturated zone. Water reaching the saturated zone is considered deep percolation and is treated as an increment to the groundwater supply.

The time of travel through the unsaturated zone is unknown due to soil type variation and varying distance to the water table. In the Natomas area the response of the water table to precipitation or irrigation should be several days. However, in the southern part of the county it would be considerably longer. Generally it is assumed that recharge water takes less than a year to travel to the water table.

The water-bearing sequence beneath Sacramento County can be divided into two main saturation zones. The lower zone, referred to as the deep aquifer system, includes the black volcanic sands of the Mehrten Formation, volcanic sediments in the Valley Springs Formation and non-volcanic sediments in the Ione Formation. The upper zone, referred to as the shallow aquifer system, includes the non-volcanic sediments of the Fair Oaks, Laguna, and Victor formations, as well as the overlying alluvial deposits. Most significant water-yielding deposits occur as sinuous layers of sand and gravel formed as stream channel deposits become buried as rivers and streams altered their course during geologic events (Figure 5).

Groundwater is the primary source of water supply for domestic, municipal and agriculture uses in the County. In 1987, it was estimated that groundwater use was approximately 450,000 AF/yr., accounting for 60 percent of the total water required by the county.

The average elevation of groundwater levels in Sacramento County remained steady at approximately 30 feet above sea level from 1930 through 1940. From 1941 to 1970, levels declined to about 50 feet below sea level. The declining trend has continued until 1981. The high precipitation experienced in 1982 and 1983 caused the groundwater level to temporarily rise. However, levels have gone into decline again and are now lower than in 1981. For more on this, see the section titled Groundwater Overdraft.

Recharge Characteristics

Only a relatively small portion of the land area of Sacramento County is underlain by materials with sufficient infiltration capability to provide natural recharge to the groundwater body. In the eastern foothill region, slopes are too steep and consequently precipitation in excess of evapotranspiration becomes runoff. The Victor plain and Delta area are under lain by soils containing hardpan or organic clays; the low permeability of these materials inhibits infiltration. It is only along active stream channels that sands and gravels occur of sufficient area extent and depth that adequate quantities of surface water may infiltrate to recharge the ground water body.

Most of the stream channel deposits in Sacramento County occur along the courses of the Cosumnes and American Rivers. Along the former, studies have shown that there is an annual recharge of 17,000 AF/yr. along the river reach from Bridgehouse (east edge of the groundwater basin) to McConnell. Downstream from McConnell, recharge is insignificant due to an abundance of clay materials in the subsurface.

Recharge

Recharge to the groundwater basin is derived from three major components: precipitation, applied water, and streamflow.

• Precipitation is the general term for all forms of moisture emanating from the clouds and falling to the ground. In Sacramento County precipitation usually occurs as rainfall. Once the rain hits the ground, it can evaporate, become streamflow, or groundwater.

• Applied water is a general term for all forms of water applied by humans to irrigate crops. In general, about 65 percent of all irrigation water is consumptively used by plants for vegetative growth. Of the 35 percent left, 10 to 25 percent infiltrates the groundwater basin and the rest evaporates or becomes streamflow.

• Stream flow should theoretically recharge the groundwater body if no impervious surface impedes the downward flow, since groundwater elevations throughout the County are lower than the stream's and river's surface elevations.

Figure 5

⬚ figure

Groundwater Recharge Capability

Average annual precipitation varies from 15 to 26 inches in Sacramento County. Also, areas have widely variable soil permeabilities causing different areas to have large variations in recharge. Different crops have different root depths which are directly related to the ability of the plant to gather moisture from the soil profile. The available water from rainfall and irrigation is compared with the water required for evapotranspiration and soil moisture deficiency. If there is any excess water on pervious land, it is considered to be deep percolation. The rainfall on impervious areas remaining after evaporation was assumed to be runoff. Ten percent of the agricultural and native vegetation areas is estimated to be impervious and 50 percent of the urban area is impervious.

In the urban area, approximately 20 percent of the runoff from the impervious areas ran onto adjacent pervious areas and was used by the plants, evaporated, or percolates downward. Countywide, the estimated average recharge is from 10 percent to 20 percent of average rainfall. The portion of irrigation return flow that contributes to the groundwater basin is assumed to be 15 percent of the annual average irrigation water, or 0.44 AF/yr. per an acre of land. It is assumed that 40 percent of urbanized area is pervious and subject to groundwater recharge. Table 2 presents the estimated amounts of groundwater recharge from rain and applied water.

TABLE 2

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FROM RAIN AND APPLIED WATER

Other significant inflows into the groundwater basin under Sacramento County include streamflow recharge and subsurface inflows. These quantities are extremely difficult to estimate separately due to the lack of appropriate data. However, it is estimated that a combined quantity for streamflow recharge and subsurface recharge inflows should be 135,300 AF/yr. for the Folsom South Service Area and 81,600 AF/yr. for the remainder of the County. The Department

of Water Resources (Bulletin 118-3) presented estimated streamflow recharges in the County. These recharge quantities, by stream source, are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3

ANNUAL RECHARGE FROM STREAMS

Sustained Yield

When a groundwater basin is influenced by any subsurface inflow, sustained yield will vary depending on the desired water level to be maintained. Sustained yield is defined as that yield of groundwater that will maintain present water levels. Based on this definition, the sustained yield for the Study Area was estimated to be approximately 357,000 AF/yr., of which 215,000 AF/yr. is estimated for the Folsom South Service Area, and the remaining 142,000 AF/yr. for the remainder of the County. A summary of the groundwater budget developed for the County is presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4

ANNUAL GROUNDWATER BUDGET (1,000 AF)

(Long-Term Average, Based on Review of Records From 1961-1981)

<u>Sustained Yield Subarea</u>

Sustained yield estimates were calculated for each subarea so that surface water needs could be determined on a subarea basis. The estimates for each subarea are based on the ratio of each subarea to the total area. The results are calculated values and refinement will require further study of each local situation. These values are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

SUBAREA SUSTAINED YIELD ESTIMATES

Surface Water

There are no countywide surface water entitlements which would allow surface water to be distributed to all places which need surface water to augment their groundwater supplies. Surface water entitlements are restricted to "places of use" as follows (Table 6).

Sacramento River

Sacramento City: The City of Sacramento has water rights to 81,800 AF/yr. from the Sacramento River. Water from the Sacramento River can only be used to serve property within Sacramento City Limits. This is a legal requirement which cannot be altered by negotiations. But, as territory is annexed to the City it is entitled to Sacramento River water.

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company: The Natomas Central Mutual Water Company has entitlements to 82,000 AF/yr of Sacramento River water for irrigation purposes.

American River

Sacramento City: Currently, the City of Sacramento has water rights to approximately 245,000 AF of water per year from the American River; however, this is the diversion limit for the year 2030. The annual limit is based on an increasing schedule which began in 1963. About 57,000 AF/yr. is currently withdrawn from the river at the City's "H" Street diversion and treatment plant. Water from the American River can be delivered beyond the City Limits as long as it is within the boundaries of the American River Place of Use (POU) (Figure 6). To date, the City of Sacramento has contracted to sell or distribute American River Water only to Arcade Water District and Del Paso County Water District located within the American River Place of Use Boundary.

Cosumnes River

Rancho Murieta Water District: The Cosumnes River is the sole source of water for the Rancho Murieta community. The principal domestic water right held by the District is Application 2341b, Permit 16762. This water right allows for diversions from the Cosumnes River from November 1 through May 31 under the following conditions:

A. No water can be diverted when river flows are less than 70 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Michigan Bar and there is evidence of visible flow at McConnell Gage located approximately 21 miles downstream. For flows between 70 cfs and 175 cfs, a maximum diversion of 6 cfs is allowed provided this diversion does not reduce the downstream flow below 70 cfs.

TABLE 6

ENTITLEMENT AND USE OF SURFACE WATER (AF/YR)

⬚ figure

Figure 6

American River

Place of Use Boundary Map

Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department

B. When river flows exceed 175 cfs, a diversion of 6 cfs is allowed for direct use plus an additional 3,900 AF to storage is allowed as follows:

1. 1,250 AF to Chesbro Reservoir
2. 2,610 AF to Calero Reservoir
3. 850 AF to Clementia Reservoir
4. 40 AF to South Course Lake #10

C. The combined amount of B. (2), (3), and (4) above cannot exceed 2,650 AF. The maximum allowable rate of diversion to storage is 46 cfs. The total amount of water to be taken cannot exceed 6,368 AF/yr.

<u>Omochumne-Hartnell Water District</u>: The Omochumne-Hartnell Water District has riparian water rights to 2,400 AF/yr. from the Cosumnes River.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

3. CURRENT WATER USE

Current surface and groundwater use for the different Subareas of Sacramento are shown in Table 7. There are three separate water use categories: 1) Agricultural, 2) Commercial and Industrial, and 3) Residential, Parks and Schools. All categories are not necessarily represented in all subareas; some areas having more land in agricultural use while others are strictly commercial, industrial and residential and still other areas are a mix of all three types of uses. In general areas which are mostly agricultural use more water, especially if there is a large percentage of rice lands as rice requires flooding during most of its growing season. However, much of the water used for agriculture either returns to the Sacramento River or recharges groundwater.

TABLE 7

CURRENT (1987) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER USE IN THE COUNTY

(blank page)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

4. GROUNDWATER OVERDRAFT

Continuing groundwater overdraft has been occurring in various parts of the County since the 1940's. While groundwater can continue to meet some of the water needs in these areas, new or increased surface water supplies should be secured in the immediate future in order to protect the viability of the groundwater resource. Continuation of current practices will result in further decline of groundwater levels with corresponding increased pumping costs and possible degradation of groundwater quality.

As shown in Figure 7, there are three distinct cones of depression in Sacramento County, indicating that past and current groundwater pumpage in these areas has significantly exceeded sustained yield quantities. These areas have an immediate need for imported surface water to meet current demands.

<u>Changes in Storage</u>

Changes in storage can be computed from the change in water levels. The change in water level elevations was determined from spring water level contour maps. Estimated annual changes in storage in acre feet for the period 1962 through 1968 are listed in Table 8. Using the average specific yield of 7.5 percent, the average decline in water level is about 0.5 foot per year.

TABLE 8

ANNUAL CHANGE IN STORAGE FOR 1962 TO 1968

⬚ figure

Figure 7

Groundwater Overdraft Areas

Spring 1991 Groundwater Elevation

Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department

See Table 5, in Section 2 under groundwater for sustained yield estimates.

Problems With Overdraft

A few purveyors within the County have indicated little or no problem with their current water supply situation. However, most purveyors were concerned about growth and resulting need for additional water. While some purveyors expressed belief that additional wells could meet future needs generated by projected growth, most indicated an interest in securing new or increased surface water supplies. In many cases, surface water supplies will be necessary because groundwater is not present in sufficient quantities to meet future demands without exceeding the sustained yield values.

In general, most purveyors have reported that the quality of groundwater is suitable for all beneficial uses. It usually meets drinking water standards contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations; occasional chlorination is required. However, secondary drinking water standards for iron, manganese and other constituents have been exceeded at some locations, making additional treatment necessary. Existing community water systems, including their wells, may not be required to meet the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) specified at 23 CCR Sec. 64473. New wells, however, must adhere to the MCL standards. Purveyors expressed their concerns that new wells will therefore require additional, expensive treatment and that water costs could increase significantly.

The aquifer systems and the quality of water contained therein are presently inadequately defined to be able to identify a pattern as to locations where water quality problems are encountered. Groundwater quality problems have been found in some wells in the northern part of the County. In the south area of the County, particularly south of the City of Sacramento and westward, wells drilled to a depth of 400 to 600 feet are generally found to contain high levels of iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and iron bacteria. In this same area, the quality of water found at depths of 200 to 300 feet is excellent and no treatment has been required.

Recently, in an area east of Highway 99, wells have been drilled to depths of 900 feet. Water production from these wells, which presumably produce from the Mehrten Formation, has generally been very high, exceeding 2500 Gallons Per Minute (GPM). However, small amounts of iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide have been found in groundwater produced by some of these wells. The source of these constituents is unclear at this time. Their source may be in deeper water-bearing zones, in shallower zones or in both; or their presence in wells may be the result of poor well construction practices.

Groundwater contamination has been reported at a number of locations. This contamination is primarily from organic solvents and wastes at the following sites: The Aerojet-General property east of Rancho Cordova, McClellan and Mather Air Force Bases, the Army Depot in South Sacramento, and the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific yards in downtown Sacramento. The area south of McClellan AFB also has been the location of a pumping depression for a number of years. Such depressions tend to exacerbate groundwater contamination problems, as many

contaminants will migrate down gradient toward the trough of the depression. Because of localized groundwater contamination, McClellan AFB now receives water from Rio Linda Water District and Northridge Water District, and Aerojet now receives surface water from the City of Folsom. Groundwater at the International Airport is marginally acceptable for drinking purposes, as contaminant levels approach or exceed MCL's specified at 23 CCR Sec. 64435. Cleanup operations are either underway or are being planned. Other problems, besides contamination, arise when groundwater overdraft occurs. These are; subsidence of the earth as the water supporting it is drawn away; increased drilling and pumping costs as the water becomes harder to extract; and increased treatment costs as more lower quality waters requiring treatment for contamination are extracted when higher quality waters have been depleted.

Current Use Versus Sustained Yield

Current use of groundwater exceeds estimated sustained yield amounts for groundwater in Sacramento County. The total current use is 380,000 AF/yr. while safe yield is 357,000 AF/yr. resulting in an overdraft of 23,000 AF/yr. See Table 5, Section B. for sustained yield estimates.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

5. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND

<u>Assumptions</u>

The calculation of future water needs in the County for the year 2015 assumes the following:

• There will be no net increase in agricultural land. Urban pressures may cause a net reduction in cropland in some subareas.

• Water demand factors for all land use categories except residential remain constant. Per capita residential demands are reduced in some subareas due to increased densities.

• Current non-urban land will be developed in the order of land valuation. Vacant land and nonirrigated farmland will be developed first, followed by general irrigated farmland and rice farmland.

• All vacant land that is currently zoned commercial and industrial will be fully developed by 2015.

<u>Agricultural:</u>

It is assumed, for the purpose of estimating future agricultural water need, that total crop acreage will not increase in the future. This assumption is based on the following:

1. Most of the economically developable farmland in the County is already in production.

2. Soil surveys further indicate that the great majority of agriculturally suitable land within the County is already in use.

A number of the subareas are projected to experience a reduction in irrigated agriculture. Planned building patterns (zoning) and a population increase will completely eliminate general agriculture and reduce rice acreage by two-thirds in the North Sacramento subarea by 2015.

<u>Commercial and Industrial:</u>

All vacant land that is currently zoned as commercial and industrial is assumed to be fully developed by 2015. Total Commercial and Industrial need amounts to approximately 10 percent of the 2015 projected total water need for the County. Land thus developed will be withdrawn from non-urban land. Water factors and area employment patterns are assumed unchanged, with subarea water demand calculated from SACOG's estimate of employment for 2015.

<u>Residential/Parks/Schools:</u>

• Residential: Most subareas are expected to experience an increase in residential density by 2015.

• Parks: It was estimated that known 1987 acreage will increase in proportion to subarea population projections so that acreage to population ratios remain unchanged.

• Schools: The student yield factor (.44 student/house) and water factor of 0.024/AF/pupil/yr. remain constant for 2015 predictions. SACOG’s housing distribution was used to predict school water use.

<u>Results:</u>

Table 9 summarizes the projected 2015 water supply need for the County. The total need is 886,000 AF/yr. excluding conveyance losses and 931,000 AF/yr. assuming a 5 percent conveyance loss factor. The 931,000 AF/yr. projection represents a 22 percent increase over the calculated current water demand.

TABLE 9

ESTIMATED 2015 WATER SUPPLY NEED IN (AF/YR )

(blank page)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

6. IN-STREAM WATER NEEDS: AMERICAN RIVER

IN-STREAM BENEFITS

<u>Introduction</u>

As early as 1915, the City of Sacramento planned for development of recreational parks within the American River floodplain. The City established the first park in the vicinity of the "H" Street Bridge in the 1920's. The County of Sacramento also planned for development of recreational sites along the American River. However, the purchase and development of riverfront property proceeded slowly and in piecemeal fashion until the completion of Folsom Dam in 1956. Then, pressure for urban development adjacent to the river spurred efforts to preserve open space along the river. In 1959 the County established a Department of Parks and Recreation to develop a detailed plan of park needs along the American River. The American River Parkway Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1962, and was incorporated into the recreational element of the County General Plan. A systematic land acquisition program was initiated, and by 1986 Sacramento County had acquired over 4,000 acres of parkway land at a cost of 22 million dollars.

In addition, the 23 miles of the American River below Nimbus Dam has been designated as a recreational river by the Secretary of the Interior under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (U.S.C. 1271 et. seq.) and is given the same designation by the State under the State Wild and Scenic system (Public Resources Code 5093.50, 5093.54(3)).

<u>Recreational Values</u>

The American River Parkway is unique among urban rivers in the United States. Running through the center of the Sacramento Metropolitan area, the river and parkway provide a public recreational resource of great value and regional significance; it has no equivalent in California and few equivalents in this country. The parkway provides an outstanding variety and quality of recreational opportunities in the heart of a major metropolitan area. The parkway is California's largest urban riparian area. The parkway is managed to balance the dual goals of preserving natural, or open space, and protecting environmental quality within the urban environment, and at the same time contributing to recreational opportunities in the Sacramento area.

Recreational possibilities in the American River Parkway include such diverse activities as hiking, bicycling, picnicking, birding, horseback riding, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, sailing, power cruising, and swimming, to name a few. Some of these activities are water-dependent, such as rafting, swimming, or fishing; others are water-enhanced, such as bicycling, hiking, or picnicking.

The parkway contains developed parks such as Discovery, Ancil Hoffman and Goethe parks, as well as areas set aside in their natural condition. The Jedediah Smith Bicycle Trail permits parkway users to bicycle the full 23 miles from the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers at Discovery Park to Nimbus Dam. The bicycle trail then continues along Lake Natomas to Folsom State Park. Separate equestrian trails extend for many miles along the parkway.

A wide range of special activities takes place in the parkway, including nature study at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, Take-a-Kid Fishing Day, Eppie's Great Race (triathlon), a kite festival, and other organized programs. The parkway is also an excellent place for those who simply wish to relax in pleasant surroundings.

Riparian Vegetation Values

The riparian vegetation acts as a buffer between the lower American River and the surrounding urban development. This vegetation, together with the river itself, are the most prominent features of the Parkway, and contribute greatly to the recreational experiences there. Many species of wildlife use the riparian vegetation for sources of food, cover, nesting sites, roosting areas and migratory corridors. Riparian vegetation is recognized by ecologists as being among the most productive wildlife habitat in the state.

Riparian Vegetation and Floodplain Relationships

The parkway's riparian vegetation and the river system are dynamic and interdependent. As the lower American River moves down and across its valley, the river attempts to erode its banks and cut deep channels at the outside of a bend where the water is swift, and to deposit the eroded fines and gravels farther downstream on the inside of a bend where the water is slower. When the river overflows its banks, the water slows and deposits its sediment load on the floodplain. Spring runoff can leave deposits of moist, nutrient-rich soils upon which riparian plant seedlings become established. However, sediments deposited by the spring runoff, and any seedlings germinated there, are susceptible to removal by floods occurring within the next several winters.

Winter flood events on the American River rework sediments in the active channel too frequently to allow many seedlings to survive. Floods during December, January and February average 46,000 CFS, and are considerably higher than average spring runoff. Production and survival of the riparian vegetation on the semi-confined lower American River is dominated by these flood processes.

Riparian vegetation on the lower American River has adapted its reproduction processes by re-sprouting after damage from floods. The "scour and re-sprout" process is more important on the lower American River than seedling germination. Following the large 1986 flood (130,000 CFS) this re-sprouting process produced vigorous new stands of cottonwood 25 to 30 feet above the summer low-flow channel.

Riparian Vegetation and Wildlife

The parkway supports a wide variety of birds and wildlife. More than 220 bird species have been recorded in the parkway. Sacramento County estimates that 30 mammal species, 13 reptile species, and 6 amphibian species also inhabit the parkway. The possibility of catching a glimpse of deer, beaver, blue heron, or wild turkeys adds to the pleasure of parkway users. The riparian habitat is important not only as a breeding grounds for resident animals, but also as wintering grounds and migratory corridors for nonresident species.

Ponds

The Parkway includes a number of off-channel ponds that have high wildlife value. Ponds are found at Sacramento Bar, Arden Bar, Rossmoor Bar, just upstream of Discovery Park, and in Ancil Hoffman Park Golf Course. Bushy Lake is also located within the parkway. These ponds were mostly developed during the late 1960's and early 1970's when tailing mounds from the gold dredging era were excavated for the production of aggregate. Water surface elevations in the ponds are controlled, in large measure, by water surface elevations of the river nearby. These ponds provide some of the most important riparian habitat for wildlife.

Fisheries

The lower American River has 41 reported species of fish. Of these species, nine are anadromous (they live mainly in salt water but ascend freshwater rivers to spawn). The most abundant anadromous fish in the river are chinook salmon, stripped bass, American shad and steelhead trout. These fish are all sensitive to changes in stream flow levels, sediment loads, warm temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen content. In addition clean gravel is required for spawning and fry rearing.

Establishing Minimum In-Stream Flows

Recommended Minimum In-stream Flows For The Lower American River

Since completion of Folsom Dam, public attention has been increasingly focused on the Lower American River's fishery and recreation values. Construction of the dam was followed by public debate and governmental action to establish the Nimbus Fish Hatchery and in-stream flow standards to protect salmon and steelhead trout populations in the Lower American River. Over the years, essentially four flow regimes have been proposed. These are as follows:

<u>Decision 893 - The Existing Legal In-stream Flow Requirements</u>

This decision, established in 1958 by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in connection with the Folsom Water Rights permitting process, requires the Bureau to release a minimum flow of 250 to 500 cfs below Nimbus Dam. This was the minimum flow used in the original planning of the Auburn-Folsom South Unit in the early 1960's. Releases of 500 cfs would be made from September 15 through January 1, with a minimum release of 250 cfs during the remainder of the year.

<u>Decision 1400 - Post-Auburn Dam Flow Conditions</u>

This decision, made in connection with the Auburn Water Rights permitting process, was made in 1972 after a series of public meetings. This decision established post-Auburn Dam flow conditions between 1,250 and 1,500 cfs. In the absence of Auburn Dam, minimum flows would continue to be governed by D-893.

<u>County of Sacramento - Minimum Recreation Flows</u>

The County of Sacramento has prepared documentation on what it considers to represent the minimum flows consistent with the avoidance of permanent impairment to the Lower American River Parkway's recreational values. These flows range between 1,750 and 3,000 cfs as follows:

2000 cfs from October 15 through February 3000 cfs from March through June 1750 cfs from July through October 14.

<u>Department of Fish and Game - Minimum Flows for Fish Reproduction</u>

The in-stream flow needs are as follows, regardless of hydrologic conditions if fish populations are to remain unaffected:

*Additional flows included to meet the needs of smolt migration, shad attraction flows, temperature control, and gravel recruitment.

East Bay Municipal Utilities District Lawsuit

Background

The single issue, which has spawned 17 years of litigation to date is whether, pursuant to a 1970 contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, EBMUD may divert 150,000 AF/yr. from the Folsom Reservoir at the Folsom-South Canal or whether the mandates of Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution and public trust doctrine require that the diversion occur below the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. Plaintiffs and intervenors contend that the EBMUD diversion and consequent reduction of in-stream flows will cause substantial ecological harm to riparian habitat, fisheries, and recreational resources. Plaintiffs and intervenors further direct their concern to the cumulative impact of the EBMUD diversion in combination with projected appropriation and diversion of American River water in response to expanding urbanization and population growth.

EBMUD contends that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate any appreciable harm to public trust values; that principles of California Water Law require the recognition and implementation of its contract rights; that sound public policy requires that high quality drinking water be obtained from the best available source; and that the Folsom Dam was constructed pursuant to objectives and purposes that preempt state interference. Each side advanced a number of issues which the Court considered individually.

Summary of Decision in EBMUD Case

Judge Richard A. Hodge in the Superior Court of Alameda County made a "Physical Solution" in the case of the Environmental Defense Fund v EBMUD. The important points are:

• EBMUD will be allowed to divert water at the Folsom-South Canal if the conditions below are met.

• The following in-stream flow requirements must be met as a condition of the diversion: 2000 cfs from October 15 through February 3000 cfs March through June 1750 cfs July through October 14.

• An additional 60,000 AF must be maintained in reserve from mid-October through June for release in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game in response to specific fishery needs.

• EBMUD shall use its best efforts to divert as much water as possible during those times when in-stream flows are least required for protection of environmental interests.

• During such periods when flow requirements physically cannot be met, EBMUD may not divert any part of its appropriation. Defendants shall not divert water except to meet the demands of customers within the EBMUD Utility District.

• EBMUD shall not market nor sell its water to any third party, particularly agricultural interests.

• EBMUD shall contribute to the cost of maintaining a viable fishery and riparian habitat in the Lower American River.

• The foregoing flow regimen is not merely "interim" in nature. It is intended as a permanent, constitutionally mandated prerequisite to diversion.

• The Court will appoint a special master to monitor the physical solution upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties.

Implementation of The Decision

The Court maintained jurisdiction for the purpose of implementing the "Physical Solution" and providing for its modification in the event of new information on the American River which may come from one of the government agencies (i.e., DFG or FWS) which continue to study the river or the special master. John Williams of Carmel Heights, California. He will oversee all activities and research on the Lower American River to coordinate these activities and further advise the Court on possible changes or modifications to the decision which may be necessary.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

7. SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL WATER

It is obvious, when Sacramento County's current groundwater and surface water supplies are compared to the projected 2015 water needs, that the County must develop new water supply sources in order to meet the future needs of the area and stop the present groundwater overdraft condition that exists in the County. Potential sources of additional water are discussed here.

Central Valley Project Water

The purchase of water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) is traditionally considered to be the primary source of additional water for the County. The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has not entered into any new long-term contracts to supply water within the CVP since 1979. At that time, the United States Department of Interior declared a moratorium on CVP water contracting while the USBR and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) resolved questions of their respective responsibilities regarding water quality standards for the Delta. In 1986, the USBR and DWR concluded a Coordinated Operation Agreement which resolved these questions. Congress authorized execution of this agreement by USBR the same year. The Secretary of Interior lifted the contracting moratorium following execution of that agreement. USBR intends to undertake contracting of available, uncommitted CVP water, subsequent to the filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statements on the proposed water contracting.

The USBR estimates that the available remaining firm water supply of the CVP is approximately 1.1 million AF/yr. Eighty-four agencies have made requests for supplies from the CVP totaling 4.2 million AF/yr. The USBR determined that the 4.2 million AF/yr. could be reduced to 3.4 million AF/yr. and that that total would meet agricultural, municipal and industrial (M&I), and wildlife refuge needs within the CVP service area. Requests for water from the American River totaled 610,000 AF/yr. and the USBR, after reviewing each request, adjusted this total request down to 542,000 AF/yr. which it determined would meet the region's needs. USBR's calculated water supply needs for the American River Service Area, along with current American River contracts and water rights entitlements, are shown in Table 10.

Three types of allocations will be made: firm, conditional, and intermittent.

<u>Firm Yield</u> - Water supply available from the operation of CVP facilities in all but dry and critically dry years when shortages occur. The amount of yield is premised on (1) ultimate conditions (traditionally equated to year 2020 level of development), and (2) operations studies of the 1928-1934 critically dry period to establish deficiency criteria. The operations studies use historical hydrology modified to show the level of depletion, accretions, and demands appropriate for 2020 development and reflect coordinated operations with the State of California as set forth in the Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA).

<u>Interim Water</u> - The difference between firm yield and the level of firm yield demand in any year. Prior to 2020, demands for firm yield supplies are assumed to be below their contractual maximum; thus, interim water can be contracted until the firm yield demand has built up to the contractual maximum.

<u>Intermittent Water</u> - The USBR proposes to use this term to denote a supply of water above firm yield which, when added to the supply, would constitute the total amount of water that could be contracted. This supply would be used in combination with groundwater through a conjunctive use program to expand the total supply of water that could be contracted by the USBR. This water could be contracted on an annual, short-term (longer than one year but less than 20 years), or long-term (up to 40 years) basis. The amount of water that could be delivered under this type of contract would not be as dependable as firm yield since the intermittent supply would depend on the type of water year (wet, normal, or dry), the total amount of water that could be delivered to users, and the quantity of water delivered each year to firm yield contractors. The probability of delivering an intermittent supply would be calculated on the basis of past hydrology and the ability to meet firm yield demands based on the 1928-1934 dry year period.

The USBR proposes to allocate approximately 317,150 AF of water annually to areas in Sacramento County. All of Sacramento County would receive 174,200 AF of firm water and 22,050 AF of intermittent water for municipal and industrial uses, and 60,450 AF of firm water and 60,450 AF of intermittent water for agriculture. The final amount of firm and intermittent water may be adjusted, depending on the capability of the groundwater basin to be used in conjunction with intermittent supplies. The USBR has acknowledged, informally, that insufficient water may have been allocated to meet Sacramento County's water needs. Sufficient quantities of intermittent water should be available to meet any shortfall.

The USBR based its proposed allocations on the following considerations:

Allocation to areas where major conveyance facilities already exist and any required construction would be for delivery facilities <u>only</u>.

Allocation to areas currently authorized for service.

Allocation to the areas of origin to the extent there is conveyance capacity.

Allocation to meet the full needs of wildlife refuges.

Allocation in a manner that strongly encourages conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.

Allocation in a manner which considers total available supplies, including integration of safe yield of local groundwater supply.

Of the six considerations listed above, five apply to Sacramento County. USBR's allocation considerations give the County and Central Valley wetlands needs priority for future allocations of CVP water.

Prior to entering into new long-term water contracts, the USBR is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's). The USBR has prepared three draft EIS's covering the three distinct geographical areas to be served by the new CVP water contracts: the Sacramento River Service Area, the American River Service Area, and the Delta Export Service Area. The draft EIS's were filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 29, 1988. Public hearings were held in March. The required comment period was extended and closed on April 3,1989. The draft EIS's have recently been withdrawn by the Secretary of Interior. It is unclear, at this time, whether the draft EIS's will be redrafted and refiled or if the Secretary plans significant changes in the USBR's water market strategy. It is therefore not possible to predict just when the water the USBR proposes to allocate to Sacramento County will become available.

The contracting process is also vulnerable to a number of factors and events that cannot be wholly controlled by the USBR and its contracting partners. These include:

1. The SWRCB is reviewing existing water standards established by D-1485 for the Bay-Delta Estuary. These standards address salinity and pollutant levels, as well as minimum flow requirements for fisheries in the Estuary. New long-term CVP contracts will include provisions, like most of the existing contracts, to allow the Bureau to reduce the firmness of the water supplied to CVP water contractors should the SWRCB allocate more water than presently required by D-1485 to the Bay-Delta Estuary. Reduced firmness means the contractors will experience shortages more often and the severity of those shortages will be greater. The USBR contracting strategy assumes this contract language will allow new long-term CVP contracts to go forward before the SWRCB finalizes new water quality standards for the Bay-Delta Estuary.

2. As mentioned above, three draft EIS's on water contracting were prepared by the USBR for three distinct geographical areas. The draft EIS's were prepared separately under the assumption that contracting in each area could proceed separately regardless of the status of the process for the other two areas. The draft EIS's include a cumulative analysis of impacts

in all three areas and contracting from any single area could be delayed by a court challenge until all three have completed the process.

3. SWRCB has issued a work Plan to review the USBR's and the City of Sacramento's American River water rights. The stated purpose of this review is to determine the appropriate flow to be maintained in the Lower American River. It is unclear at this time what will emerge from the SWRCB's review, but the review will integrate the results of several studies, the Boyle Engineering supplement to the Water Plan, the USBR's American River Service Area Water Contracting EIS, and developments results of the EDF v. EBMUD litigation.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Recognition of Needs of American River Service Area:

The following table (Table 10) shows the USBR's recognitions of future needs for the American River Service Area by agency.

TABLE 10

U.S. BUREAU of RECLAMATION PROJECTED NEEDS

FOR THE AMERICAN RIVER SERVICE AREA

FOR 2020 (1,000 AF/YR.)

1. City of Folsom Water Right (22,000), S. CA Water Co. (10,000).
2. Included in Natomas Ditch Diversion.
3. Includes 15,000 AF Water Right (City of Sacramento).

<u>Conclusion</u>

Sacramento County has viable options available to obtain the quantities of surface water needed to meet the County's projected 2015 water supply demand and to stop the existing groundwater overdraft condition. Surface water can be delivered with little or no effect on American River flows if diversions are moved downstream to the Sacramento River, except those that presently appear extremely difficult to move downstream, and if a diversion and distribution system is constructed that allows the surface water to be used as the base water supply and the groundwater resources available to the area to be used to meet peak spring and summer months demands. This system should be designed to eliminate any negative impacts the diversion alternative had on American River flows in the spring and summer months of above and below normal water years. Protecting the American River flows from adverse flow impacts by moving the County's diversions to the Sacramento River will cost the County approximately $17 million a year more than it would cost to divert directly from the American River.

<u>City of Sacramento Water Rights and Entitlements</u>

As mentioned in Part B of the Background Report, the City of Sacramento currently has water rights to approximately 245,000 AF of water per year from the American River; however, this is the diversion limit for the year 2030. The annual limit is based on an increasing schedule which began in 1963 (see Table 11). Only about 57,000 AF/yr. is currently required to meet existing demand. This excess supply is obviously very important and would greatly benefit Sacramento County Water Agency as well as other water districts who rely on groundwater resources if it becomes available. The City of Sacramento also has water rights to 81,800 AF/yr. from the Sacramento River. The City's total demand was about 90,000 AF/yr. in 1989.

TABLE 11

CONTRACT SCHEDULE FOR AMERICAN RIVER AND FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO

*Includes water which goes to SMUD a maximum of 15,000 AF/yr. Amounts in parentheses.

Each river has a specific as well as restricted territory which it can serve. Water from the Sacramento River can only be used to serve property within the Sacramento City Limits. This is a legal requirement which cannot be altered by negotiations. But, as territory is annexed to the City, it is entitled to Sacramento River water. Water from the American River, however, can be delivered beyond the City Limits within boundaries known as the American River Place of Use (POU). The map, Figure 4, Section B, illustrates the existing boundaries for using American River water. To date, the City of Sacramento has contracted to sell or distribute American River water only to Arcade Water District and Del Paso County Water District, both of which meet the requirement of being in the POU. Currently, negotiations are underway to try and develop criteria for the possible distribution of American River water outside of the POU.

<u>Memorandum of Understanding</u>

Reliance solely on groundwater is becoming increasingly expensive because water levels continue to decline and construction costs continue to rise. As a result of the various water issues and concerns, the Metropolitan Water Plan recommended that the City and County execute an agreement to implement a regional water plan. To date, no final agreement has been reached, however, the County and City have adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate future negotiations.

The City of Sacramento and the County are at a crossroads with regard to development of surface water. There are volumes of studies and reports available which document the groundwater overdraft and underutilization of surface water available to the community at large. The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) and the County have taken lead roles in developing groundwater management authority. However, that management is dependent in large part on the cooperation of the City as it has the surface water entitlements, treatment and distribution system which is capable of expansion, and the experienced staff trained to operate the water system. Recognizing the City's capacity and the County's need, the two governing bodies extended a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to logically and efficiently provide water to the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. The purpose of the MOU is summarized below.

Expansion of the City's water treatment and supply system to functions as a regional water utility under the direction of the City of Sacramento to serve a predetermined service area made up of the City of Sacramento and portions of the unincorporated area, both inhabited and uninhabited, appears to be the most logical and efficient way to proceed. Based upon the findings of the Metropolitan Water Plan, which outlines the respective roles of the City and the County. This Plan best meets the objective of an integrated ground and surface water program. On July 14, 1987 the City and County executed a MOU. Subsequently, this MOU was restated on April 5, 1988 to clarify and broaden the scope of the original agreement as summarized below:

"...recognize the need for conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water in the Sacramento area, to renew the bond of cooperation between the parties to plan together to resolve mutual water supply concerns, and to serve as an agreement for planning by

establishing a Technical Advisory Committee to study and prepare a proposed conjunctive use program for consideration and possible adoption by the parties after appropriate environmental review." Per Resolution No. 88-0381.

Highlights of MOU Agreement

1. Properly balance use of groundwater and surface water by:

   a. Utilizing City's existing surface water rights to the maximum extent. b. Seeking and utilizing additional surface water rights and entitlements. c. imiting and managing groundwater use.

2. Provide equitable financing to construct City facilities for treatment, storage and conveyance of water.

3. Appoint Technical Advisory Committee

   a. Purpose - Plan a proposed conjunctive use program and appropriate policy.

4. Policy Issues: Investigate and consider feasibility and desirability of:

   a. Providing City water service outside City Limits but within American River POU on a wholesale basis. b. Provide City service outside City limits and outside American River POU. The City would not utilize its own water rights and entitlements. The City would process, treat, store and distribute wholesale water if a public water agency could obtain their own permanent water rights from USBR. c. Delivery of water in (a) and (b) is conditional upon acceptable financing.

5. City should assess and collect water connection fees on new development within City to finance its appropriate share of capital improvements.

6. City and County should develop and implement a groundwater management plan to halt overdraft, protect water quality.

7. Establish appropriate groundwater management zones with the ability to levy and collect groundwater charges.

8. Establish appropriate surface water benefit zones which are or will be benefited by surface water supplied by the City.

9. If the conjunctive use program is adopted, the City and County should mutually guarantee debt repayment in an equitable manner.

10. The City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and the Agency Board of Directors have the power and right to approve or deny any proposed conjunctive use program(s). The same parties shall also consider the results of environmental review and compliance with CEQA.

11. MOU may be terminated by mutual agreement or by a party giving one year's prior written notice.

(Note: IF the City/County consolidation is approved, it would no longer be necessary to reach an agreement, however, there may be some technical, design, engineering and environmental issues to be resolved. Water supply issues would not be the stumbling block, provided the City's existing water rights and entitlements succeed or can be transferred to the consolidated entity.)

In order for SCWA to obtain a firm water supply contract for surface water, it will need to either acquire the necessary water rights and entitlements from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or it would have to secure a contract to purchase water from the USBR. Once a water supply contract has been obtained, SCWA would then need to enter into a "wheeling agreement" with the City to treat and deliver this water through the City's treatment plant and water distribution system. A second way to obtain surface water would be to purchase water directly from the City, which would both wholesale and deliver (wheel) water. However, this alternative would require the City to modify or amend its American River POU boundaries.

A fee ordinance has been established to fund the necessary capital improvements to treat, transport, deliver, and store water once it becomes available. The problem continues to be the inability of SCWA to successfully negotiate a water supply contract from either SWRCB or the City (provided appropriate amendments to POU boundaries can be obtained). It should be noted the County (SCWA) has recently adopted Resolution 89-2002 on December 19, 1989, offering to participate in the cost of financing an additional water intake near the mouth of the American River. This is one of several project alternatives currently being studied by the City in its environmental impact report for the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant expansion project. It is likely that several major issues must be resolved before a final decision on the project can be made. Questions have been raised regarding the trade-off between maintaining water flow in the American River (environmental concerns) until it reaches the Sacramento River versus the cost to construct, operate and maintain a pipeline that will pump water back upstream to the plant. There may also be a reduction in water quality associated with the downstream intake structure. The proposed solution, together with the many alternatives, will generate extensive study and debate before a final decision can be reached. However, the proposed expansion of the Fairbairn Plant is not intended to serve any areas outside of the current American River POU. It is one step needed to deliver water to the unincorporated areas, provided water supplies become available.

<u>Unused SMUD Entitlement</u>

The SMUD contract for 60,000 AF/yr. of American River water for cooling the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Plant was executed in 1972 and expires in 2011. In addition, the City has dedicated 15,000 AF/yr. of its 245,000 AF/yr. of American River water as transport water for SMUD. Future use of CVP water for Rancho Seco is in doubt as the public recently voted to close Rancho Seco, and SMUD has indicated that it will abide by that direction.

The 60,000 AF/yr. from the American River was originally meant to provide cooling water for two nuclear power plants the size of Rancho Seco, however, it now seems likely that Rancho Seco will remain closed and no new nuclear plants will be built. Discussions with several technical and legal representatives of SMUD have been held to explore the possibilities of the County purchasing a portion of the water SMUD no longer needs. The USBR has traditionally opposed transfer of unused contract entitlement water. That agency has argued the water user should amend its contract entitlement if the water is not needed. The USBR has proposed selling water to those currently under contract and to others, such as the County, on an interim basis. In contrast to past policy, the USBR has also expressed a desire to encourage water transfers for specific reasons, such as groundwater recharge. The USBR may, therefore, support the interim use of SMUD water by Sacramento County for recharge of depleted groundwater aquifers in the southern part of the County, a suggestion that has received favorable attention by SMUD officials. The County will need to explore this possibility with representatives of SMUD and USBR.

<u>Auburn Dam</u>

<u>History</u>

In 1965, the Auburn Dam Project was approved by Congress. If completed, it would have delivered water to Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District via the Folsom-South canal. In 1975, the project was stopped when the earthquake in Oroville raised questions about the seismic stability of the dam which is built on a similar fault feature. By 1977, funding for Auburn had been permanently removed by the Carter administration which declared it both economically and environmentally unsound. In 1984, President Reagan stopped federal involvement in water development projects, thus withdrawing any hopes of federal funding for the Auburn Dam. Severe flooding in 1986 revived the Auburn Dam concept and by 1987 the Corps of Engineers was studying several different plans for the Auburn Dam site. Among these were the original plan for a full-scale, multipurpose dam, a flood control only dam, and several types of expandable dams (dams built primarily for flood control, but which can be expanded at a later time for multipurpose use).

Current Status

Currently, no consensus has been reached on what, if any, type of dam should be built on the North Fork of the American River. Environmentalists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both claim that severe environmental damage will result if Auburn Dam is built. Associated wetlands, 42 miles of riparian canyons, riverside forests, and whitewater stretches will all be affected by a dam on the North Fork of the American River. The flood control dam is the least damaging to the river itself, however, other indirect environmental effects are concentrated down river in the Sacramento area. These environmental effects are related to increased flood protection which potentially increases development. Increased growth can cause increased air pollution, reduce farmlands, and decrease wetlands.

Flood control is currently of great concern for Sacramento County since the Federal Government has imposed building moratoriums, and private flood insurance costs are up. The Auburn Dam issue is seemingly no closer to resolution then it ever has been. Sacramento County is supporting the least expensive and equally effective flood control dam. Placer and El Dorado Counties are pushing for a full-scale multipurpose dam in the hopes that they will get some water from it. SWIM (Sacramento Water Intelligently Managed) supports a middle-sized dam for water, power and flood protection; and environmentalists are fighting all proposals for another dam on the American River.

Cosumnes River

History

The Cosumnes River basin was studied by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 1960's, and a feasibility study for a dam on the Cosumnes River was conducted. In 1979, a concluding report was issued by the USBR and determined that under the federal government's criteria for project analysis a feasible project could not be built. Also in 1979, the Cosumnes River Association was revived through the sponsorship of the Counties of Amador, El Dorado, Sacramento, and San Joaquin. A report was prepared for the Association indicating that a project on the Cosumnes River could be built and paid for through the sale of water and hydroelectric power.

The Cosumnes River Water and Power Authority was formed through a joint powers agreement between Amador and El Dorado Counties. The Authority was joined by Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties in January, 1983. After several years of study and efforts to find buyers for the project's water supply and power, the Authority issued requests for proposals for a "turn key" approach to preliminary studies, water rights and power permits, project design, and construction. No responses were received and on April 28, 1987, the Sacramento County Water Agency withdrew from the Authority.

<u>Current Status</u>

The Cosumnes River Association dissolved in 1988 because of increasing awareness of the project infeasibility. While the costs of the project - both environmental and construction - were steadily increasing, the revenue from power sales which were supposed to finance the project were steadily decreasing. There was some hope that East Bay Municipal Utilities District would take an interest in the project and contribute to financing, however, they have not. At this point, the Cosumnes River project seems to be a dead issue.

THIS PAGE BLANK

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

8. WATER CONSERVATION

<u>Conservation Programs</u>

Water conservation could reduce the projected 2015 water demand. Reductions in water use can be accomplished through several means ranging from voluntary programs to mandatory water rationing. Voluntary programs and residential water metering are discussed below, along with the effects of reduced use on river return flows. It is assumed that mandatory water rationing would be instituted only under emergency situations, such as severe water shortages.

<u>Ongoing Programs</u>

<u>Voluntary Programs</u>

The Sacramento Area Water Works Association (SAWWA) is a Sacramento County organization of waterworks management personnel. One of its functions is to promote water conservation. All of the water districts within the County are currently participating in SAWWA's ongoing voluntary water conservation campaign. Through the work of this group and individual water district conservation programs, water consumption in Sacramento dropped approximately 30 percent during the 1976-77 drought. The ongoing programs continue to promote voluntary conservation in Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento has noted a 13 percent reduction in use this last year (1989). Water district membership and application of conservation measures suggested by SAWWA are voluntary.

<u>Emergency Drought Measures</u>

During emergency drought situations several voluntary procedures combined with monitoring and some enforcement procedures have proven very effective in reducing water usage. Some of these measures include:

• Odd-Even Landscape Watering Days - houses with odd street numbers water on odd numbered days and houses with even street numbers water on even numbered days.

• Prohibitions on:

  • Landscape water between noon and 6:00 pm, when evaporation is highest.

• Washing sidewalks and driveways unless necessary due to health hazard.
• Washing vehicles unless using a bucket and hose with stopper nozzle.

• Water Police - patrol for people violating prohibitions. Violators will be warned and repeat offenders often face fines of up to five times their monthly water bills. This is an enforcement measure and may or may or may not be used depending on whether the program is voluntary or mandatory. This is usually dependent on the severity of the drought situation.

Water Metering

General Discussion

The Sacramento Metropolitan area is the largest unmetered water service area in the State. In order to charge for water according to the amount delivered, water must be metered. If customer's water bills are the same regardless of how much water they use, they have little incentive to use water efficiently. Metering in conjunction with pricing structure influences water use by providing a continual means to tie water charges directly to the amount of water used by the customer.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

• Provides an economic incentive for consumers to use less water.
• could reduce consumption in Sacramento County by an additional 15-20 percent.
• Reduced water demand due to metering could mean that costly enlargements of the distribution system could be postponed and that less water would be required from expensive new sources.
• In most cases the cost to install meters will be recovered in the rates charged for water service. These costs should be recovered in about three or four years.
• With metering, utilities can more easily locate and pinpoint system water leaks, and can eliminate sources of unnecessary water loss. (It is estimated that 4 percent of urban water deliveries are lost to system leakage every year.)

Disadvantages

• In a study done by the city of Denver, Colorado in 1985, it was found that metering, in itself, does not affect the amount of water consumed. Metering must be used in conjunction with pricing rate structures.
• Initial installation costs and operation and maintenance costs would be high; ranging from $250 to $500 per meter installed. Retrofitting existing unmetered homes is estimated to have a total cost of anywhere from $67 to $135 million.
• Metering installation in Sacramento County would increase the average residential billing by 38 percent to 69 percent over current prices which average $7 to $8 per month.

• Saving water in Sacramento County is somewhat redundant as 95 percent of all indoor water used and 19 percent of all outdoor water used in the County returns to the Sacramento River for eventual reuse.
• Metering will save approximately the same amount of water that is currently being saved through voluntary conservation measures now in place. It is unlikely that water metering and pricing will induce enough additional water savings (estimated additional savings would be 2 percent) that the cost of installing meters will be justified.
• Equity issues: Costs distribution and implementation time frame will effect the equity of increased costs of water metering.

Costs of Metering

Several studies have been done to determine costs of installation and operation and maintenance of residential water meters. Costs to install range from $250 to $500 per unit. Due to the many variables included in meter installation, it is impossible to develop a single cost for a residential meter installation. Contributing to this wide range in costs are several factors:

• labor rates,
• differing materials costs,
• back or front yard installation,
• manual or machine excavation,
• size and type of meter installed,
• retrofit or new construction.

There are also several factors which could further increase the installation costs:

• public relations during construction (replacement of lawns, fencing and other landscaping),
• costs of installing new billing apparatus (computer programs, equipment, personnel, vehicles, and supplies),
• engineering costs for materials or contracts (i.e., bids, locating services, problem solving, contract administration),
• salaries for new employees (inspectors, engineers, laborers, and clerical).

Many of these costs were absorbed into purveyors' budgets and were not included in the estimated cost to install meters.

With installation costs between $250 and $500, it would cost between $67 and $135 million to install meters in the County's 271,000 unmetered homes. This cost would be completely paid by water customers through fees attached to their monthly water bills. The average water meter lasts approximately 15 years. At 8 percent interest, the annual (amortized) cost is between $29.23 and $58.46 per meter. Annual operation and maintenance cost for one meter is $8.18 per year ($2.92 for maintenance and $5.26 for reading, logging, and billing). Therefore, the total additional monthly charge to install water meters is $3.11 for the $250 price and $5.55 for the $500 price.

Although metering existing homes may be expensive, installing meters at the time of construction is not. It costs only $60 to provide a new home with metered water service.

Options for Ease in Installation

A water metering program poses many problems for Sacramento County. The Boyle report, Water Plan Supplement, done for SCWA outlines three strategies which could simplify the transition to meters both politically and economically.

Meter Installation in New Homes and Upon the Resale of a Home

Under this strategy, property owners would be required to install meters at their own expense when a residential property with no meter is sold, or a new home is built on a vacant lot. After several years of this intermittent installation, remaining unmetered water services would be required to install meters. This could be accomplished under either individual programs administered by individual water purveyors or by a county wide program administered by an agency formed just for this purpose or SCWA or SAWWA. Several payment structures are available to encourage early installation, and to provide the lowest initial costs for the water users and purveyors. Examples include:

• Higher rates for unmetered services in order to pay for meter installation.
• No rate structure differences until mandatory meter installation program begins. Then charge higher rate for those who waited until this time to install meters.

Public Awareness Programs

A public awareness program on conservation values for fee increases imposed as metering is implemented. Programs should be continuous to ensure all users conserve as much as possible. Particular attention should be paid to programs which educate consumers about the high cost of summer water use. If the public understands the reasons for water metering and know how to avoid high bills by conserving, metering programs will face much less resistance. Also, when meters are installed, a transition period is needed to allow customers to adjust to the new pricing scales. It is usually better to start the public awareness programs long before meters are installed and metering started. This especially is true if metering is scheduled to start during the summer months when water usage is high and rates are usually increased in order to increase conservation.

Core Organization

A core organization is formed by the County to administer the metering program. This allows for volume purchases of quality materials and services, standardized installation procedures, and a stronger position for negotiation of financing. This organization would coordinate installation (both new and retrofit), help to lessen adverse public reaction, enforce meter sizing specifications and installation methods, and deal with legal and financial constraints and labor considerations.

<u>Metering and Strategies</u>

As mentioned earlier, in order for water meters to act as water conservation devices they must be used in conjunction with a conservation oriented water pricing technique. Meters, in conjunction with a suitable rate schedule, can decrease water use by up to 30 percent especially immediately following installation. As people become adjusted to the higher prices, over time the savings decrease to around 15 percent of the pre-meter water use.

<u>Current Efforts to Require Meters</u>

Assembly Bill 3222, requiring metering in unmetered areas of California with more than 800,000 residents would require water meters to be installed on all new homes and would give homeowners until the year 2000 to retrofit existing homes with meters. This bill was specifically targeted at Sacramento County since it was aimed at unmetered areas with more than 800,000 residents and other unmetered areas like Fresno, Kern, Placer, Sonoma, and Sutter Counties do not meet this requirement. The bill made it through the Assembly but was withdrawn by the sponsor while still in committee in the Senate. AB-3222 is typical of bills introduced almost yearly by other areas of the State which are currently metered. Although both the City and County continue to strongly oppose metering. There is a realization that it may be politically advantageous to install meters. The amount of water conserved after installation, however, may not be much greater than the amount that has been achieved through voluntary programs. Installing meters may give Sacramento better standing when competing with metered areas for new or expanded water rights by helping to show that Sacramento is aware of and willing to do something about the water shortage problems faced by the State.

<u>Reclaimed Water</u>

Reclaimed wastewater from commercial, industrial, agricultural, and domestic uses is an important supply source for many areas of California where existing water supplies are scarce or expensive. In areas where groundwater and surface water have been plentiful, as in Sacramento County, reclamation of wastewater has not been aggressively pursed. Current trends toward conservation of natural resources, however, are causing a resurgence of interest in this very important source.

<u>Accepted Uses of Reclaimed Water</u>

Over the years, reuses of reclaimed wastewater have gained acceptance by public health organizations and the general public. Table 12 lists wastewater reuses and a short explanation of each. As described in Table 12, Irrigation Reuse, and Groundwater Replenishment, are addressed here as they could provide the most immediate benefits to Sacramento County. The other classifications of reuse are generally more complex and deserve more detail than is possible within the scope of this paper.

TABLE 12

TYPES OF WASTEWATER REUSE

<u>Groundwater Replenishment</u>

Reuse practices for groundwater replenishment generally consist of spreading and/or injecting reclaimed wastewater on open land (open space, agricultural land, or parks) over groundwater tables to supplement natural replenishment. Along the coast this procedure is used to form subsurface hydraulic barriers to prevent salt water intrusion. Large scale utilization of reclaimed water for groundwater replenishment would require strict groundwater management practices to prevent adverse variations and impairment of groundwater quality. Such impairment could include significantly higher total dissolved solids, higher nitrates, increased hardness, and other effects upon quality parameters. Nitrates and other nutrients found in reclaimed water can be of beneficial use for irrigation/fertilizer and, in that application, can have a value of $20 to $40 per acre foot. These same nutrients, however, can have an adverse effect on domestic waters and must be kept separate from a groundwater basin used for domestic water supplies. Proper application and groundwater basin management are necessary for successful replenishment programs.

<u>Irrigation</u>

In 1981, approximately 184,000 AF of reclaimed water was used for agricultural irrigation in California. By 1986, this use had increased to approximately 300,000 AF a year. Within the County two smaller wastewater treatment facilities presently provide reclaimed water to local farmers to irrigate fodder crops. However, much of the approximately 170,000 AF/yr. of treated wastewater from the Regional Wastewater Plant presently flowing into the Sacramento River could be retained and used in the Sacramento area.

The Regional Plant is located on a 3,000 acre parcel adjacent to the Sacramento River, approximately four miles south of Sacramento Executive Airport and approximately two miles west of the Cosumnes River. Treatment plant facilities cover 1,000 acres, and the remaining 2,000 acres serve as a buffer for surrounding properties. The Plant provides secondary treatment for wastewater and consistently meets public health requirements. The effluent from the plant is discharged into the Sacramento River just south of the town of Freeport. Presently, the average daily dry weather flow through the plant is 150 million gallons per day. Regional Sanitation has recently received grant monies to investigate the feasibility of using treated waste water for wetland restoration or other uses.

<u>Existing Reclaimed Water Projects</u>

In 1987, the California Department of Health Services reported that wastewater was reclaimed at over 200 wastewater plants and applied to more than 360 locations. A 1981 SWRCB Office of Water Recycling study provided an in-depth report on 21 of these locations. The results of this study showed that a wide range of field crops and some orchard crops were irrigated with reclaimed water with average annual wastewater use ranging from 560 AF to 16,800 AF, depending on location.

Table 13 lists all sewage treatment facilities in Sacramento County. It can be seen that three plants currently utilize treated wastewater for reclamation projects. The Rancho Murieta system is a model for self-contained application of reclaimed wastewater in a densely populated area, the effluent of the treatment facility meets strict health requirements through tertiary treatment. Additionally, all drainage from the site must be contained during initial rains and diverted back into detention ponds. Reclaimed water from the Rio Cosumnes Correction Center is used to spray irrigate alfalfa. Fields of alfalfa are flood-irrigated with water from the Walnut Grove facility.

TABLE 13

Existing Wastewater Facilities, Sacramento County

Health Considerations

Health and regulatory considerations govern use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. The EPA, USBR, DWR, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), California Department of Health Services, and Sacramento County Environmental Health and Sanitation are responsible for regulating reclaimed water use in Sacramento County. CVRWQCB establishes water quality standards, prescribes and enforces wastewater discharge requirements, and in consultation with the Department of Health Services, prescribes and enforces reclamation requirements. Each reclamation project must have a permit from the CVRWQCB conforming to the Department of Health Services criteria.

Where there is minimal health risk, based on degree of contact and water quality, the regulations are liberal, allowing the use of primary effluent for surface spray irrigation of fodder, fiber, and seed crops and surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards. If food crops are surface-irrigated in a manner that allows no contact between edible portion of the crop and the reclaimed water, a disinfected, secondary treated effluent is acceptable. Tertiary effluent that is pathogen free is required for spray irrigation of all crops that are eaten or sold raw. Additionally, intensely used landscape areas such as parks and golf courses require tertiary treatment.

Xeriscaping Ordinances

What are Xeriscapes?

Xeriscaping is derived from the Greek word, Xeros, meaning dry. This concept involves planning landscaping which uses less water then conventional landscaping. The main principles involved are:

• Reduction of turf areas (grass consumes a lot of water).
• Use of drought tolerant plants.
• Grouping plants with similar water requirements together so that no plants are over or under watered.
• Careful design and implementation of irrigation systems to prevent water waste through over watering and "gutter flooding."

Xeriscaping and Other Jurisdictions

More than 50 communities have ordinances that require conserving water by appropriate landscape design (Xeriscaping). Goleta has one of the strictest, limiting the turf in new single-family homes and demanding efficient irrigation systems. The City of Santa Monica has an ordinance which requires reduced water consumption in landscaping through xeriscaping. It applies to all new multifamily, commercial and industrial projects. Plans which must be prepared by a California licensed landscape architect or other qualified person must be submitted to the planning department for approval before landscaping can begin.

Draft Xeriscaping Ordinance in Sacramento

The County of Sacramento has passed a xeriscaping ordinance to help promote xeriscaping as an efficient, low maintenance answer to all landscaping situations. By requiring xeriscaping the County hopes to help reduce the demand on water resources while convincing homeowners that xeriscapes are better then acres of thirsty, labor intensive lawn.

Statewide Xeriscaping Ordinance

Assembly Bill 325, introduced into the 1989-90 Regular Session, would require every city, county, and city and county to adopt a xeriscaping ordinance for all new developments within the city, county, or city and county by January 1, 1991.

(blank page)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

A. WATER RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

9. REFERENCES

Boyle Engineering Corp. April 1990. Engineer's Report, Proposed Zone 41. Sacramento County Water Agency. Boyle Engineering Corp. Sacramento, CA.

Boyle Engineering Corp. December 1989. Sacramento County Water Agency: Water Plan Supplement 1989. Boyle Engineering Corp. Sacramento, CA.

Bureau of Reclamation. September 20, 1990. Amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement on Auburn-Folsom South Uni of the American River Diversion Project, Central Valley Project, CA. Vol. 1. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

Bureau of Reclamation. January 1988. Draft: Technical Working Paper No. 2 for the Sacramento River, American River, and Delta Export Service Areas: Water Contracting, Environmental Impact Statements: Water Needs Analyses. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region.

Bureau of Reclamation. September 1987. Scoping Report for the American River Water Contracting Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region.

Clute, Assembly Member. January 23, 1989. Assembly Bill No. 325. California Legislature - 1989-90 - Regular Session.

Department of Water Resources. July 1974. Bulletin No. 118-3, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sacramento County. Department of Water Resources, State of California.

Department of Water Resources. November 24, 1987. Working Paper and Analysis of Issues Regarding Sacramento County Water Supply. Department of Water Resources, State of California.

Editorial Staff. April 21, 1990. Water Meters in Sacramento. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Giberson and Associates. February 1990. Rancho Murieta Water Supply: Planning for Future Droughts. Rancho Murieta Community Services District and Giberson and Associates Planning Engineering, Sacramento, CA.

Hodge, Honorable Richard A., Superior Court Judge, Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Tentative Decision. Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda.

Lambert, Marjie. November 26, 1998. Cosumnes Project in Trouble. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Mayer, Jim. March 2, 1990. Even Dry Dam Will Do Harm, Wildlife Service Cites Ecological Effects. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Mayer, Jim. February 9, 1990. Multipurpose Dam Unneeded, County Water Chief Contends. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. April 24, 1990. Report on the Relationship Between Water Service and Requests to annex Property into the City of Sacramento. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. May 1990. Directory of Sacramento County Service Providers, Sixth Edition. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. Sacramento, CA.

Sample, Herbert. May 24, 1990. Panel Backs Capital Water Meters. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Santa Monica, City of. April 28, 1988. Water Conservation Requirements; Xeriscape Ordinance No. 163,532. City of Santa Monica, CA.

Schnitt, Paul. June 8, 1990. Water Meter Measure Nears Assembly Debate. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Shumway, Norm and Fazio, Vic, & Matsui, R.T. May 20, 1990. What Kind of Dam, If Any, for Auburn. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.

Surface Water Supplies. November 24, 1987. Index.

Sunset Magazine. April 1990. All Over the West, Concerns About Water and New Steps Toward Conservation. Sunset Magazine, Lane Publishing Co., Menlo Park, CA.

Water Advisory Commission. May 17, 1987. Minutes of the May 17, 1987 Water Advisory Commission. Water Advisory Commission. Sacramento, CA.

Water Advisory Commission. November 24, 1987. Working paper: Analysis of Issues Regarding Sacramento County Water Supply. Water Resources Division, Sacramento County. Sacramento, CA.

Water Resources Division. July 12, 1989. Draft: County of Sacramento Water-Conserving Landscaping Requirements. Water Resources Division, Sacramento County. Sacramento, CA.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

B. MINERAL RESOURCES

BACKGROUND REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Mineral resources in Sacramento County include sand, gravel, clay, gold, silver, peat, topsoil, lignite, natural gas and petroleum (Figures 8 and 9). The principal resources which are in production are aggregate (sand and gravel) and natural gas. The natural gas production areas are located mostly in the Delta's Rio Vista Field, one of California's largest producing areas. There are three major and several smaller producers of sand and gravel in Sacramento County, the larger producers are located in the Fair Oaks and Perkins-Kiefer areas. They also produce asphaltic and Portland concrete cement along with free gold and silver recovered from the crushing process. Clay is surface mined in at least two location; topsoil from one location on the Cosumnes River. At present, peat and lignite deposits in the Delta are not commercially minded. Resource conservation issues associated with natural gas production and the lesser minerals are not significant. This plan focuses primarily on aggregate production.

This background report discusses four sections that pertain to the continued availability of construction aggregate in Sacramento County. Section A reviews past and present aggregate production rates, revised depletion estimates and updates the status of known reserves since publication of P.K. Morton's Aggregate Resource Report in 1986. Current production and reserve estimates were provided by local aggregate producers and are aggregated to protect the proprietary nature of the information. Section B evaluates Resource Sectors F and I for potential mining based on criteria used by the State Mining and Geology Board. Section C updates ongoing discussions on aggregate reserves on Mather Air Force Base and evaluation of the resource. Section D suggests alternative deposits located outside the Perkins-Kiefer area under exclusive ownership of local aggregate companies.

Figure 8

⬚ figure

Figure 9

⬚ figure

Aggregate and Kaolin Clay Resources

This map is for informational purposes and does not necessarily reflect Sacramento County Policy. Call the Sacramento County Planning Department for specific information.

October 14, 2011

Aggregate Resource Area Information provided by: The Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology; Personal communication from California Geological Survey, Don Dupras regarding updated ARA's December 12, 2001

DMG Open-file Report 99-09 Mixed Land Classification Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate and Kaolin Clay Resources. For details see Plates 3,4,6,7 & 8

<u>PRODUCTION AND ESTIMATED RESERVES</u>

<u>Production Rates:</u> Production rates for construction aggregates in the American River Resource Area from 1960 through 1980 averaged 5.4 million tons, according to a 1985 study conducted by the California Division of Mines and Geology. In 1986, the consulting firm of P.K. Morton determined the three year average production rate of major aggregate producers in the American River Resource Area at 6.7 million tons/year.

To determine current projection rates, Planning staff contacted major local aggregate produces in the Spring, 1990. Their combined 1989 production amounted to 9.8 million tons. This significantly higher production rate (46 percent increase since the mid 1980's) can be attributed to increased demographic growth rates and increased construction activity in the Greater Sacramento Area. Sacramento County grew by 246,500 residents and added 93,700 housing units during the 1980's. The rate of growth has particularly accelerated over the last three years.

<u>Estimates Reserves:</u> The P.K. Morton report in 1986 estimated total resources of 161 million tons and total permitted reserves of 47 million tons within the American River Resource Area. The 161 million ton estimate represents resources judged to be of commercial quality and was derived from sector by sector yield estimates prepared by the State DMG in its 1985 study. Total permitted reserves are those resources owned by local aggregate producers and approved for mining. Based on these estimates and a stable depletion rate of 6.7 million tons/year, or by 2009.

The Planning Department's 1990 survey of major local aggregate producers indicated that total resources of these companies in the American River Resource Area amounted to 170 million tons, and total permitted reserves were 47 million tons (coincidentally, the same figure Morton used in 1986). The 170 million ton figure does include potential resources not owned or under option to individual companies, including the area generally south of Elder Creek Road. The reason for the discrepancy in the two estimates of total resources over the intervening four years is not clear, although it is probably a reflection of different methods of estimation. Presumably, local aggregate producers have conducted more through tests to determine potential yields from resources under their control.

<u>SECTOR ANALYSIS</u>

A key issue relevant to the General Plan is whether the likely resources within the American River Resources Area which are south of Jackson Highway and (except for Sector F-6 generally not owned by aggregate companies are viable areas for future surface mining operation. Portions of this area are designated as Aggregate Resources on the prior General Plan land use map, but corresponding (SM) Surface Mining Combining zones are not widely in place. Encroachment of incompatible land uses may affect the practicability of mining these resources. A second concern was whether aggregate resource planning and zoning designations have been effective in protecting the resource.

To address this question, staff conducted a sector analysis for the resource area south of Jackson Highway. The Boundaries of the sectors, as shown in Figure 10, were determined by the State in its 1985 study, and generally exclude agricultural-residential parcels. The MRZ-2 designation stands for Mineral Resource Zones where there is a high likelihood of significant deposits of PCC-grade aggregates. The small sectors I-1 and I-4 were not evaluated. The analysis included the following tasks:

1. Identify additional residential and other construction activity between 1977 (when aggregate resource protection was first established) and 1989, using aerial prints from those years.
2. Identify land use entitlements, including rezones, use permits and parcel maps, granted in each sector between 1977 and 1989.
3. Determine the number of agricultural-residential home sites on the periphery of each sector.
4. Determine the acreage and distribution of protective zoning designations.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 14. Based on this information, review of ownership patterns and discussion with aggregate industry representatives, Sector F-6, F-12, and I-3 have the greatest potential for future surface mining. Much of Sector F-6 is under ownership of local aggregate producers, it has large acreage and potential yield, 71 percent is zoned for surface mining, and it has good access to existing processing plants. Sector F-12 has over 300 acres, the second highest potential yield, good access to existing processing plants, and an average parcel size of 15 acres, although only sector south of Elder Creek Road that P.K. Morton recommended as economical to mine. At 340 acres it is the second largest sector, although the yield is estimated to be only 78 percent of Sector F-12. This reflects the decline in thickness and quality of the resource moving southward. Average parcel size is 11 acres, and 63 percent of the sector is zoned industrial reserve. Its major drawback is relatively poor access to existing processing plants.

The remaining sectors are considerably smaller in size, potential yield, and average parcel size. Surrounding agricultural-residential uses and approved and pending projects further constrain several of them. Local aggregate producers have demonstrated little interest in the area, believing that potential yields do not warrant major investment at this time. Moreover, they are proximate to the Central Valley Traction Railroad, which is under consideration as a major transportation corridor for urban expansion.

MATHER AIR BASE

The State study for the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region did not quantify aggregate potential underlying Mather Air Force Base because of assumed long-term unavailability. Renewed interest in the aggregate potential underlying Mather has surfaced with the prospect of its closure in 1995. Recovery of the resource could greatly extend Sacramento County's resource base and defer depletion of a local source of aggregate by several years.

⬚ figure

Figure 10

MRZ-2 Sectors

SOURCE: DMG-SR156

Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department

TABLE 14

MRZ-2 SECTOR ANALYSIS

Sectors