Climate Change Impacts on California's State Water Project

Climate Change Impacts on California’s State Water Project

Winnie Wong

In partial fulfillment of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Analysis, 2010/11 academic year, Pomona College, Claremont, California

Reader: Professor Char Miller

2

Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………………………………………….…. 1 II. Climate Change…………………………………………………………....… 2 III. State Water Project………………………………………….…………...…. 14 History…………………………………………...…..…….. 15 Infrastructure ………………………………….……..….… 24 IV. Climate Change Impacts on SWP…………………………….……..…...… 30 Flood Control………………………………….………….... 32 Hydropower Generation……………………….………...…. 42 V. Factors to Consider………………………………………………...………… 50 VI. Conclusion…………………………………………..….…………….…...... 58

1 I. Introduction California is experiencing climate change, a long-term shift in historical temperature and precipitation patterns. It is increasingly apparent that the climate is changing in ways that pose serious risks to California’s health, economy, and environment. The study of climate change impacts on California’s hydrology and water infrastructure has been steadily growing in an effort to better understand California’s future freshwater availability. California’s water is managed by many governing bodies on the federal, state and regional level. The State Water Project is a good beginning point in understanding how one component within the state’s complex collection of water management system has been and will be affected by climate change. The State Water Project (SWP) is primarily a water-storage and delivery system intended to close the disconnect in California between when and where water is available and when and where water is needed in order to provide a variety of functions such as water supply for agriculture and cities, flood control and hydroelectricity. Given California’s naturally uneven distribution of water resources, massive water projects such as the State Water Project were designed to take advantage of water sources in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Northern California. Climate change effects on Sierra snowpack and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will alter the State Water Project’s future capacity for flood control, hydroelectricity and creation of storage facilities. In this paper, I will investigate how water resources will be affected by climate change, assess whether the State Water Project has the infrastructural ability to adapt to these changes and examine various factors that may complicate adaptive changes.

2 II. Climate Change California’s State Water Project’s operational procedures and design were based on the ability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to serve as a conveyance conduit and historical patterns of Sierra Nevada snowpack which serves as the largest component of seasonal water storage. The State Water Project faces an uncertain future due to alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns, snowpack dynamics and sea levels due to climate change. Before explaining how California’s water resources and infrastructure will be affected by climate change, this paper will introduce how climate change is evaluated and predicted, how model projections are complicated by uncertainties in future conditions, and how California’s response to the threat of climate change developed. There is consensus among the world’s leading scientists that the climate has been significantly changed over time by anthropogenic influences. Global greenhouse gas emissions have been steadily increasing above background levels since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Pre-industrial concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were about 280 million parts per million. By 1960, carbon dioxide concentrations crept up to about 315 ppm, an increase of 10 percent in about 200 years (Forster et al. 2007). As of August 2010, the global average emission of carbon dioxide stands at 385.89 ppm, a 38 percent increase over preindustrial levels (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, November 2010). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international scientific body has issued increasingly definitive statements on the anthropogenic contributions to climate change. The First Assessment Report was released in 1990 and subsequent reports have further verified and updated past findings as well as present more compelling findings made possible by the surge of activity in climate science research. IPCC Assessment Reports are intended to assess global

3 climate change by looking for climate trends to predict future conditions, although more sophisticated field techniques and climate models have allowed for greater accuracy in data acquisition, incorporation of a greater number of variables, and allowed for higher resolution in global models (IPCC 2007). As the field of climate science grows increasingly advanced and scientific methodology and tools evolve, scientists are simultaneously developing their knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic process at an accelerated rate. About 95 percent of all climate-change literature since 1832 were published after 1951 (IPCC 2007). There has been considerable growth in the knowledge of climate processes and climate science. The field has been able to develop as an interdisciplinary science that is more wide-reaching and physically comprehensive than was the case only a few decades ago. Despite near-unanimous agreement among scientists on the realities of climate change, active debate continues in public and political arenas on the mere existence of climate change, making the demand for mitigation and adaptation efforts more difficult to achieve.

4

Figure 1. Increasing climate model complexity in the period between the IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) to the most recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). (Source: IPCC 2007) Global climate models are based on physical principles that describe the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice to simulate how the climate behaves. Future greenhouse gas emissions levels are highly uncertain due to levels being largely dependent on unpredictable societal choices and the scientific uncertainty on exactly how the climate responds to a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions. To evaluate the range of possible climate change impacts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed multiple future emissions scenarios that differ based on economic development, population, regulation and technology. These different scenarios allow for the assessment of a range of

5 future adaptation and mitigation activities. The high-emissions scenario (A2) and the loweremission scenario (B1) are often utilized by other studies to obtain projected minimum and maximum range on climate change impacts. The A2 scenario depicts a more competitive future, with little global cooperation in development, uneven economic growth, and greater income gap between developed and developing countries. The B2 scenario depicts a future reflecting a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with global cooperation in sustainable development. IPCC attaches no probabilities to either emission pathway, although a “business as usual” emissions pathway most closely resembles the A2 emissions. In other words, although climate change is inevitable, the future emissions pathway is most strongly influenced by how society chooses to address climate change and whether actions to reduce emissions are taken or not. Major IPCC findings that were synthesized using complex global climate models have determined that the average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990 temperatures. Global mean temperatures over land and ocean surfaces exhibit similar rates of increase. The rate of warming over that last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (IPCC 2007). Therefore, the rate of increase in temperature has not been linear because increased emissions over the last few decades will drive further warming. This trend is expected to continue as increasing greenhouse gas emissions further accelerate the rate of global warming, requiring that mitigation and adaptation efforts are made to suit long-term changes as well as short-term changes. For governments to apply the information gathered from global climate studies requires that climate data be relevant to its location because global climate change studies are not a practical guide for planning regional resource management. Global climate models lack the ability to project and analyze changes on a finer resolution scale, prompting the development of

6 regional models that are able to be customized for regional particularities. Areas of the globe or region are represented using a grid and a grid’s cell size dictates a model’s resolution. Because climate change is a heterogeneous, complex phenomenon that will produce different outcomes in different places, grid size can drastically impact simulation results by missing localized effects. As climate shifts in temperature and precipitation are expected to be unevenly distributed, regional studies are required to inform mitigation and adaptation actions by state and local governments. California has taken climate change very seriously by supporting efforts to respond rapidly and responsibly to impacts on the health, economy and environment of the state. It has been a leader in advancing climate change adaptation and mitigation policies. In 2002, California passed Assembly Bill 1493: the Pavley Global Warming Bill, the first law regulating Greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. In 2003, the California Climate Change Center was established, the first state-sponsored research institution in the nation dedicated to regional climate change research. The Center has been steadily publishing a stream of scientific reports furthering climate science for almost a decade. In 2006, Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Act of 2006 was passed. It is the most progressive piece of legislation throughout the nation and world by pushing for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020, approximately a 30 percent decrease (CDWR 2009a). On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, calling for greenhouse gas reductions and updates on climate impact research in California. To respond to this Executive Order, the California Energy Commission commissioned the Scenarios Project in 2005 to assess potential impacts of climate change on specific state resources. On November 14, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13-08, calling upon state agencies to develop California’s first strategy to identify and prepare for expected impacts from increasing

7 temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events and rising sea level due to climate change. A collaboration of 12 state agencies, boards, and commissions worked to develop the state’s adaptation and mitigation strategy to reduce the vulnerability of residents, industries, and resources to the consequences of a variable and changing climate. The results from the Scenarios Project formed the scientific basis of California’s mitigation and adaptation strategy released in 2009 (Cayan et al. 2008). Anticipated changes in California were synthesized in the state’s 2009 Climate Change Impacts Assessment (CDWR 2009b). The study employed six downscaled global climate models on three emissions scenarios, including A2 and B1 from IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report. The scientific basis for the statewide climate impacts drew from more than ten years of research that established the early signs of climate change, including increased average temperatures, changes in temperature extremes, reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and sea level rise (CDWR 2009b). The report provides a coherent compilation of a wide range of scientific studies performed on climate change impacts on water to produce a clear picture of California’s future conditions, risks to resource management, ability to adapt current infrastructure, and available strategies. The most certain changes are accelerated sea level rise and increased temperatures, which will reduce Sierra Nevada snowpack and shift run-off timing. Although there is less scientific consensus on overall precipitation levels, many expect precipitation variability to increase and expect more extreme drought and flooding events. Temperature and Precipitation Literature Review The American West has experienced a greater increase in average temperatures than global trends. From 1950 to 1997, the West experienced an increase in average temperature at a

8 rate of 1.6°C per century (Mote et al.. 2005). In California, climatic projections have suggested that warming will be more pronounced in the summer than the winter season in addition to a longer growing season (Knowles et al. 2006, Cayan et al.. 2006). Increases in temperature over the next decades are mainly a function of past emissions so that temperature projections are already “in the pipeline.” From 1992 to 2003, California’s average annual temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.1ºF per decade (Moser et al.. 2009).

Figure 2. California’s average annual temperature from 1992 to 2003. (Source: Moser et. al 2009) There is greater agreement among regional temperature projections, but little agreement on its future precipitation. In California, average temperatures are expected to increase by 2º to 5°F by 2050 and by 4º to 9°F by 2100 (CDWR 2009b, Moser et al.. 2009). Current climate scenarios largely suggest California will continue to experience a Mediterranean climate with relatively cool and wet winters and hot dry summers (Kiparsky and Gleick 2003, Moser et al.. 2009, CDWR 2009b). It remains unclear how precipitation will respond to a warming climate in regions such as Northern California, although warming effects are expected to be greatest in the

9 Sierra Nevada Mountains. Where precipitation is expected to increase, the increases are centered on Northern California during winter months. Current climate models disagree on whether overall precipitation levels will likely increase or decrease (IPCC 2007) and disagree in determining where and how much rain and snowfall patterns will change under different emissions scenarios (CDWR 2009b). Despite these uncertainties, trends have been identified that provide more diverse and complex picture of California’s climactic future. For example, projected temperature increases will have a greater affect on summers than winters and on inland areas than coastal regions. Warming will simultaneously increase the likelihood of more intense precipitation events while accelerating surface drying and increase the potential of severe flooding and drought events (IPCC 2007). In addition, increased frequency of heat waves means there will be a greater tendency for multiple hot days in succession. Despite the uncertainties associated with specific precipitation projections, there is a high level of confidence that precipitation and temperatures will become more extreme and bring more frequent floods, storms, and prolonged heat waves and droughts. In addition to several other studies, the 2009 Scenarios Project concludes more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow (Knowles and Cayan 2002, Cayan et al.. 2008, Moser et al.. 2009, CDWR 2009b). Higher temperatures will lead to dramatic changes in precipitation and snowmelt dynamics. According to a well-established physical law, the waterholding capacity of the atmosphere is determined to increase by about 7 percent for every 1°C rise in temperature (IPCC 2007). Increases in temperature are expected to result in increased water vapor, altering precipitation patterns including bringing heavier precipitation. Even after accounting for interdecadal climate variability, a 1920 analysis of trends in snowfall versus

10 rainfall in the western United States appears to support the presence of longer-term climate shifts (Knowles and Cayan 2002). Snowpack and Snowmelt Literature Review Higher temperatures will increase the ratio of rain to snow, delay the onset of snow season, accelerate rate of spring snowmelt, and shorten the overall snowfall season, leading to more rapid and earlier seasonal snowfall (Kiparsky and Gleick 2003). Snowpack is commonly measured in SWE (snow water equivalent), the amount of water contained within the snowpack as a product of snowpack density and depth. Higher temperatures affect the amount of water stored as snow, the duration of water storage in snowpack, and the timing and magnitude of river flows. Greater snow accumulation occurs at higher elevations because these regions stay above the freezing level for longer periods of time during the cold season. Waliser (2009) examined the albedo potential, a measure of an object’s ability to reflect light, of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and found that reduced snow albedo enhances snowmelt and runoff in the early part of a cold season, leading to a reduced snowmelt-driven runoff in the later part of the cold season. Furthermore, a decline in snow will speed up the rate of snowmelt because snow and ice reflect some of the Sun’s heat. When the surface albedo of snowpack is reduced, it sets off a positive feedback loop as more melting will cause more heat to be absorbed. The surface albedo of snow is reduced due to dust and black carbon deposition, a result of anthropogenic emissions (Hadley et al.. 2007). The sensitivity of snowpack to snow albedo increases with elevation while the impact of snow albedo changes on snowmelt in low elevation ranges were deemed “small” (Waliser 2009). While snowpack is more sensitive to albedo effects at higher elevations, rising

11 temperature effects on snowpacks’ SWE is greater at lower elevations. In a compilation of simulations using the HadCM3 model and PCM B1 and A1 scenarios, SWE reductions are more pronounced at elevations below 9,000 feet (Aspen Environmental Group 2005).

Figure 3. Historical and projected decreasing California snowpack. (Source CDWR 2009a) The timing of snowmelt and run-off season will shift due to rising temperatures. Traditionally, the date April 1 marks mass snowpack peak and the beginning of warm season snowmelt, but the warming season has been advancing. Examination of peak snow mass trends in the Sierra Nevada Mountains found that the peak snow mass time is occurring earlier at a rate of 0.6 days per decade (Kapnick and Hall 2009). As temperatures are expected to rise above the critical threshold of 0°C much more often during March and April, snowmelt rates will continue to increase. One study found that an increase of 1.6°C in the Sierra Nevada by 2060 will cause a loss of over a third of the total April snowpack (Knowles and Cayan 2002). This loss is focused on mid to lower elevations since snowpack at lower elevations is more sensitive to temperature changes. Higher, colder elevations are expected to be less drastically impacted by temperature increases and precipitation generally increases with elevation. Kapnick and Hall (2009) found that large accumulation increases the effective thermal inertia of the snowpack, delaying the

12 onset of melting. In contrast, shallow snow was more sensitive to temperatures above freezing due to small thermal inertia and greater susceptibility to albedo feedback. Already, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada has decreased by about 10 percent, a reduction of 1.5 million acre-feet of water in storage (CDWR 2009a). In the Sierra Nevada, the average amount of water stored on April 1 as snowpack accounts for about 10.1 million acre-feet of water that drains towards the Sacramento San Joaquin Basin in the Central Valley, representing the bulk of the State Water Project’s water source (Maurer et al., 2007). Throughout the warming season and into the summer, a total of 15 million acre-feet is released slowly from the Sierra Nevada. By the end of the twenty-first century, snowpack volume is expected to decreased by as much as 89 percent for the Sierra Nevada region draining into the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system (Kapnick and Hall 2009). In other words, the loss of snowpack and the advancement of snowmelt runoff timing will change how much and when water from the Sierra Nevada is available. Sea Level Rise Literature Review Global ocean temperatures have been steadily increasing and are leading to rising sea levels. Over the period from 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Oceans have absorbed more heat within the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 radiance remittance per square meter globally averaged over the Earth’s surface (IPCC 2007). Warming temperatures will lead to sea level rise primarily through the melting of ice on land and from the heating and expansion of sea water. The melting of submerged ice will not increase the volume of water as floating ice merely displaces the same volume of water as the submerged ice. Although sea levels are constantly in

13 flux, influenced by astronomical forces and meteorological effects, tide gauge data indicates that the global mean sea level is rising (Heberger et al.. 2009). Within the last century, the sea level has risen nearly 8 inches along the California coast (Heberger et al.. 2009).

Figure 4. Historical and projected sea level rise at San Francisco Bay (Source: CDWR 2009a) The report goes on to project a future 1.4 meters (4-5 feet) sea level rise by 2100 if no adaptation actions are taken. The risk sea level rise poses to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a natural estuary where salt water from the ocean and freshwater from rivers meet, will be discussed later in this paper. Heightened sea levels increase the frequency of high tide peak, as a 15 centimeter rise would transform the current 100-year high tide peak in Francisco Bay into a 10-year event. Sea water will move closer inland, posing risks to coastal freshwater aquifers, wetlands and infrastructure. Sea level rise will cause more frequent and more damaging floods.

14 III. State Water Project California’s State Water Project is a complex, state-wide system that deserves to be untangled before proceeding with the investigation of how climate change will impact its ability to operate and assess its capacity to adapt to changes in temperature, precipitation, snowpack dynamics, and sea level. The State Water Project stretches from Northern California to Southern California, providing a range of services including water delivery, flood control, hydropower, and recreation. While the State Water Project seeks to balance all of these, water delivery and flood control considered the primary benefits and objectives, but this paper will focus on the system’s flood control and hydropower functions. Examination of flood control and hydropower generation offers two distinct ways climate change will impact the water system, although the extent of climate change effects also go beyond what can be covered within this paper. Flood control occurs at reservoirs and at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through a system of levees, while hydropower generation is generally considered an auxiliary function of water deliveries as water is moved through reservoirs and waterways. Water-management operations have largely been synchronized to the natural hydrologic cycle to take full advantage of seasonal snowmelt runoff that is captured to provide a water supply to meet water needs, provide flood control, and generate electricity year-round. The State Water Project will need to adapt to future environmental conditions to fulfill its functions, however, the current design and operational procedures were conceived of with historical climate patterns in mind, as well as the mindset that every drop of water should be directed towards the usage and profit of man. For this reason, the history of large-scale water projects in California also deserves some investigation.

15 History of State Water Project The State Water Project was largely brought to fruition in the 1960s through the combination of agricultural and urban development pressures, a perceived right to exploit natural resources, and California’s naturally uneven distribution of water. The emergence of the State Water Project cannot be separated from the history of the Central Valley Project, a federally operated water delivery system in California built prior to the State Water Project. The history of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project and the terms under which they came into fruition inform the system design and operational expectations. Both water systems represented an epic triumph over the land as it protected lands from damaging floods while simultaneously brought water over hundreds of miles to farmlands and urban municipalities that demanded it. The desire to develop agricultural land and urban centers overwhelmed traditional patterns of water infrastructure development. Between the late 1800s and early 1900s, California experienced a shift from extensive dryland agriculture to the intensive-irrigated agriculture. Significant research has been conducted on the controversial nature of how each project was formalized and subsequently undertaken (Reisner 1986, Hundley 2001). The idea of a large-scale irrigation system in the Central Valley emerged in 1873 when Barton S. Alexander completed a report for the U.S. Army Corps calling for the creating of a Central Valley Project. However it was not for more than half a century later until the 1940s that a plan was implemented. The coming together of various factors facilitated the eventual approval and construction of a large-scale water project. The initial objectives of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project were only partially achieved as many of the same problems supposedly addressed then still exist today.

16 In the early 1900s, California was experiencing a rise in population and significant technological advances were made in agriculture. The federal government encouraged settlement in the West and California was especially appealing. Farmers in the Central Valley were able to enjoy rich soils and favorable weather for 42,000 square miles, but inhabitants faced the problem of securing adequate water to irrigate their crops. Rainfall was light and typically only came after the growing season was over. Also, runoff from rivers draining the Sierra Nevada Mountains would come in great floods and uneven quantities. While the northern section of the Central Valley, known as the Sacramento valley, contained a third of the land overall, it generated twothirds of the water, which wrecked havoc on downstream communities (Hundley 2001). Small ditch irrigation schemes and small irrigation districts were formed under the Wright Act of 1897 and expanded surface water irrigation acreage, but it was not enough to sustain the intense irrigation of crops in the long term, necessitated by the dramatically increasing agricultural economy. To further complicate problems with insufficient surface water sources, farmers were over-pumping their underground water resources. Groundwater overdraft occurs when water is consistently pumped out at a rate faster than the aquifer’s recharge rate and subsequently, the water table level is lowered beyond the reach of existing groundwater wells. For farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, pumping groundwater could provide a stable source of water where water was scarce and for many without options, this meant digging deeper and deeper wells. In the late nineteenth century, the gasoline or electricity-powered pumps became available and allowed farmers to pump up even greater quantities of groundwater at a faster rate. While getting groundwater was now less of a hassle, the underlying problem of groundwater overdraft was worsened. Within the next four decades, the amount of irrigated land jumped from less than one million acres to almost three million acres. It was not long before farmers began exhausting

17 underground aquifers that took centuries to fill and the accelerated growth in irrigated farmlands proved only to create a large population of farmers frustrated by the unreliable access to water, who began pressuring the state and federal government to provide them aid. The realignment within American political culture during the Depression allowed both major parties to unite on the need for massive water projects (Hundley 2001). The time was ripe for large-scale public works projects, as the United States was deep into the Depression Era and public works provided vitally needed jobs and money into the economy. In 1933, the state legislature endorsed the Central Valley Project and $170 million in bonds for construction of initial units and presented the bond proposal to voters. The project narrowly passed with by 33,600 votes out of 900,000 cast. There was strong opposition in Los Angeles County on the grounds that since no projects were in the south, Southern California would be taxed to help the north, while nearly 70 percent of the counties around the San Francisco area supported it (Hundley 2001). This is ironic as the Central Valley Project would pave the way for the State Water Project, which would secure intense support from the south but the north’s active opposition. Despite voter approval of the initial $170 million of bonds to begin construction of the Central Valley Project, the amount would prove to be inadequate to finish completing the project. Fortunately for the Central Valley, the federal government stepped in with to provide the much needed funds. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, sympathetic to proposals that would create jobs during the harsh Depression, released emergency relief funds so that construction could begin. California’s agricultural economy was deemed simply too valuable to risk collapsing. Agriculture was California at the time. There were no other industries that rivaled California’s significance as the nation’s food basket. Despite the relief from receiving the federal government’s financial support, the federal aid stipulated that funds had to be made in

18 accordance with reclamation laws, which granted the federal Reclamation Bureau authority over the Central Valley Project. These reclamation laws further frustrated profit-seeking farmers because the purpose of federal water for irrigation purposes was about “subsistence- nothing more” (Reisner 1986). The campaign for the State Water Project partly came from the push-back against restrictions placed on Central Valley Project water users as well as further declining water tables due to accelerated groundwater pumping. The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation is the principal agency governing the Central Valley Project and the water users are subject to federal Reclamation laws in which farmers are entitled to project water to irrigate only up to 160 acres; however, the bulk of land holdings, about 66 percent, far exceeded 160 acres (Hundley 2001). As a result, many holding lands in excess would divide up their land to lease to relatives and friends or find additional creative ways around the acreage restriction. In other cases, husbands and wives were able to individually claim ownership of 160 acres each, sharing a total of 320 acres. In addition, rather than remedying the over reliance on groundwater, the problem of groundwater overdraft worsened because farmers continued to mine groundwater rather than risk violating the acreage limitation by using Central Valley Project water. The failure of the Central Valley Project to slow groundwater overdraft or quell the demand for more water imposed by the growing agricultural landscape and California population set the stage for a subsequent massive state water project. However, without the intervention of the federal government in completing the Central Valley Project, California would have never “amassed the wealth and creditworthiness to build its own State Water Project” (Reisner 1986). In 1951, State Engineer Arthur Edmonston offered a statewide plan that called for a large dam on Feather River to control floods and deliver water along a 750-mile route, including

19 across the Tehachapi Mountains to serve cities and industries in Southern California. The state legislature advanced Edmonston’s plan in 1959 by approving the Water Resources Development Bond Act which authorized $1.75 billion in bonds, supplemented by Tideland Oil reserves, to pay for the first phase of storage facilities and aqueducts. An additional $510 million for project construction ended up coming from the California Water Fund, which was created from Tidelands Oil revenues. The $1.75 billion bond issue was the largest ever offered to voters, but still less than the estimated $2.5 billion dollar cost and significantly less than the original plan’s estimated cost of $4 billion. The $1.75 billion price was purposely lowered to improve the bond’s chances of passing voter approval. California Governor Edmund G. Pat Brown was instrumental in securing compromises to push support for the water bond. Thoroughly convinced that the development of new water resources was crucial for the state’s future growth and prosperity, Brown saw it was his personal duty to realize the State Water Project and also saw it as a way of leaving his legacy in Californian history (Hundley 2001). On November 8, 1960, the water bond was approved by voters by a margin of only 174,000 ballots out of 5.8 million cast. In contrast to the Central Valley’s primary focus on supporting the Central Valley, the State Water Project sought to bring water to southern California as well. The original design proposed by Edmonston was the one essentially approved and construction began in 1962 and continuing into the early 1970s. The second phase of the State Water Project was left purposely vague, allowing “additional facilities” that were deemed “necessary and desirable” to future needs be authorized (Hundley 2001).

20

Figure 5. Timeline of State Water Project Development (Source: CDWR 2010 at http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/docs/Timeline.pdf) The importance of California’s massive water projects to the state’s development is undeniable. The State Water Project and Central Valley Project were vital to the state’s development as an agricultural and industrial powerhouse, boasting tremendous growth figures. The State Water Project’s dams, reservoirs and electricity generating power plants were designed to meet the projected needs up to the year 2020. Planners projected a population of at least 21 million by 1980, a fairly accurate estimate. California was the home to 2 million residents in 1900, and by 1950, the figured increased to over 10 million. In the past 50 years alone, California’s population has more than tripled, far outpacing the national average. The State Water Project nourished high levels of production, jobs and income-earning activity. Agriculture remains one of California’s major industries and California’s impressive gross state product currently stands at over $1.85 trillion in 2008 and ranks as the eight-largest economy in the world. (EconPost November 2009.) While evaluating the successes of the State Water Project, it is important to be mindful of the environmental costs accrued.

21 The goal of water resource management has traditionally been aimed at increasing the developed water supply and getting it to its users, no matter how high the environmental cost. In 1951, the California’s Water Resources Board reported that 40% of the rivers’ runoff emptied into the ocean was being wasted though there were greater demands in central and southern California (Hundley 2001). At the time, the value of water in supporting ecological goods and services such as providing and sustaining habitats, regulating nutrient cycles, and filtering clean drinking water had not recognized. Far greater importance was assigned to the use of water for direct human profit and exploitation. The State Water Project is the physical manifestation of the idea that we need to force, trample and reshape the natural landscape in order to live in harmony with the environment. While this view and management style has enabled California’s transformation to a highly urbanized center, it failed to consider the environmental and physical restraints on our water resources. Indeed, the consensus during the era of dams was that any and all suitable rivers should be dammed up because dam building was seen as a way to create jobs and a means of conservation. However, by the 1970s, there was a growing movement to change public perception of rivers as being sacred and valuable on its own right. The Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 prohibited dams and reservoirs from adversely affecting designated rivers. Four years later, a similar state law was enacted, reflecting the changing attitude towards the acceptable extent of exploiting natural resources. In contrast, the mid-1900s was an era of dam building that has been shaped by the role of Central Valley farmers and urban demands from Southern California. While this discussion has focused on these two groups, the design and implementation of these two massive water projects were organized by a range of interest groups that cannot be fully covered within the scope of this paper.

22 The State Water Project was designed to meet growing agricultural and urban centers’ demands for water and little effort was put to regulating wasteful uses of the seemingly limitless water supply. Groundwater overdraft continues to be a problem in the Central Valley now, but there is still no comprehensive monitoring system to supervise the health of groundwater withdrawals. Just as in the case with the Central Valley Project, the state’s water was primarily used to develop new farmlands while groundwater pumping continued and inexpensive state water only encouraged farmers to continue their wasteful practices rather than promote more efficient practices. Furthermore, water that was allowed to flow into the ocean was seen as wasteful because it was not being put toward human uses. Ultimately, the State Water Project was designed for economic reasons with no thought into the serious environmental and social consequences. These actions reflect the traditional view that man should conquer nature and that concrete and energy could fix the problem of moving water to where it should be. In the words of Marc Rieser: “No other state has done as much to fructify its deserts, make over its flora and fauna, and rearrange the hydrology God gave it. No other place has put as many people where they probably have no business being.” (333) The State Water Project helps close the geographical and temporal gap between water supply and demand, encouraging development in water scarce areas. Water has historically been a restricting factor on where people can live; however, through the manipulation of water and land, people are now living in places without their own natural access to water or have an insufficient local supply of water that needs to be augmented by outside supplies. The majority of California’s precipitation and 70 percent of snowpack runoff occurs north of Sacramento and 65 percent of the state receives less than 20 inches of rainfall per year (CDWR 2009a). Prior to large-scale water projects, the north received enough and at times even too much water, while

23 the Central Valley and south never seemed to have enough water to satisfy the growing water demands. Furthermore, California’s water resources experience high seasonality as dry summers receive little rain while the bulk of precipitation occurs in the winter. The demand for water is distributed amongst various uses such as agriculture, municipal and industrial uses, and environmental uses. Due to the uneven distribution of California’s water supplies, a great amount of water is forced to move over great distances since major water sources are not closely located near some of California’s heaviest water users. In fact, 75 percent of urban and agricultural demand comes from southern California, where cities depend greatly on the importation of water from far away sources.

Figure 6. Annual precipitation received by month in California. (Source: Roos 2006)

24 The State Water Project Infrastructure The State Water Project is primarily a water storage and delivery system that brings water from sources in the North to Central and Southern California. Its main purpose is to distribute water to areas in Northern California, San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California. The State Water Project provides water supplies for 25 million Californians and 750,000 acres of irrigated farmland, generates an average 6500 GWh of hydroelectricity annually, and provides vital flood control services. The State Water Project makes up the world’s largest publically built and operated water and power development and conveyance system. It is designed and operated by the California Department of Water Resources. The massive plumbing system that moves water from northern California is facilitated by a total of 34 storage facilities, 20 pumping plants, 4 pumping-generating plants, 5 hydroelectric power plants and over 600 miles of waterways (CDWR “California State Water Project”). The complex system diverts water from the main waterway to points along its various branches. The State Water Project’s official starting point begins at Lake Oroville, located within the Feather River watershed. It is an artificial lake made possible through the construction of Oroville Dam, and is fed by rain and snowmelt run-off from the Feather River at the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Oroville Lake is the largest man-made reservoir in the State Water Project and stores about 3.5 million acre-feet of water and generates power from releases made through Hyatt Powerplant and two other Thermalito generating plants. The reservoir serves the keystone roles of capturing and storing rain and snowmelt runoff, generating electricity, and mitigating flood risks downstream. Oroville Dam releases water into Feather River, which later converges with the Sacramento River before reaching the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is an

25 expansive river delta and estuary that offers habitat to countless species and is employed by both the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project to move water to points of diversion in the South Delta. The Delta is a transition point in the State Water Project where upstream facilities regulate major inflows of water while downstream facilities largely convey water to other areas. In an average water year, roughly 40 percent of all inflows that would have naturally passed through the Delta, about 18 million acre-feet, is diverted from the Delta (Lund 2007). Facilities downstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta focus on exporting water out of the Delta to be delivered to other areas and some facilities are equipped with hydropower generators to produce electricity in the process. The North Bay Aqueduct supplies water out of the northern Delta via the Barker Slough Pumping Plant to bring water to Napa County and Solano County. The Banks Pumping Plant in the southern Delta brings water to the Bethany Reservoir. From this smaller reservoir, some of the water is lifted via the South Bay Aqueduct Pumping Plant to serve Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Most of the water in Bethany Reservoir flows into the California Aqueduct, a system of canals, tunnels and pipelines that winds along the San Joaquin Valley before reaching the San Luis Joint-Use Complex. Within the complex are the Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant, Dos Amigos Pumping Plant, San Luis Dam and San Luis Reservoir, an artificial lake that stores up to 2 million acre-feet of water. The reservoir is a shared facility between both the SWP and the Central Valley Project and the Department of Water Resources has a gross share of 1.062 million acre-feet of storage. Leaving the Joint-Use Complex, water travels through the central San Joaquin valley down to Edmonston Pumping Plant, the world’s largest single-lift pumping plant. Pumped water needs to be raised nearly 2,000 feet up and over the Tehachapi Mountains through 10 miles of tunnels, the greatest lift of any water system in the world. From the Tehachapi crossing, the water splits into the West

26 Branch and the East Branch. Water in the West Branch of the California Aqueduct heads towards Pyramid Lake and Castaic Lake, while generating power at Warne Powerplant, Alamo Pumping Plants, and Castaic Lake Powerplant. Similarly, water in the East Branch is taken through the Devil Canyon Powerplant and Mojave Siphon Powerplant before reaching Lake Silverwood. These southernmost endpoints of the State Water Project provide water for water agencies to distribute throughout the area.

27

Figure 7. State Water Project Facilities and Elevations. (Source: CDWR Brochure 2008).

28 State Water Project deliveries are directed by several factors including contracts between State Water Project and water agencies and environmental legal constraints. State Water contracts were secured for all 4 million acre feet of water, the minimum volume of water the project was expected to yield soon after construction began in 1962. State Water Project water deliveries are allocated between 29 contractors based on historical data and the projected available water supply. The water supply capacity is determined by the amount of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, reservoirs storage, pumping capacity from the Delta and legal environmental constraints on project operations (CDWR “California State Water Project”). Each SWP contract contains a “Table A”, which states the maximum annual delivery amount from the SWP over the period of the contract. Table A is used to define the contractor’s portion of the available water supply and does not guarantee the maximum amount is annually met as deliveries are subject to annual reevaluations of available supply based on conditions. Past deliveries have ranged from 1.4 million acre feet in dry years to almost 4.0 million acre feet during wet years. All of the contractors’ maximum Table A delivery amount add up to 4.173 million acre feet, on the premise of a full build-out of State Water Project facilities, which has not happened (CDWR 2009b). While 0.040 million acre feet of the total SWP Table A amount are allotted to counties and districts north of the Delta, the remaining 4.133 million acre-feet is split among 26 contractors, who all receive their water from various points in the system. Almost 99 percent of all State Water Project deliveries made require conveyance through the Delta, therefore the Delta is responsible for the most significant component of the total water deliveries happened (CDWR 2009b). The State Water Project is operated under strict guidelines with constraints on how much water is delivered due to low water supply in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Recent

29 environmental legal constraints placed on State Water Project operations restricted the amount of water available for delivery because too much water was being pumped out of the Delta. On December 15, 2008, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service declared that both water operations of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project must be altered to protect the Delta ecosystem from collapsing. The biological opinion is based on a study on the Delta Smelt, a fish native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that is listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Measuring Delta Smelt population can serve as an indicator of the health of the Delta ecosystem and their population was found to be at its lowest level of abundance since 1967. Continued operation of the projects’ pumps, dams and canals would have likely led to the extinction of the smelt (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Delta Update”). On June 4, 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service recommended that Delta pumping be restricted to no more than 3,000 cubic square feet, or 5949 acre feet, per day on average over 14 days in order to avoid jeopardizing Delta Smelt from project operations. This would severely restrict the amount of water exported out of the Delta by the State Water Project to meet irrigation and municipal water demands. However, it was determined that a certain threshold of water was necessary to prevent environmental collapse of the Delta, the hub of the State Water Project. These environmental restrictions on taking water through and from the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have intensified water supply concerns in cities and farming regions that rely on the State Water Project. The issue of managing California’s water to serve human as well as environmental needs has generated a lot of controversy. Since the concept of a peripheral canal emerged in the 1980s, current proposals to bypass the Delta with a similar canal have Delta residents and others worried about consequences for their regions and interests. These legal constraints on water management operations illustrate the environmental limits on how much water can be physically

30 (and ethically) taken, directly conflicting with the State Water Project’s original design and intent to take as much water as possible. In the middle of these conflicts, climate change is presenting a new challenge for the State Water Project. IV. Climate Change Impacts on the State Water Project Climate change in California will manifest in ways that will dramatically impact water resources and water infrastructure, including that of the State Water Project. Anticipated climate change impacts include sea level rise, shifts in mountain run-off timing, changes in average precipitation and increased flood flows and frequencies. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (2009) summarized risks for water management due to climate change as: 

  

Higher temperatures will melt Sierra snowpack earlier and drive the snowline higher, resulting in less snowpack to supply water. A greater proportion of winter precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow. Because snow accumulation by April 1 will be significantly reduced and melt earlier, less water will be stored for the dry months Most climate simulations by California’s 2009 Climate Scenarios Project generated drier conditions in the state Out of state water supplies, specifically the Klamath River Basin and Colorado River Basin, will also decrease Intense rainfall events will become more frequent and generate more extensive flooding

Although the State Water Project has facilities along all of California, climate change impacts are most important at the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Sierra Nevada snowpack is the most important seasonal surface reservoir of water for California. The keystone feature of the State Water Project is Lake Oroville, which received mush of its inflows from the upper Feather River basin below the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The snowpack that accumulates from October through March in the Sierra Nevada provides the majority of the spring and summer runoff that flows into Lake Oroville. Therefore, water is

31 stored in the form of snow during the winter and is available for use during the warming spring to be delivered during the drier summer and fall months. Several studies have identified the Sierra Nevada Mountains as the most sensitive to short-term climate change and warming temperatures (Knowles et al. 2006, Medellin et al. 2008). There has been a great deal of studies that focus on the western United States and the Sierra Nevada Mountains by evaluating past and projected climate change patterns and how these patterns affect hydrologic regimes (Barnett et al. 2008, Mote et al. 2005). The State Water Project also plays a role in flood control at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a vital component of the water system. The ecologically strained Delta, a result of years of federal and state water management which drastically altered its ecosystems, has experienced rapid declines in population of multiple fish species, including salmon and the endangered Delta Smelt. The Delta will face further challenges such as reduced water quality and increased chance of flooding due to climate change. Operations along the Feather River directly impact flood risks within the Delta, acting as a first line of defense before levees. Control of flooding is strongly dependant on the operation of upstream reservoirs in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River regions, therefore during high-tide events, reservoir operators coordinate to modify individual schedules to assist the Delta. In addition, seasonal patterns of Delta inflows and net outflows have been dramatically altered. Due to upstream reservoirs such as Oroville Dam, spring Delta outflows are much lower than normal and summer outflows are much higher than normal. Because nearly 75 percent of California’s available water supply originates in the northern third of the state, while 80 percent of the demand occurs in the southern two-thirds of the state, the Sierra Nevada and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are a concern for the entire state.

32 The State Water Project’s primary function is to serve urban and agricultural water supply and the State Water Project facilities are also used to generate electricity and for flood control during the winter and early spring by keeping reservoir levels low. Current water systems were designed and operated to maintain a balance between water storage for the dry months and flood protection during the winter and spring, when flood risk is highest due to heavy rain, runoff and snowmelt. The expected hydrological impacts will affect hydropower and flood control functions. Existing conveyance and storage facilities were built and operated based on historical patterns of rain and snowfall. This is problematic because climate change will undoubtedly alter these hydrologic patterns and reduce the reliability of the State Water Project. Flood Control The role of the State Water Project to control flooding risks is focused on managing the highly variable winter and spring runoff due to rainfall and snowmelt runoff. Climate change impacts on precipitation are major factors in evaluating the State Water Project’s ability to manage flood hazards while simultaneously meeting hydropower, water demand, and environmental needs. The State Water Project mostly involves controlling reservoir flood space which directly impacts downstream communities, but does not have overall responsibility of flood control in the Central Valley. The diverse range of agencies involved in flood control range from the local and state to federal level which all work in concord to address flood risks and damages. Floodwater management involves containing excess flow in reservoirs and dams, conveying flows via levees, channels and natural corridors, managing watersheds by decreasing rainfall runoff and providing downstream protection by managing the amount of outflow. The diverse multiple forms of flood control present in the Sacramento River drainage basin and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta work together to influence the capacity of the State Water Project.

33 Rainfall events and downstream runoff are the main sources of flood risk. Most of California’s atmospheric moisture originates in the Pacific Ocean to the west and the southwest. Due to warmer water, southwesterly storms move over air with a higher moisture content resulting in more precipitation. When moisture-laden air moves up over the Sierra Nevada, it falls as snow or rain over the western slopes. A southerly wind would concentration precipitation near and above Shasta Reservoir, a part of the Central Valley Project (Roos 2006). California experiences highly seasonal precipitation. About half of the annual precipitation occurs between December and February and three-fourth of the annual precipitation (584mm) occurs during the five months from November through March (Roos 2006). Rain and snow runs off the Sierra Nevada before flowing into the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed. The Sacramento River flows are generated in moderate elevation of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada while the San Joaquin River is primarily sourced by high southern Sierra. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Watershed received an annual average of 30 to 40 km3 of rain and snowmelt, roughly the size of the watershed’s total reservoir storage of 35 km3 (Knowles and Cayan 2002). The Sacramento River drains out in the northern part of the Central Valley before flowing south. It is later joined by the San Joaquin River and flows to the ocean via the San Francisco Bay, providing an important source of freshwater to the Delta. Flood Management Local governments are responsible for land-use and zoning decisions that direct floodplain and coastal development. The federal government is responsible for constructing flood-control infrastructure, offering flood insurance and providing disaster aid. The Sacramento River Flood Control Project, authorized by Congress in 1917, includes over 1800km of levees and five overflow weirs to divert water from the main Sacramento River into a bypass system.

34 Flood management depends heavily on structural protection such as levees, dams, bypasses and flood channel capacities as well as non-structural actions such as flood warning and evacuation, zoning to reduce damage-prone land uses in floodplains, and flood-proofing structures. Flood control in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River is managed through a combination of foothill reservoirs storage and valley levees and floodways. The Sacramento River floodway system is designed to convey large amount of the winter season rainfall with a capacity flow of 17,300 m3/s. The San Joaquin River is smaller with a capacity of 1,500 m3/s (Roos 2006). Rain flood storage need is seasonal with the maximum free flood space reserved for the period between November to March, when there the majority of rainfall occurs. The greatest flooding risks occur during the winter and spring when high run-off levels due to winter storms and spring snowmelt can overwhelm the capacity of water infrastructure. Therefore, the dry summer months draw down reservoir levels to provide sufficient flood control storage space for the winter and spring. Non-structural precautions have been put in place to mitigate flood risks and damage. Floodplain zoning has been utilized to keep people from living in areas that are regularly flooded. Because many of our rivers are alluvial, higher ground tends to be located near the river, forming natural levees with lower grounds further away. However, alluvial fans can be constantly reworked and the floodplain can be widened. Floodplains are especially vulnerable during the rainy season between November and March. Unfortunately, significant development has taken place across traditional floodplains, effectively placing people right in harm’s way. Increased flooding is set to affect those already at risk and will increase the size of floodplains, placing new areas at risk. Large floods are relatively rare, but can be devastating if preparations are inadequate. Flood damage and risk is exasperated by the inability to provide sufficient warning

35 in time. Floods develop over a period of days or weeks and inflict damage over the course of hours or days, leaving little opportunity for institutional response or implementation of new options. Flood warning times are relatively short in California compared to the big rivers in the Midwest, such as the Mississippi. Warning times range from several hours on some streams to several days on the lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Rivers can rise from low levels to damaging floods within one to three days. These short time frames do not provide much time to work on levees or other flood control facilities once a flood begins, so that the most that can be done is to shore up weak points. (CDWR “California Floodplain Management Task Force” 2002). To mitigate flood risks, the State Water Project facilities are legally bound to regulations that dictate how it operate. Water managers currently operate under a system based on historical stream flow records to gauge when to open and close the floodgates as part of a legally binding system that seeks to balance hydropower generation, flood risks and agricultural and urban water demands. While water deliveries are primarily determined by a state water contractor’s individual Table A, day-to-day operational procedures must also meet certain requirements. Current flood rule curves set by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Oroville reservoirs call for an autumn storage drawdown to create flood space for controlling potential winter and spring run-off events. By mid-October, Lake Oroville storage must be reduced to a maximum flood control pool of 750,000 acre feet and a minimum flood control pool for 375,000 acre feet. Allowable reservoir water levels are recalculated daily by evaluating the wetness of the watershed and the probability of incoming heavy runoff events. To ensure reservoirs have adequate flood control space, rule curves dictate the allowable reservoir pool elevations in respect to current water levels, temperature and precipitation. Rule curves are primarily defined based on the timing and magnitude of seasonal runoff. In addition to retention levels,

36 downstream flow is limited to 150,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) north of Honcut Creek, 180,000 cfs above the Yuba River and 320,000 cfs south of the Bear River. (CDWR “OrovilleFederal Flood Control Operating Criteria”). Rules permit refill to begin during the spring when necessary flood space and the risk of flood events decrease on the basis of historical observations. Reservoirs are usually engineered to contain a certain flood with a computed risk of occurrence. Therefore, a reservoir is designed to contain a flood with a certain probability of occurring within any one year. If a larger flood unexpectedly occurs, water would need to be released through its spillway to drain onto floodplains or it will overflow the top of the reservoir. Oroville Dam’s rule curve includes a state parameter allowing water managers more flexibility in the initial drawdown volume such that more water is stored during dry years and less water during wet years. Parameters are computed daily based on the accumulation of the basin’s mean precipitation. The magnitude of releases can vary each season, but the start date when spring refills begin do not. The current refill schedule is based on historical snowmelt timing and the rate of refill does not vary year to year. Tools are currently being developed to be able to handle a changing climate. For example, research efforts have focused on incorporating short and long term projections into operation procedures, developing a comprehensive decision making paradigm and optimizing rule curves to balance all dam objectives. Regardless, all researchers agree that existing static rule curves are not well equipped to deal with changing hydrological conditions (Medellin et al. 2008). Because upstream reservoirs have a vital role in the mitigation of flood risks, ensuring Oroville Dam is prepared for a more unpredictable future is necessary. The majority of our reservoirs and levee systems were designed based on historical patterns of flood magnitude and frequency and are ill-prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change.

37 Impact of Climate Change Flooding events will likely become more damaging as a result of changes in snowmelt and snowpack, sea level rise, and frequent, intense precipitation events. Earlier snowmelt timing will likely increase the chance of damaging floods in the spring. Earlier runoff events saturate the basin, preventing water from infiltrating and forcing it to runoff as surface flow. Increased rain to snow ratios due to increased temperatures will also accelerate the rate of basin saturation. Greater ground moisture decreases the basin’s infiltration capacity with less absorption of later rainfall for each subsequent event, ensuing storm events generate even more surface runoff. Therefore, intense storms in the winter and spring will require adequate flood space because the risk of floods still remains high during the early and late spring. For example, the San Joaquin River has the ability to generate snowmelt flood problems in the late spring and early summer about once every ten years (Roos 2006). This forces reservoirs to accommodate larger inflow volumes over shorter periods. Furthermore, even with decreased precipitation frequencies, increases in temperature can still cause increased discharge and runoff volumes (Fissekis 2002). Reservoir flood requirements are typically relaxed during the spring to refill reservoirs with spring snowmelt; however, as precipitation intensities increase, the reservoir is more likely to receive larger volumes of water and cause spring refilling to start later due to the prolonged flood risk period. While flood management occurs at reservoirs upstream of the Sacramento River, downstream levee systems are crucial to the protection of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Flood risk in the Delta is considered due to its unique vulnerability to climate change and its vital role in maintaining a functional State Water Project. The Delta is the hub of both the Central Valley Project and State Water Project because it serves as a natural conduit to convey water

38 from the north to the south, but it will be drastically harmed climate change. The Delta will experience lowered water quality due to sea level rise and decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and greater flood risks due to increased frequency of intense flooding. Sea level is expected to continue to rise at an accelerated rate due to climate change. Projections predict a rise of 1.4 meters (4-5 feet) by 2100 along California’s coastline (Heberger et al.. 2009). Loss of snowpack runoff results in higher runoff prior to April (Knowles and Cayan 2002). The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a critical component of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project, as it enables the passage of northern California water to the Bay area and the southern half of the state. Sea level rise will raise the elevation of salt water at the Delta’s western end and increase overall water depth throughout the Delta, potentially increasing the risk of tides and storm surges in the region. The northern-most embankment of the Delta will experience increases in salinity greater than 5-9 psu in dry seasons due to lower amounts of freshwater runoff entering the Delta (the ocean has a psu of 35 or 3.5 percent salt) (Knowles and Cayan 2002).

39

Figure 7. Areas at risk of inundation by average yearly Delta high-water levels for present day and 2100 conditions in the presence of sea level rise of 4.5 feet. (Source: Moser et. al 2009) The Delta region is protected by a fragile system of levees, over 1,300 miles long built over a century ago. The Delta has been dramatically altered from its natural state by large scale reclamation in the late 1800s and the construction of waterways and levees to protect development on more than 538,000 acres. Historic floods in the Delta region have been caused by levee failure, heavy rainfall, high tides and winds. Recent flooding events occurred in January 1997 (storms), June 2004 (levee failure) and later December 2005 (storms). A catastrophic failure of Delta levees would bring on the order of 6 million acre-feet of water loss (Hanak and Lund 2008), requiring that Delta wellbeing becomes a priority. Most levees vary widely in composition and integrity, reflecting the heterogeneous mix of agencies that claim partial responsibility for governance, planning, facilities, and resource protection of the Delta. High water pressure due to high water levels can cause water to infiltrate the earthen levee causing the

40 levee to slump as loosened soil moves apart. At this point, the hydraulic pressure and force of gravity put the levee at under too much stress and it can no longer support holding back the water. The increased risk of levee failures and seawater intrusion into the Delta will threaten the water supply system. Approximately 99 percent of the total State Water Project annual deliveries go through the Delta, making it the most vulnerable component of the State Water Project to climate change (CDWR 2009b). There are limits to the capacity of the Delta to adapt to climate change and adapt flexible strategies and this difficult position is exacerbated by the disregard for maintaining Delta health in its use as a part of larger water conveyance systems. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is already extremely strained to the brink of environmental collapse (Lund et. al 2007). Environmental legal constraints implemented in 2008 and 2009 meant to scale back pumping of water from the Delta into the San Luis Reservoir have not shut down. The pumps have continued to run, day in and day out. Active opposition arose to fight against the pumping restraints to protect endangered species within the Delta. In direct response to the EPA restrictions, U.S Representative Dennis Nunes from California introduced House Bill 3105: Turn on the Pumps Act. The bill states: “In connection with the operations of the Central Valley Project, neither the Bureau of Reclamation nor any agency of the State of California operating a water project in coordination of the Central Valley Project shall restrict operation of their projects pursuant to any biological opinion issued under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, if such restrictions would result in levels of export less than the historical maximum levels of export.” Essentially the bill says that there can be no limits on pumping to protect endangered species. Luckily, the bill did not pass. Furthermore, despite the claims that the environmental restrictions reduce water supplies, the effects are often overstated. In all, they account for 15 to 20 percent of recent declines in water deliveries (Hanak et. al 2009, Myths of

41 California Water). However, attempts to dismantle pumping restrictions and continue the problem of excess pumping indicates that there is an imbalance of priorities despite the danger to the long term health of the Delta. Despite continuous demands by State Water Project’s water users to increase pumping and deliveries, the growing awareness of the Delta’s fragility to water quality and flooding problems has focused concern on the Delta’s health. Heightened concern over the state of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has caused traditional political lines to become blurry. Traditionally, Central Valley farmers and Southern California has supported water infrastructure projects to get more and more water delivered to them. For example, both groups villianize the federal and state Endangered Species Acts for imposing pumping restrictions, calling the laws unreasonable and argue that it creates a “man-made drought” (Hanak et. al 2009 “Myth). In contrast, the environmental community has naturally always been concerned about ecosystem stress imposed by excess pumping. Ironically, environmental groups are now finding some allies among some southern Delta farmers. The long-term viability of the Delta as a conduit for exporting agricultural and urban water supplies has been an important force in the push for protecting the Delta ecosystem, and by extension the integrity of the levee flood control system in the Delta. While flood control capacity at the Delta appears especially vulnerable, reservoirs appear to be able to better adapt to climate change impacts. Due it its dynamic rule curves, Oroville Dam demonstrated better flood protection and refill ability during dry years. Spillage over dams occurs when the maximum water storage level is exceeded, usually during intense flood events. In a comparison between two other Dams in Northern California, Oroville Dam was found to perform best at balancing flood control operations with water supply goals at the end of the flood

42 period in simulations of increased precipitation intensity (Fissekis 2002). The study found the reservoir pool elevation only surpassed the surcharge zone, or flood control pool, in simulations of temperature increases of 2.5°F and 16.8 percent in precipitation intensity based on historical precipitation records. Within the same study, reservoir pool elevations stayed within a safe distance from the maximum water storage elevation during all other simulated flood events. Hydropower Generation The State Water Project responds to California’s natural cycle between wet and dry seasons through the storage of water during wet periods. The water supply load is gradually released throughout the dry period to meet water demands while simultaneously providing reservoir flood space for the upcoming wet period. The primary purposes of both the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project are water supply and flood control, while hydropower is regarded as an ancillary function as the water is pumped and distributed throughout the system. It is advantageous to utilize hydropower generation in multipurpose water systems to offset energy consumed by water system operations. In addition, hydropower is a renewable, efficient and reliable source of energy that generates near zero emissions and can be scheduled to produce power as needed. In the United States, 78,000 MW of electricity is produced by hydropower plants, providing anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of total electricity used in the nation and supplying electricity for 29 million households (Energy Information Administration 2005). Hydroelectricity is a significant energy source for California, and its generation provides 12-20 percent of the total annual electricity generation in California. The State Water Project has a total of nine hydroelectric power plants that generates an average 6500 GWh of hydroelectricity annually. The most significant amount of power is

43 produced at the Oroville Complex: Annually, the Hyatt Powerplant generates nearly 2200 GWh, Thermalito Pumping-Generating Plant produces 320 GWh and Thermalito Diversion Dam Powerplant generates 17 GWh. Further south, the Gianelli Pumping-Generating Plant produced an average of 180 GWh a year by releasing water stored in San Luis Reservoir. Other power plants --Devil Canyon, Castaic, Warne, Alamo and Mojave Siphon annually generate a total of about 3400 GWh as water that is pumped over the mountains flows back down to lower elevations (California’s State Water Project Brochure 2008). While the State Water Project’s power plants generates a large amount of energy, but uses more energy annually to move, pump, treat, and deliver water throughout the state and is the state’s largest single user of energy in California. It is a net energy consumer and its hydropower generation largely offsets the large energy requirement of conveyance. Annually, the State Water Project pumping plants consume about 12,200 GWh of electricity while the energy generated leaves a net energy of about 5,700 GWh. Moving water from dams, through diversions, mile of aqueducts, canals and irrigation pumping requires vast amounts of energy. For example, the energy required to move water destined for Southern California that has to be raised above the Tehachapi Mountains is equivalent to approximately one-third of the total average household energy use in the region (Cohen et al. 2004). Water being transported across California experiences a series of abrupt rises and gradual falls. Where there are substantial drops, the water’s potential energy is recaptured by turbines inside hydropower plants. Moving water moves a turbine that powers a generator to produce electricity. (California Energy Commission “Hydroelectric Power in California”). Hydropower pumping-generating facilities are not net energy producers, but are able to provide energy storage and electricity to meet peak demands. Storage plants are able to generate energy

44 throughout the spring snowmelt and run-off season and through the summer until minimum reservoir pools are reached (Aspen Environmental Group 2005). Water is pumped during offpeak demand periods from a reservoir at a lower elevation for storage in a reservoir at a higher elevation. Pumped storage is especially valuable for meeting peak demands and maintaining system reliability because water releases are timed to coincide with peak power demands. During peak-demand periods, electricity is generated by releasing the pumped water from higher reservoirs and allowing it to flow downhill through the hydraulic turbines connected to generators. Pumped storage is a method of keeping water in reserve for peak period power demands by pumping water that has already flowed through the turbines back up a storage pool above the power plant at a time when customer demand for energy is low, such as during the middle of the night. Therefore, energy production is able to adapt to energy consumption patterns to maximize utility as demand is goes up and down throughout the day and night. The water is then allowed to flow back through the turbine-generators at times when demand is high and a heavy load is placed on the system (USGS “Hydroelectric Power: How it works”). Different types of hydropower facilities include large hydropower with reservoir storage, medium/small hydropower with varying sizes of storage, medium and small run-of-river hydropower with little or no storage. There are more than 150 high-elevation power plants (elevations above 1,000 ft) and these are mostly held by private entities. High-elevation hydropower comprises much of the state’s generation capacity and has less manmade storage because these dams were designed primarily to take advantage of snowpack. There are multiple types of hydropower facilities in California that are owned and operated by various public and private entities. The primary purpose of investor-owned utilities is to generate power and privately held hydropower facilities owned by PG&E and Southern California Edison have a

45 total capacity of over 5,000 MW, significantly greater than the State Water Project’s 1,500 MW (Aspen Environmental Group 2005). Hydropower facilities owned by municipal utilities, water districts and irrigation districts throughout California generate approximately 5100 MW (1,761 MW from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power alone). In additional to hydroelectricity generated in-state, California imports between 4,000 to 7,000 MW of power from the Pacific Northwest on high load days (California Energy Commission 2003). High-elevation hydropower plants (greater than 4,000 feet) produce more energy than the lowest elevation hydropower plants, despite the majority of all hydropower facilities being located below 1,000 feet (Aspen Environmental Group 2005). This is due to the increased hydraulic heads at the higher facilities, which are more effective than the larger water volumes that flow at lower facilities. State Water Project hydropower facilities tend to be located at lower foothill elevations (Aspen Environmental Group 2005). Impacts of Climate Change The alteration of rainfall and temperature regimes due to climate change can affect hydropower generation. State Water Project’s hydropower production is considered a function of reservoir storage and will primarily be influences by the timing and volume of reservoir inflows. Increased frequency of intense precipitation events and earlier snowmelt runoff will likely large volumes of water greater than what has been historically expected. The increase in extreme inflows is expected to impede operations during winter months and increase the amount of undesired spills. Spillage of water over reservoir capacity results in lost energy generation. For wetter years, the incidence of increased spills can result from the extension of months when load is at maximum levels in the reservoir, resulting in energy inflows that are neither stored or passed through the turbine. In drier years, reductions in overall stream flow will also result in

46 reductions in energy production. California experienced drought conditions between 2006 and 2009 and lower than normal mountain runoff in 2010. During droughts, the State Water Project is only able to meet a significantly lower amount of water deliveries, simultaneously resulting in producing less electricity. Drought impacts worsen with increased duration due to depleted water levels in reservoirs and lowered water tables in groundwater basins. Furthermore, the increase in mean temperature will increase the number of hot days in succession for several regions affecting energy load demand by increasing summer water demand and concentrating peak energy and water demands. In a case study of two high-elevation hydropower plants, an increase in summer heat waves obstructs the ability to meet demand unless extra water is stored in reservoirs (Vicuna and Dracup 2009). Storage capacity provides flexibility in operations, a necessity in an uncertain future. Hydropower plants at higher elevations will see larger reductions in water flow. In contrast, lowelevation hydropower has larger storage capacities and will be less affected, although facilities at lower elevations will be the first to experiences a shift in snowmelt timing. In California, the vast majority of reservoir storage capacity is below 1,000 ft elevation and is mostly being used for water storage and flood control. Large water supply reservoirs are mostly able to accommodate seasonal shifts in inflow for hydropower production, resulting in minimal hydropower losses. Smaller, higher elevation reservoirs will have less flexibility to accommodate shifts in inflows, although most of these smaller reservoirs will be able to blunt most of the effects of climate change (Madani and Lund 2007). Large reservoirs will be able to mostly accommodate the anticipated climate change-generated seasonal shifts in inflow for hydropower production, resulting in only small hydropower losses (Hanak and Lund 2008). More storage capacity may allow more water to be stored, leading to less immediate generation and more hydropower

47 generation during peak periods. Several studies have looked into effect climate change will have on hydropower revenues and generally expect revenue losses to low and high-elevation hydropower (Medellin et al. 2009). However, hydropower systems may not benefit from more storage and generation capacity, its expansion may not be economically and environmentally justified (Madani and Lund 2009). Adaptability of Flood Control and Hydropower Generation The State Water Project’s need to serve hydropower functions and flood control functions will be affected by climate change. Flood management is facilitated through the combination of foothill reservoirs storage and valley levees and floodways. Flood control requires free reservoir space to accommodate the incoming floods and minimize downstream damage caused by excessive outflow. On the other hand, power production requires reservoirs to fill up during the winter season with high inflows due to rainfall or snowmelt run-off in order to guarantee the load supply during the next dry season. Storage plants generate energy throughout the spring snowmelt and run-off season and through the summer until minimum reservoir pools are reached. Optimal hydropower generation requires that the max potential energy is stored in the system by filling up reservoirs and avoiding spillovers. Optimal flood control minimizes the risk of flooding downstream of reservoirs by providing sufficient free flood space. Braga (1992) examined a multi-reservoir system in southeast Brazil and argues that the flood control can disable good hydropower performance. However, Pircher (1990) examined hydropower reservoirs in the Austrian Alps and showed that hydropower facilities do not threaten flood control functions because even a small retention volume can drastically reduce a flood and that such a retention volume will likely be available at the time of extreme floods. While these

48 studies were not performed in the Sierra Nevada, they implicate the complex role of multifunction reservoir systems in balancing tasks that may be antagonistic. In the case of the Sierras, the scheduling of hydropower and flood control have been synchronized such that reservoir shift focus during the transition from winter to spring snowmelt period. The date April 1 marks the start of the warming season and is traditionally accepted as the point when there is greatest snowpack accumulation. In multifunction water resource management systems like the State Water Project, April 1 marks a transition point from a focus on flood control to the generation of water supply and hydropower. Before the start of the warming season, snowpack is accumulating, acting as a form of natural water storage, and reservoirs focus on providing flood space for high amounts of discharge from winter rainfall events. When snowpack begins melting at the start of the warming season, reservoirs shift focus to capturing snowmelt run-off to provide water and hydropower throughout the dry summer and fall. This temporal buffer has allowed both functions to avoid significant conflict, although earlier snowmelt timing due to rising temperatures will change this. Main factors that will force tradeoffs between flood control and hydropower will be changes in snowpack and snowmelt timing, increased water and energy demand in the summer, and increased frequency of intense winter storms driven by climate warming. Climate models project average temperatures to increase by 2 to 5°F by 2050 and by 4 to 9°F by 2100 (CDWR 2009b) Increased temperatures are causing peak snow mass to occur earlier (a rate of 0.6 days per decade) and the melting of snowpack to occur earlier as well. In response, reservoirs may have to modify when operations shift focus on flood control to storing runoff to augment the water supply for the dry summer and fall. If reservoir operations shift too early, there is the risk of not having enough flood space in reservoirs to provide protection for late heavy rainfall events.

49 The increased likelihood of extreme rainfall events will bring sudden, greater inflow of water into reservoirs that will need adequate flood space. This must also be balanced with the consideration that if reservoir operations shift too late, there is the risk of a water supply shortage during the dry period. Earlier spring run-off from snowmelt and reduced snowpack will alter the timing of spring refill. Higher temperatures will make it more difficult to ensure reliable water supply due to decreased supply and increased demand. Water and electricity demand are highest in the summer and lowest in the winter, owing to increased air conditioning use. It becomes increasingly apparent that maintaining status quo control of system performance in the future is not possible because the complex ways climate warming will impact water resources will make water management of the State Water Project much more difficult. Hydropower and flood control capacity of the State Water Project were evaluated based on current potential to respond to climate change impacts. The conclusion of multiple studies has been that California’s State Water Project will be able to accommodate major seasonal shifts in inflows during winter months, though at some cost. Hydropower facilities appear adequate as do flood-control capabilities, although the Delta seems poorly prepared for sea level rise and loss of snowpack in the Sierras. Dozens of studies have investigated the potential impacts of climate change on California and some have evaluated the physical and economic potential for adaptation. Compared to some other dams in northern California, the State Water Project will benefit from reservoir’s large capacity and operational flexibility (Hanak and Lund 2008, Brekke et al. 2009, CDWR 2009b). The State Water Project has a greater reservoir capacity than Central Valley Project which allows greater conveyance flexibility in distributing water and generating hydropower over a larger spatial and temporal range. A recent report evaluating California’s water management systems’ ability to adapt to climate change asserts that the substantial amount

50 of surface reservoir storage on most major rivers provides a fair amount of capacity to accommodate shifts in inflows for most years (Hanak and Lund 2008). In addition, Brekke (2009) found the State Water Project will face smaller decreases in export service area deliveries due to conveyance richer State Water Project system than Central Valley Project system. Furthermore, dynamic rule curves provide more flexible drawdown and refill requirement (Fissekis 2002) to better enable balancing needs of hydropower and flood control. It is difficult to explicitly quantify how much hydropower generation will be lost or the increased risk of flooding due to uncertainties in future conditions, however; research is currently being undertaken to examine optimal operation procedures in the context of climate change. Because predictions of climate change are too uncertain, flexibility is crucial in dealing with a range of possible future conditions that may strongly deviate from historical patterns. V. Factors to Consider Governance issues It needs to be acknowledged that approaches to water management and the auxiliary function of hydropower is set in a larger picture of sustainability that can only be achieved if addressed on multiple levels. Furthermore, the idea that massive water projects like the State Water Project are the foundation of California’s water system privileges a centralized governmental plan as opposed to a decentralized local projects-oriented approach to water management. Although state and federal agencies have roles in managing the State Water Project, local agencies and governments are generally on the front line. In California, there are roughly 400 large retail utilizes delivering water to most homes and business and hundreds of agricultural water districts manage water supplies to farmers (Hanak and Lund 2008). Most local

51 governments oversee local flood management and land development, which has important implications for water and energy demand and flood risk. California’s institutional diversity creates the potential for innovative and flexible responses to water management issues, but also raises the challenge of effective coordination of data collection and strategy implementation. For example, research is being done to incorporate regional climate change adaptations for specific watersheds. A recent study modeled different hydrologic responses of individual watersheds in the Sierra Nevada and found varying responses (Null et al. 2010). Watersheds in the northern Sierra Nevada are most vulnerable to decreased mean annual flow, southern-central watersheds are most susceptible to runoff timing changes, and the central portion of the range is most affected by longer periods with low flow conditions. It becomes critical to identify regions where precipitation will shift from snow to rain in order to determine the necessary infrastructure to handle major shifts in spring runoff timing. Climate change impacts on Sierra Nevada water resources directly affects water supply, hydropower generation and flood control, although hydrologic changes are heterogeneous and the relative risk to water resources is not uniform. However, most climate modeling has been focused on global or regional trends with coarse resolution. Therefore, the governing bodies with the most direct control of local and regional planning efforts are not effectively coordinating across watersheds in a systematic way (Null et al. 2010). Unfortunately, California suffers from governmental fragmentation and an absence of state and federal leadership. But adapting to climate change impacts on water resources requires local governmental initiative working in conjunction with state-level efforts to reduce reliance on energy-intensive, imported water and promote the use and reuse of water more efficiently. Strategies that have recently become

52 seriously considered as possible to implement include urban runoff management and wastewater recycling. Infrastructure Issue Structures built only a few decades ago already are showings signs of wear and decay. The State Water Project’s facilities are more than 35 years old and have not been properly maintained due to constant years of underinvestment (CDWR 2009b). This partially has to do with the expensive nature of maintaining our expansive water infrastructure, including our miles of channels, reservoirs and levees. Neither dams nor levees were built to last centuries and have been poorly maintained. As a result, as these structures age and deteriorate, more problems emerge that may ultimately undermine the integrity of our water and flood management systems. With age, reservoirs have the increased potential for failure and tragic consequences. Dam failure can results from prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, earthquakes, internal erosion, improper design and maintenance or the failure of upstream dams on the same waterway. In a study by the National Dam Safety Program (2005), 74 percent of all state regulated dams were categorized as “high hazard potential dams,” which is defined as a dam whose failure or mis-operation would cause loss of human life and significant property damage. Of the 334 highhazard dams inspected, 53 were deemed “deficient” meaning critical repairs are needed. The state’s annual budget for dam safety are a little over $8,000,000 in 2005 and has increased by almost $2,000,000 by 2009, but dams will likely require increased attention and funding in the future. A reservoirs’ life expectancy is a function of its storage capacity loss and is considered near the end of its life when 60% of storage loss occurs. Typical loss rates of storage capacity are estimated to be 0.5 to 1.0 percent per year. By 2020, over 85 percent of all dams in the U.S. will be near the end of their operations lives (FEMA 1999).

53 The risk of levee failure in the Delta is significant. Most levees do not meet modern engineering standards and are high vulnerable to failure from high flood flows, seepage of water through the levee, slippage of levee material or an earthquake. Since 1900, there have been 158 Delta levee failures. The Department of Water Resources has responded by initiating the Delta Risk Management Strategy to examine Delta levee failure risks. Earthquakes can cause the sudden failure of many levees at the same time and repairs could take more than 2.5 years while the Delta water exports would be disrupted for almost a year with a loss of up to 8 million acrefeet of water (CDRW 2009b). By 2050, the risk of flooding due to seismic activity will increase by 35 percent above 2005 levels. Levee hazards will grow in the future due to climate influenced factors such as sea level rise and more frequent flood flows. The risk of flooding Delta islands increase a dramatic 80 percent due to the combined effects of levee vulnerability and flood flows. California’s Future Population Underlying the issue of State Water Project’s capacity and ability to incorporate adaptive measures to climate change is California’s anticipated growth in population which also translates into increased water demand. Given the location and intensity of current and anticipated water demands, the Department of Water Resources projects a supply shortfall between 2.1–5.2 million acre-feet by 2020 if system capacity remains static (Purkey 5). California’s population is expected to continue showing strong growth in the coming decades. Between 2000–2008, California’s population grew by 8.5% such that in 2009 the total population stands at 37 million residents. By 2050, population growth is expected to add another 22 million to reach nearly 60 million residents (Hanak and Lund 2008). The majority of the population in California is concentrated in southern California, where residents rely heavily on imported surface and groundwater due to the region’s natural lack of rainfall. In 2000, Californians were consuming an

54 average of 232 gallons per person per day, and this figure has significantly decreased from past levels due to water conservation efforts. However, California’s rapid growth is quickly outstripping gains from urban water-conservation measures. At today’s average per capita water use level, an additional 5.5 million acre feet in annual urban water demand would be added by 2060 (Hanak and Lund 2008). Arid southern California will see the majority of the population growth and as early as 2030, water demand in California will expand by 40 percent, or 3.6 million acre-feet, although the Central Valley is also expected to see high levels of population growth. As water demand increases, California will need to find ways to meet these escalating needs by augmenting, conserving, and reallocating water supplies. The projected increases in average temperature will also increase energy demand for cooling, especially in the Central Valley region where temperatures are predicted to increase significantly. Previous studies have indicated that for each degree Celsius increase rise in ambient temperature, there is a two to four percent increase in electricity usage. Higher temperatures and heat wave periods will impact peak electricity demand in California by heightening and prolonging the usage of cooling appliances. The state has a 17 percent probability of experiencing electricity deficits during high energy demanding summer periods (CDWR 2009a). These increases in energy use are beyond what is expected from solely population growth.

55

Figure 8. Projected increases in electricity consumption from a) 2020-2039, b) 2040-2509, c) 2060-279, and d) 2080-2099. (Source: CDWR 2009a) Expanding State Water Project Capacity There is no doubt that California’s water resources future has become increasingly uncertain. One strategy being undertaken is to expand California’s water infrastructure capacity. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a consortium coordinating the activities and interests of the California state government and the U.S. federal government, is tasked with the responsibility of addressing water problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. By the late 1980s and early

56 1990s fish species declines and water-quality problems had become so severe in the Delta that continued operation of the state and federal water supply projects were coming into conflict with state and federal environmental laws. To counter this trend and to avoid shutdown or severe operational changes to pumps at the heart of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, the State of California and several federal agencies entered into a partnership to resolve resource conflicts. This partnership resulted in an agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord, which ultimately led to the development of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED). Currently, the department is evaluating five new surface water-storage projects throughout the state at Shasta Lake, around the Delta, and the Upper San Joaquin River Basin (CDWR “A New Era of Surface Storage in California”). These projects are meant to help relieve the strain threatening the health of the Delta by tapping into and developing more water sources. Although the primary benefits of the projects are directed towards augmenting urban and agricultural water supplies, secondary benefits also include hydropower generation, flood control, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and emergency water supplies. The new reservoirs would provide an estimated total capacity of approximately 4.086 million acre-feet with an expected annual yield of 1.811 million acre-feet of water. The state and federal government have contributed to the funding of the five surface storage investigations, which were explicitly conceived of to address three main issues: water-supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem restoration. Initial cost estimates ranged from $667 million to $3.6 billion dollars (CDWR 2009). These projects are evaluated on the capacity for adaptation, an important criteria in order to perform well under a number of potential future conditions, including climate change and alternative Delta conveyance and management.

57

Figure 9. General Locations of CALFED Surface Storage Investigations (Source: CDWR 2009) Water resource planning and management has changed since the construction of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. Compared to the past several decades, projects are being designed to address a new range of water resource needs. The dam building model of the past prioritized providing agricultural and urban water and flood protection. This model is no longer considered the best method of addressing California’s water and energy needs; instead it would likely exacerbate many of the State’s water-resource problems. The recognition of new problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta requires alternative approaches to address our water needs without building more massive reservoirs1. California has largely relied on structural

1

The construction of a peripheral canal is a different matter. The idea is to build a peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to bring water from the Sacramento River north of the Delta to the pumps in the South Delta. The main objective of the canal is to allow the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project to convey more water in a less environmentally damaging manner and not to directly to address climate change.

58 works rather than address the issue of land use. We can no longer rely on the expansion of our water system infrastructure as it is incredibly expensive to construct new reservoirs to access new water sources because the best places in California have already been dammed up. We need to move away from the idea that if we build more, we can produce more water without having to deal with any repercussions. The State Water Project is already struggling with its ability to meet water demands due to recent drought conditions and without compromising the health of the Delta. In 2009, the State Water Project delivered 40 percent of the requests and the average over 10 years is 68 percent of the amount requested by farms and water contractors (CDWR 2009b).

VI. Conclusions Climate change will undoubtedly bring drastic changes to the hydrologic cycle at the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which will present new challenges to the State Water Project. More specifically, changes in precipitation patterns, snowpack dynamics, and sea level rise will affect the ability of the State Water Project’s current infrastructure to deal with declining water supplies, increased flood risk and reduced hydropower generation. Fortunately, the State Water Project will likely only experience small reductions in hydropower generation, and its reservoirs will be able to accommodate most flooding events. This is largely credited to the large capacity of reservoirs to contain seasonal shifts in inflow and its flexibility in setting operational procedures. While greater capacity provides flexibility in responding to the altered hydrologic patterns, expansion of these facilities are probably not economically or environmentally justified. California would benefit from further investigation into a range of measures the State Water Project can take to prepare for the anticipated climate

59 change impacts. California’s water-management systems are unusually complex and interconnected allowing for a wide range of physical and economic adaptations to changes in climate, land use, and societal expectations. However, while this diversity encourages innovative strategies, it also poses the challenge of incorporating and coordinating all perspectives within a comprehensive study. California’s fragmented governance on water management exacerbates this issue. In addition, most studies have based their evaluation of the State Water Project on a relative assessment of other water management systems. Overall, there is a lack of research looking at comprehensive climate change impacts on State Water Project. Most reports treat water supply, flood control and hydropower separately instead of providing a comprehensive and integrated analysis. Furthermore, an analysis of the State Water Project’s flood control facilities needs to incorporate how the Delta will be affected and people are still working towards producing the most complete picture of the State Water Project. California’s water system is strained for a multitude of reasons, including the political history of favoring massive dams, threatened health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, reduced Sierra Nevada snowpack, and tremendous population growth. The water system was originally conceived of as a way to maximize exploitation of the state’s water resources to the last drop. Considerations of the environment did not arise until long after the construction of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. Even today, the tradition of expanding and building new large-scale reservoirs continue as demonstrated by the CALFED surface storage investigations. However, the rapidly declining health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta demonstrates that there are high environmental costs of moving water across the state. Given the Delta’s role as a conduit for conveying water from Northern California sources to mainly the Central Valley and Southern California, the state cannot afford to further degrade the fragile

60 ecosystem by excessively pumping water to export when the Delta is so poorly protected from both flooding and over pumping. In addition, the Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack is projected to become a less reliable source of water, decreasing by almost 90 percent within less than a century. Ultimately, the impact of California’s water resources will depend on more than just the ability of man-made infrastructure to cope with these massive changes.

61 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of my family and friends. I am very thankful to my friend Janet Kim for her guidance and critique of an early version of my thesis and for handling my stressed out moments so well. I am also deeply thankful to my thesis advisor, Professor Char Miller, whose encouragement enabled me to develop a greater understanding of the subject. Lastly, I’d like to offer my regards to all those who supported me during the completion of this project. Winnie Wong

62 References Aspen Environmental Group. (2005) “Potential changes in hydropower production from global climate change in California and the Western United States.” California Energy Commission. Sacramento, CA. Prepared in support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding. Barnett, T., D. Pierce, H. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A. Wood, T. Nozawa, A. Mirin, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger. (2008) “Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the Western United States.” Science, 319(5866): 1080-1083. Braga, B. (1992) “Hydropower and Flood Control Trade-offs in a Multiresevior System.” Energy Sources, 14:43-49. Brekke, L. D., E. P. Maurer, J. D. Aderson, M. D. Dettinger, E. S. Townsley, A. Harrison, and T. Pruitt. (2009) “Assessing reservoir operations risk under climate change.” Water Resources Research, 45:W04411. Doi:10.1029/2008WR006941. California Department of Water Resources. (2002) “California floodplain management task force.” Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/docs/approved_report_Section1.pdf California Department of Water Resources. (2008a) California’s State Water Project. [Brochure] Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/recreation/brochures/pdf/swp.pdf California Department of Water Resources. (2008b) “Managing an uncertain future: Climate change adaptation strategies for California’s water.” Sacramento: CA. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf. California Department of Water Resources. (2009a) “California Water Plan Update.” Bulletin 160-09. Public Review Draft. Sacramento, CA. Available at: www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm. California Department of Water Resources. (2009b). “The State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2009.” Draft. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/Reliability2010final101210.pdf California Department of Water Resources. A New Era of Surface Storage in California. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/ California Department of Water Resources. California State Water Project. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/index.cfm. California Department of Water Resources. Flood Control Operating Criteria. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/facilities/Oroville/FCRules.cfm.

63 California Energy Commission. Hydroelectric Power in California. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/hydroelectric/index.html. California Energy Commission. (2003) Environmental Performance Report. California Hydropower System: Energy and Environment. Cayan, D., E. Mauer, M. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe, C. Bonfils, P. Duffy, and B. Santer. (2006) “Climate scenarios for California.” PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2005-203-SF, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. Cayan, D., A. Luers, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, B. Croes, and E. Vine. (2008) “Overview of the California climate change scenarios project.” Climate Change, 87(Suppl 1): S1-S6. Cohen, R., B. Nelson, and G. Wolffe. (2004) “Energy down the drain: The hidden costs of California’s water.” Oakland, USA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Institute. Econpost. "Largest state GDPs in the United States - California Texas New York Florida." November 11, 2009. Available at : http://econpost.com/unitedstateseconomy/largest-state-gdpsunited-states-california-texas-new-york-florida. Retrieved March 9, 2010. Energy Information Administration. (2005) World Hydroelectricity Installed Capacity, Table 6.4h. Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table64h.xls Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1999) “National dam safety program.” Fissekis, A. (2002) “Climate change effects on the Sacramento Basin’s flood control projects”, M.S. Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. (2007) “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing.” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Hadley, O., V. Ramanathan, G. Carmichael, Y. Tang, C. Corrigan, G, Roberts, and G. Mauger. (2007) “Transpacific transport of black carbon and find aerosol (D