1 / 29

California Water Plan April 14, 2005

California Water Plan April 14, 2005. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Technical Analysis. Year 4 Review Components. Investment Levels for Water Plan. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Urban Water Use Efficiency Desalination Recycling. Look Back at Past Activities

purity
Download Presentation

California Water Plan April 14, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. California Water PlanApril 14, 2005 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Technical Analysis

  2. Year 4 Review Components Investment Levels for Water Plan • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency • Desalination • Recycling Look Back at Past Activities Projection of Potential Synthesis

  3. Who’s Using the Information • CALFED ROD Year 4 WUE Checkup • Common Assumptions for Surface Storage Investigations • Water Plan Bulletin 160 update

  4. CALFED Year 4 ReviewPublic Input • Outline of Approach and Scope Presented to BDPAC WUE Subcommittee, Sept 2003 • Draft Results Presented to WUE Subcommittee, June 2004 • Technical Workshop for RDI Component, July 2004 • Technical Workshop on Approach and Draft Results, August 2004

  5. Agricultural WUE Approach I. Define geographic scope of analysis II. Input information • water use • land use • field level irrigation systems characterization • district level systems characterization III. Use target investments to achieve water quantity, water quality and in-stream flow and timing

  6. Geographic Scope • Statewide • 56 Planning Areas (PA’s) are highest resolution • 23 Analysis Areas - PA’s with similar land and water use • CALFED Solution Area

  7. Investment Levels • 1. Current trends plus Prop 50 - $15 million/yr through 2007 • 2. $15 million/yr through 2030 • 3. CALFED ROD $30 million/yr through 2030 • 4 - 6. $50, $100, $150 million/yr through 2030

  8. Allocation of Prop 50 • Across CALFED Program Objectives • In-stream flows • Water quality • Water supply reliability • Based on Targeted Benefits in each Analysis Area

  9. Data and Modeling Approach

  10. Apply Assumptions & Process Raw Data Manipulate Data Analysis Steps Supplier Data: Inflow from river Outflow to fields and flows Ag Demand Data from Water Plan Calibration & Modeling Field Level Data: Inflow from supplier, GW Outflow to crops and flows Irrigation Methods from Water Plan Align Irrigation Methods by Analysis Area Cropping Data from Water Plan Results Consolidate to Modeling Crop Categories Supplier and Field Level Cost Data

  11. District Cost Estimates Data, Assumptions, and Methods

  12. District Cost Estimates • Proven Technologies • Estimate costs for discrete categories of improvements • Assess current conditions by Analysis Areas • For each Projection Level, assignimprovements that • Meet target investment • Are needed to support on-farm improvements

  13. District Improvement Categories • Delivery flexibility – labor, central control, regulating reservoirs • Canal lining and seepage recovery • Regulating reservoirs with automation • Interceptors • Pressurized pipe

  14. On-Farm Cost Estimates Data, Assumptions, and Methods

  15. On-Farm WUE Activities • Proven technologies (return systems, drip, LEPA) • Low, Medium and High management levels • By crop category • Connection between on-farm improvements and district flexibility

  16. On-Farm WUE Cost Estimates • Update of 1994 study • Feasible irrigation systems by crop type • Efficiencies and flow estimates based on field assessments by Cal Poly and DWR • System costs estimated by Ag. Engineers • Capital components • Labor, O&M • Management • Result is feasible set of systems/management by crop

  17. Field Irrigation Potential

  18. Existing and New Drip Acres of: Almonds & Pistachios Citrus Prunes Peaches Apples, Pears and Olives Grapes and walnuts are not included RDI Method Assume 2”/Ac of ET reduction Implementation Rate of 27 years Volume of ET Reduction due to RDI

  19. Results

  20. On-Farm Costs and Flow Reductions

  21. District Costs and Flow Reductions

  22. Summary of On-Farm Reductions irrecoverable flow reductions do not include RDI estimate

  23. Summary of District Reductions

  24. Seasonal Application Efficiency

  25. Estimate of Unit Cost to Reduce Irrecoverable Flows

  26. Targeted Benefits In-stream flow and Quantifiable Objective for anadramous fish restoration in Sac Valley

  27. WUE BDPAC Issues • Irrecoverable flows going to beneficial uses - Salton Sea • Are all irrecoverable flows “realistic” • Adjustment of recoverable to account for reuse • Savings in recoverable flows can affect 3rd parties and may overstate benefit

  28. WUE BDPAC Issues • Draft results show “optimum” for given level of investment • Monthly and annual time step for in-stream flows • Combine on-farm and district or leave separate?

  29. Schedule • Draft report of Year 4 Comprehensive Review, May 2005 • Final draft, June 2005 • Final report, August 2005

More Related