Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Regional Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans for the Sacramento Rive

1. Bureau of ReclamationMid-Pacific RegionRegional Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans for the Sacramento River Contractors

2. WELCOME • Agenda • Introduction • Background • Regional Criteria • Comments

3. Water Conservation Laws • Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA) • Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA)

4. RRA Requirements • Each Contractors shall develop a Water Conservation Plan (Plan) • Each Plan shall contain: • Definite goals • Water conservation measures • Time schedule for meeting objectives

5. CVPIA Requirements • The Secretary shall: • Develop criteria to evaluate Plans which: • Include EWMPs identified for Ag Water Suppliers (State) or • Provides for reasonable alternatives

6. Standard Criteria • Developed Standard Criteria in 1993 • Revised every 3 years (1996, 1999, 2002) • 2002 Criteria: • Provides Contractors the option of pooling resources and implementing joint programs • Provided alternatives, i.e. Quantifiable Objectives

7. Administrative Proposal • 1995 – Interior invited the public to comment on CVPIA implementation • 1997 – Final CVPIA Administrative Proposal on Water Conservation • Recommended development of Regional Criteria for the Sacramento Valley as an experimental first step • Measurement – Resolve by collecting additional info within Districts

8. Regional Criteria – How did we get here? • Initiated Public Scoping in 1997 • 15 Stakeholders interviewed in August 1997 • Public Workshops held – October 1 and 28, 1997 • Comments received from the public

10. Sacramento Valley Regional Criteria • First workshop resulted in three alternatives • Regional BMP • Needs analysis with negotiated efficiency • Objectives driven (QOs) • Second workshop • Selected QO approach and explored potential QOs

11. Sacramento Valley Regional Criteria • Drafted Regional Criteria • Unresolved issues included: • Undefined QOs • Water measurement approach

12. Development of Regional Criteria – Restarted Process: 2002 • Utilized defined QO methodology defined by CALFED • Measurement Study proposal from the Sac River Contractors

13. Quantifiable Objectives

14. Quantifiable Objectives • Specific to Ag projects • Identify improvements on a Watershed Basis (Targeted Benefits) • Demand Reduction (Reduction in ET) • Water Quality (Reduction in NPS Pollution) • Environmental (Improved Stream Flows)

15. Quantifiable Objectives • Quantify the change that will be required for the improvement • Allow early spring flow event of approximately 8,000-10,000 cfs in dry years • Reduce in ET by 5 percent • Reduce Nitrates in River to 10ppm • Establish practices that will lead to all or a portion of the improvement.

16. Irrecoverable Loss Recoverable Loss Multiple Benefits of Rerouted Flows ET Rerouted Flow Reduce rerouted flow: no supply gain, but increases stream flow and improves quality River

17. Targeted Benefits: Categories by Region

18. Linking Benefits to Sub-Regions Want to use incentives to motivate locals to address these benefits 21 Sub-Regions

19. Quantifiable Objectives Approach

20. Analyze QOs For Non–Applicability List Non–Applicable Prioritize Applicable QOs Develop Proposed QO/Year 1 Develop Proposed QO/Year 2 Develop Proposed QO/Year 3 Develop Proposed QO/Year 4 Develop Proposed QO/Year 5 Identify Actions Identify Actions Identify Actions Identify Actions Identify Actions

21. Quantifiable Objectives • Currently developed – 33 QOs • Contractors to: • Assess QOs for non-applicability • Develop six potential QOs per year • Develop implementation plan for each QO • Include specific actions and analysis for local/overall benefits and costs

22. Analyze QOs for Non-Applicability • QOs currently being implemented through other Regional activities • CALFED Science Program has determined the QO and/or related TB are no longer warranted • Participating Contractors are not able to affect related TB

23. Prioritize QOs for Analysis & Quantification • Information in the Annual Update to include: • Preliminary prioritization of proposed QOs based on specific considerations • Annual analyze 1/5th of proposed QOs for implementation (one for each sub-region) • Progress tracked in the Annual Update (actions and funding efforts)

24. Potential Measures • Consider • Improved grower education • Implementation of appropriate Pricing and Measurement

25. Regional Measurement Program

26. Regional Measurement Program • Contractor to measure volume of water delivered to each customer, and • Implement procedures providing incentives for improved water management, or

27. Regional Measurement Program • Initiate implementation of a mutually acceptable measurement program within 3 years of contract renewal • Full implementation within 5 years thereof • Based on results from field studies • Shall be at lease as effective as the measurement provision in the Standard Criteria

28. Monitoring Program • Document existing conditions for flows and water quality constituents for selected QOs • Update these conditions annually • Monitoring Program to include: • Specific monitoring for each objective • Schedule, budget, and responsibility for monitoring • Annual Reporting requirements

29. Regional Criteria – Pilot Study • These Regional Criteria are a pilot study • If not found to be as effective, will revert to the current Standard Criteria

30. BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONwww.usbr.gov/mp/watershare

31. Comments