FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC. WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION UPDATE KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Prepared for: KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 2016 Fugro Job No. 04.62130123
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC. January 29, 2016 Project No.04.62130123 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Post Office Box 1247 Visalia, CA 93279 Attention: Mr. Larry Dotson, Senior Engineer Subject: Dear Mr. Dotson: Water Resources Investigation Update, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, Final Report Fugro is pleased to submit this Final Report of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (District), which updates the earlier Water Resources Investigation from the base period of 1981 to 1999 through the study period of 1981 to 2012. It has been a pleasure and a challenge to incorporate the updated data from the original investigation through 2012, which we know is of utmost importance to the District and its constituents as a valuable planning tool. We will remain available at your convenience to discuss this report or to answer any questions. Sincerely, FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC. 5855 Capistrano Avenue, Suite C Atascadero, California 93422 Tel: (805) 468-6060 Fax: (805) 468-6059 Timothy A. Nicely, P.G., CHg. Senior Hydrogeologist (Currently with GSI Water Solutions, Inc.) Paul A. Sorensen, P.G., CHg Principal Hydrogeologist Copies Submitted: (1) Recipient, Adobe PDF file A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS... ix ORGANIZATION/BOARD OF DIRECTORS... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION, DATA SUMMARY AND STUDY PERIOD DEFINITION... 1 1.1 Background... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope... 1 1.3 Description of the District... 2 1.3.1 General Features... 2 1.3.2 Changes Since 1999... 2 1.3.3 Delineation of Units... 3 1.4 Basic Data... 6 1.4.1 Data Management and Format... 6 1.4.2 Water Level Data... 8 1.4.3 Precipitation Data... 8 1.4.4 Local Surface Water Data... 9 1.4.5 Imported Surface Water Data... 9 1.4.6 Artificial Recharge... 9 1.4.7 Municipal and Community Water Demand... 13 1.4.8 Wastewater Data... 14 1.5 Study Period... 16 1.5.1 Introduction... 16 1.5.2 Data Review... 16 1.5.3 Study Period Characteristics... 17 1.6 Limitations... 18 2.0 GEOHYDROLOGY... 18 2.1 Background... 18 2.2 Purpose and Scope... 18 2.3 Availability of Data... 19 2.4 Water Level Fluctuations... 19 2.5 Historical Variations... 20 2.5.1 Unit Boundaries... 20 2.5.2 Unit No. I... 20 2.5.3 Unit No. II... 20 2.5.4 Unit No. III... 20 2.5.5 Unit No. IV... 21 2.5.6 Unit No. V... 21 2.5.7 Unit No. VI... 21 2.6 Study Period Water Level Conditions... 21 2.7 Groundwater Storage Calculations... 25 2.8 Subsurface Flow... 30 Page iv
3.0 SURFACE WATER... 34 3.1 Introduction... 34 3.2 Change in Calculation Methods... 34 3.3 Updated Tables... 34 3.4 Water Requirements... 34 3.5 Kaweah River Water... 35 3.6 St. Johns River System... 37 3.7 Lower Kaweah River System... 37 3.8 Distributaries and Canal Systems... 37 3.9 Central Valley Project (CVP) Water... 37 3.10 Tulare Irrigation District Main Canal System... 39 3.11 Kings River Water... 39 3.12 Conveyance Loss Calculations... 40 3.12.1 Background... 40 3.12.2 Natural Channels... 40 3.12.3 Riparian Diversions... 42 3.12.4 Headgate Diversions... 44 3.12.5 Constructed Channels... 45 3.13 Artificial Recharge... 48 3.13.1 General Characteristics... 48 3.13.2 Record Data... 48 3.13.3 Calculations... 48 3.14 Crop Delivery... 51 3.15 Surface Water Outflow (Spills)... 53 4.0 WATER BALANCE AND SAFE YIELD... 55 4.1 Introduction... 55 4.2 Budget... 55 4.2.1 General Statement... 55 4.2.2 Components of Inflow... 55 4.2.3 Components of Outflow... 64 4.3 Groundwater in Storage... 88 4.4 Water Balance... 88 4.4.1 General Statement... 88 4.4.2 Safe Yield... 97 5.0 CONCLUSIONS... 100 6.0 REFERENCES... 101 v
CONTENTS - CONTINUED TABLES Page 1. District Units... 4 2. Unit Entitlement Holders... 5 3. Summary of GIS Data... 7 4. Key Precipitation Recording Stations... 8 5. Recharge Basin Inventory... 11 6. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities... 15 7. Summary of Precipitation Data... 16 8. Runoff Stations Used for Study Period Analysis... 17 9. Summary of Water Level Conditions... 23 10. Estimated Annual Change of Groundwater in Storage... 26 11. Estimated Total Groundwater in Storage, Selected Years... 29 12. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Flow Calculations... 31 13. Unit Subsurface Inflow and Outflow Volumes... 33 14. Annual Runoff of Kaweah River near Three Rivers for Period 1904 through 2012... 36 15. Summary of Kaweah River Water Diversion into Friant-Kern Canal... 38 16. District Imported Water... 39 17. Summary of Conveyance Losses, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems... 41 18. Summary of Riparian Diversions, Lower Kaweah and St. Johns River Systems... 43 19. Summary of Headgate Diversions... 44 20. Summary of Ditch System Conveyance Losses... 46 21. Summary of All Delivered Water Conveyance Losses... 47 22. Summary of Recharge Basin Inflow... 50 23. Summary of Surface Water Crop Delivery Data... 52 24. Summary of Spills (in acre-feet)... 54 25. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Inflow Volumes... 57 26. Summary of Annual Volumes of Deep Percolation of Rainfall... 59 27. Summary of Percolation of Irrigation Return Water... 61 28. Summary of Wastewater Return Flows... 63 29. Summary of Subsurface Groundwater Outflow Calculations... 65 30. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, District... 67 31. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit I... 68 32. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit II... 69 33. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit III... 70 34. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit IV... 71 35. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit V... 72 36. Summary of Consumptive Use of Applied Irrigation Water, Unit VI... 73 37. Summary of Urban Groundwater Pumpage... 75 38. Summary of Small Water System Groundwater Demand... 77 39. Summary of Rural Domestic Water Demand... 78 40. Summary of Dairy Cow Population and Water Use Estimates... 79 41 Summary of Dairy Water Demand... 81 42. Summary of Groundwater Pumpage for Irrigated Agriculture... 83 43. Summary of Estimated Total Groundwater Pumpage... 85 44. Summary of Phreatophyte Extractions... 87 vi
45. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Entire District... 90 46. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit I 91 47. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit II 92 48. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit III 93 49. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit IV 94 50. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit V 95 51. Estimated Deep Percolation, Extractions, and Change in Storage, Unit VI 96 52 Summary of Comparative Change in Storage... 97 53. Practical Rate of Withdrawal Using the Inventory and Specific Yield Methods... 99 PLATES Plate Study Area Map... 1 Precipitation Stations Location Map... 2 Location of Recharge Basins... 3 Small Water Systems Location Map... 4 Location of Dairies... 5 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Composite Data... 6 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Precipitation, Visalia Station... 7 Cumulative Departure from Average Annual Runoff Kaweah River at Three Rivers... 8 Comparison of Composite Precipitation and Kaweah River at Three Rivers Runoff... 9 Kaweah River Runoff versus Average Annual Composite Precipitation... 10 Hydrographs for Selected Wells, Unit Nos. I through VI... 11-16 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1952... 17 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1981... 18 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 1999... 19 Contours of Equal Groundwater Elevation, Spring 2012... 20 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 1999... 21 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1952 to 2012... 22 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1981 to 1999... 23 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1981 to 2012... 24 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1992 to 2012... 25 Contours of Equal Difference in Water Levels, 1999 to 2012... 26 Estimated Change of Groundwater in Storage Entire District... 27 Unit No. 1... 28 Unit No. 2... 29 Unit No. 3... 30 Unit No. 4... 31 Unit No. 5... 32 Unit No. 6... 33 Typical Map of Subsurface Flow Calculations... 34 Budget Summary Entire District... 35 Unit No. 1... 36 vii
PLATES CONTINUED Unit No. 2... 37 Unit No. 3... 38 Unit No. 4... 39 Unit No. 5... 40 Unit No. 6... 41 Schematic Diagram of Average Annual Volumes of Inflow and Outflow... 42 Practical Rate of Withdrawal Entire District... 43 Unit No. 1... 44 Unit No. 2... 45 Unit No. 3... 46 Unit No. 4... 47 Unit No. 5... 48 Unit No. 6... 49 viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AEG B&E BLM Cal Water CDMG CIMIS CVP District DOGGR DWR EPA ESRI GIS KHD LDC MS NOAA NRCS RWQCB SCE SSE SSURGO SWP TEHD TID TRC TRMA USGS VPWD WRI Association of Engineering Geologists Bookman & Edmonston U.S. Bureau of Land Management California Water Services Company California Division of Mines and Geology California Irrigation Management and Information System Federal Central Valley Project Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Research State Department of Water Resources United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Systems Research Institute Geographic Information System Kings County Health Department Legacy Data Center Microsoft National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natural Resources Conservation Service Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region Southern California Edison Soils Suitability Extension Soil Survey Geographic Database State Water Project Tulare County Environmental Health Department Tulare Irrigation District Technical Review Committee Tulare County Resources Management Agency-Solid Waste Division United States Geological Survey City of Visalia Public Works Department Water Resources Investigation ix
ORGANIZATION KAWEAH DELTA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Visalia, California Board of Directors Division 1 Chris Tantau Division 2 Mike Shannon Division 3 Jeff Ritchie Division 4 Don Mills Division 5 Stan Gomes Division 6 Mark Watte Division 7 Ron Clark Mark Larsen General Manager D. Zackary Smith Legal Counsel x
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GENERAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report of Water Resources Investigation (WRI) of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District presents the results of efforts to investigate and quantify the water resources of the District for the study period of 1981 to 2012. The WRI is an updated technical investigation intended to provide the District, public water agencies, overlying landowners and water users a better understanding of the District by answering questions related to the quantity of groundwater in the District, the hydraulic movement of groundwater through the District, sources and volumes of natural recharge, and trends in water levels. Although this investigation does not address specific planning or water management issues, it provides a valuable tool that the District needs to continue its water resource planning efforts. The District, with a total area of 340,000 acres, has reached a high degree of development, with about 240,000 acres (2012) devoted to a variety of irrigated crops and with approximately 40,000 acres of urbanized area largely in and around the cities of Tulare and Visalia. As of 2012, an average of about 918,500 acre-feet (af) of water per year are delivered for irrigation, municipal and industrial and related uses. Use of water by irrigated agriculture comprises more than 93 percent of the total, or 852,100 acre-feet per year (afy). Irrigation requirements are met from both surface and groundwater sources, while municipal and industrial supplies are obtained solely from groundwater. Usable groundwater is found in water bearing deposits throughout the District in complex aquifer systems. In the easterly part of the District, these systems are largely unconfined or semiconfined. Confined groundwater is found in aquifer systems underlying the westerly portion of the District. Groundwater storage in the unconfined and semiconfined aquifers provides the cyclical regulation of the District s water supplies, and it is estimated that about 1.8 million af of groundwater storage capacity are being utilized in this function. The most significant subsurface feature in the District affecting the occurrence and movement of groundwater is the Corcoran Clay, a relatively impervious stratum, the eastern edge of which follows generally a north-south line about 2 to 3 miles east of U.S. Highway 99. The Corcoran Clay dips to the west and usable groundwater is found both above and below this stratum. The areas between the easterly edge of the Corcoran Clay and the Rocky Hill fault have been designated as Units II, III, and IV, and groundwater in these units is found in unconfined alluvium and semiconfined continental deposits underlying the alluvium. Groundwater moves generally in a southwesterly direction along the principal axis of the District. Outflow of groundwater from the District occurs to the west from Unit VI. Outflow also occurs from Unit IV to the south. Inflow of groundwater to the District occurs both from the north and from the south into Unit VI in response to a pumping depression in aquifers above the Corcoran Clay. A water budget was calculated for the study period of 1981 to 2012 by assessing the components of inflow and outflow of water within the District, and calculating the change in groundwater storage. The water budget was performed by calculating components of water inflow ES-1
and outflow for each year of the study period for the entire District and for each of the six hydrologic units, and comparing the totals to the annual change in groundwater in storage, as determined by the specific yield method. The hydrologic budget is simply a statement of the balance of total water gains and losses from the District. In very simple terms, the hydrologic budget is summarized by the following equation: Inflow = Outflow (±) Change in Storage where Inflow equals: Percolation of precipitation, Streambed percolation and delivered water conveyance losses, Subsurface inflow, Percolation of applied irrigation return, Percolation of wastewater, and Artificial recharge. And Outflow equals: Groundwater pumpage, Subsurface outflow, Extraction by phreatophytes, and Exported water. Using the inventory method described above, the sum of all the components of outflow from the entire District exceeded the sum of all the components of inflow by an estimated 60,900 afy, for an accumulated storage depletion of about 1,947,500 af over the study period of 1981 to 2012. Previously, the usable storage was given as approximately 2,500,000 af, which represented the difference between the historic high and low water levels at that time (ending in 1999). Since that time, water levels have declined further reaching a maximum deficit of 1,947,500 af over the 32-year study period. Notably, this average annual overdraft is valid for the study period of 1981 to 2012, which does not represent a balanced base period. The current study period includes significantly more dry years than wet years than did the original WRI, and so overemphasizes the estimated overdraft. Water supply surpluses have occurred in the early 1980s (1982 and 1983), 1990s (1993, 1995 to 1998), 2000s (2005 and 2006) and early 2010s (2010 and 2011). During these periods, seasonal surpluses of greater than 700,000 afy occurred. However, deficiencies were apparent during the late 1980s, between most of 1999 and 2009, then again in 2012. The periods of water supply surplus and deficiency are generally consistent with the seasonal and cyclic pattern of precipitation and surface water supply that occurred during the period. For the District as a whole, irrigation water return flow (deep percolation of irrigation water) was the greatest component of inflow (37 percent), followed by streambed percolation and conveyance loss at about 31 percent and percolation of precipitation at 12 percent. The safe or perennial yield of the District is estimated in this Report. It is defined as the volume of groundwater that can be pumped year after year without producing an undesirable result. Any withdrawal in excess of safe yield is considered overdraft. The undesired results are ES-2
recognized to include not only the depletion of groundwater reserves, but also deterioration in water quality, unreasonable and uneconomic pumping lifts, creation of conflicts in water rights, land subsidence, and depletion of streamflow by induced infiltration. It should be recognized that the concepts of safe yield and overdraft imply conditions of water supply and use over a long-term period. Given the importance of the conjunctive use of both surface water and groundwater in the District, short-term water supply differences are satisfied by groundwater pumpage, which in any given year, often exceeds the safe yield of the District and individual hydrologic units. During the study period of 1981 to 2012, the safe yield was approximately 570,000 afy as calculated by the specific yield method. Under the current conditions of development and water supply, the District as a whole is in a severe overdraft. The magnitude of the overdraft is in the range of about 60,900 to 75,100 afy (as calculated by the specific yield method versus the inventory method), and occurs predominantly in the west side of the District. To the extent that groundwater is exported out of the District from Unit No. VI, this overdraft would increase. The present overdraft in the District is compared to earlier work of Bookman-Edmonston Engineering (B&E, 1972). The overdraft is manifested as a progressive lowering of water levels and such declining water levels are most evident in Unit No. VI. Generally, the average decline in water levels in this area have been about 4 feet per year during the dry period between 1999 and 2012, but this varies widely depending on location, seasonal imbalances in water supply (i.e., wet versus dry cycles within the study period), and where pumping (well fields) is concentrated. The rate of decline in this area is similar to what was observed by B&E (1972), but was not as severe as predicted which was expected to increase to about 10 feet per year, on average. The magnitude of the overdraft by B&E (1972) was considerably greater under future (ultimate) conditions of development, and was estimated at about 110,000 afy. Of this amount, 104,000 afy was predicted to occur in Unit No. VI alone. ES-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION, DATA SUMMARY AND STUDY PERIOD DEFINITION 1.1 BACKGROUND The water resources of the District have been the focus of numerous studies and reports over the last 60 years. Many of the earliest reports were prepared with emphasis on supplemental water requirements for the District related to surface water flows and diversions. A study which evaluated the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in the District was conducted by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering (B-E) in the early 1970s (B-E, 1972). A Water Resources Investigation (WRI) of the surface water and groundwater resources of the District was also conducted by Fugro in the early 2000s and represents the most comprehensive study to date (Fugro, 2003). The project team for the WRI was Fugro West, Inc., Keller/Wegley Consulting Engineers, Inc., Peter Canessa, P.E., and District staff (Larry Dotson, P.E.). The base period of the original WRI was 1981 to 1999. Interim reports were prepared for each task and the major findings of the tasks were documented in a final report submitted to the District in December 2003 and modified during 2007 (Fugro, 2007). The purpose of the WRI was to prepare a comprehensive review of the hydrogeologic conditions of the groundwater basin. The WRI for the base period between 1981 and 1999 concluded that the safe yield of the District was 575,000 acre-feet per year (afy) under the existing conditions of the base period for that study (1981 to 1999). Average total inflow during that period was estimated to be 615,700 afy. Average annual groundwater pumping in the District was approximately 611,000 afy. Groundwater basin overdraft is manifested as a progressive decline of groundwater levels on the west side of the District. Fugro estimated that the volume of the basin overdraft was 21,700 to 36,000 afy during the base period from 1981 to 1999 (Fugro, 2007). 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of the present work was to update the WRI by extending beyond the end of the base period through calendar year 2012. The entire period considered for this report is between calendar years 1981 and 2012, which is referred to as the study period. The effort involved to update the WRI was divided into the following tasks: Task 1 involved the collection, compilation, and review of available data from calendar year 2000 to 2012, and updating/revision of some data from 1981 to 1999; Task 2 involved an analysis of groundwater level conditions and storage changes in the District from 2000 to 2012; Task 3 involved the updated estimation of a hydrologic balance for the District using the inventory method from 2000 to 2012 (calendar year basis); and Task 4 involved the estimation of an updated basin safe yield and the preparation of this final report documenting the findings of the WRI update. The purpose of Task 1 was to collect, compile, and review the available data from 2000 to 2012 (and to some extent for 1981 to 1999) to be used in subsequent tasks to update the quantification of water supply and demand in the District. The data collected in this task forms the foundation for all ensuing efforts. Data considered for collection and evaluation in Task 1 included: Artificial recharge, 1
Water level data, Precipitation data, Municipal and community water demand, Local surface water data, Rural water demand, Imported surface water data, and Wastewater data. Other data related to land use, agricultural water demand, irrigation water percolation, and rainfall percolation for 2000 to 2012 were compiled and evaluated as part of a study by Davids Engineering (2013), results of which are discussed and incorporated in the hydrologic balance in Section 3. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT 1.3.1 General Features The District was formed in 1927 under provisions of the Water Conservation Act of 1927 for the purpose of conserving and storing water of the Kaweah River and of conserving and protecting the underground waters of the Kaweah Delta. The District is located in the southcentral portion of the San Joaquin Valley of California and, as shown on Plate 1 Study Area Map, lies both in Tulare and in Kings County. The total area of the District is about 340,000 acres, with approximately 255,000 acres located in the westerly portion of Tulare County and the balance in the northeasterly corner of Kings County. Additional description of the District study area is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 1.3.2 Changes Since 1999 Although agricultural land use in the District has for many years been at or near ultimate development, there have been some changes in the District since 1999 related to agricultural practices and ongoing urbanization and growth within the cities of Visalia and Tulare, resulting in changes in the use and deliveries of surface and groundwater. The District s Annual Groundwater Management Plan reports are published near the end of each year and present a summary of some of the changes that have occurred. Specifically, the Plan reports present the state of the groundwater monitoring program, resource protection including the development of well ordinances to protect groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, stakeholder involvement, and planning efforts. Noticeable changes in land use have accelerated since approximately 2005 with the growth of urban areas and shifting of agricultural lands to multiple cropping and conversion to permanent crops. These land use changes require greater amounts of consumptive use and may correlate to the lowering of groundwater levels and overdraft on the west side of the District. The enlargement of Lake Kaweah, completed in 2004, has increased available storage for flood protection and agricultural water management. The gains accomplished by the project in retaining more surface water within the District have not realized its maximum benefit to the groundwater supply due to land changes that require higher water demands. The nine precipitation stations from which data were used in the prior Fugro WRI were active through water year 2012, with the exception of the precipitation station in Porterville, which was discontinued in 2004. 2
The trend of deliveries of imported water over the last 12 years is generally downward, associated with availability of local surface water (Kaweah River) sources. A tabulation of imported water data was provided by District staff in an electronic format similar to the prior WRI. On the west side of the District, in Unit VI, groundwater pumpage has increased related to the recent intensification of agriculture in the Tulare Lakebed area. Recently, the two wet years 2005 and 2010 within the current dry period have each correlated increased surface water deliveries and associated rises in groundwater levels. Considerable urbanization has occurred in the District since 1999 in the urban areas of Tulare County, principally the cities of Visalia and Tulare. Specifically, the cities of Visalia and Tulare have expanded towards each other and generally to the west. To a lesser degree, Farmersville and Exeter have expanded slightly. The implications of the urbanization were evaluated as part of the updated WRI as it affects groundwater use and disposal. The total number of dairy cows in the District peaked in 2010, when cow populations had risen by 50 percent during the prior 10 years and 125 percent in the prior 20 years. Correspondingly, water use associated with dairy operations has increased. The impacts of these changes on groundwater levels, along with crop water analyses for silage feed were accounted for in this WRI update. We understand that there have been no significant lining of canals, ditches, or other distributaries and/or changes to riparian rights in the District since 1999. Since 2000, the District continues to support various resource management programs including: a water enhancement program with the City of Visalia (2001), well ordinances to help protect groundwater quality (2007), and an educational program on well construction, maintenance, and destruction methods (2007). The District also continues to be involved with updates to the County of Tulare General Plan, and has developed a numerical groundwater flow model for the District (Fugro, 2005) for application to overall ground and surface water management strategies. The numerical groundwater flow model was expanded to cover a larger area generally eastward to include the city of Lindsay and surrounding area in 2012. 1.3.3 Delineation of Units 1.3.3.1 Boundaries As in previous studies of the District s water resources, the District has been divided into six analytical areas designated hydrologic units. The boundaries of each are specifically shown on Plate 1 and other plates of this report and summarized in Table 1 District Units. 3
Table 1. District Units Unit General Geographic Designation Area in Acres I Eastern 16,250 II St. Johns 49,503 III Visalia 35,457 IV Outside Creek 73,818 V Tulare 81,679 VI Western 83,334 Total: 340,051 Accurate: June 9, 2014 For the most part, the delineation of the six hydrologic unit boundaries are coincident with the service areas of the entitlement holders, a summary of which is provided on Table 2 Unit Entitlement Holders. The total acreage shown in Table 2, 356,714 acres, is greater than the actual District area of 340,000 acres due to overlap of entitlement holder areas. No changes in the hydrologic unit boundaries or entitlement holder service areas have occurred since 2000. Detailed descriptions of each Unit are provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 4
Table 2. Unit Entitlement Holders Unit No. Entitlement Holder Service Area Data Area (acres) I (Eastern) II (St. Johns) III (Visalia) IV (Outside Creek) V (Tulare) VI (Western) Exeter Irrigation District Hamilton Ditch Canal Ivanhoe Irrigation District Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District Longs Canal Area Sweeney Ditch Area Tulare Irrigation Company Unincorporated Wutchumna Water Company 565 348 190 1,043 948 509 371 11,430 930 Unit I Total: 16,334 Alta Irrigation District Goshen Ditch Canal Mathews Ditch Canal Modoc Ditch Canal St. Johns Water District Unincorporated Uphill Ditch Canal Wutchumna Water Company 2,045 5,553 1,824 6,245 13,300 27,025 1,812 319 Unit II Total: 58,123 Evans Ditch Canal Fleming Ditch Canal Modoc Ditch Canal Oakes Ditch Canal Persian Ditch Canal Tulare Irrigation Company Unincorporated Watson Ditch Canal 3,975 1,635 214 790 6,237 4,447 19,177 3,308 Unit III Total: 39,783 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Canal Elk Bayou Ditch Canal Exeter Irrigation District Farmers Ditch Canal Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District Oakes Ditch Canal Tulare Irrigation District Tulare Irrigation Company Unincorporated 15,635 7,467 800 12,329 111 309 420 1,529 36,004 Unit IV Total: 74,604 El Bayou Ditch Canal Evans Ditch Canal Tulare Irrigation District Tulare Irrigation Company Unincorporated 1,825 377 69,732 1,527 10,953 Unit V Total: 84,414 Alta Irrigation District Corcoran Irrigation District Kings County Water District Lakeside Irrigation Water District Melga Water District Salyer Water District Unincorporated 510 10,220 24,821 32,147 3,298 3,678 8,782 Unit VI Total: 83,456 Total Acres 356,714 Accurate: June 9, 2014 5
1.4 BASIC DATA 1.4.1 Data Management and Format The initial efforts of this study concentrated on the collection, compilation, and review of available data. As mentioned previously, the kinds of data collected and evaluated include: Artificial recharge, Water level data, Precipitation Data, Municipal and community water demand, Local surface water data, Rural water demand, Imported surface water data, and Wastewater data. Much of the data listed above were available and compiled in electronic tabular form. These electronic data sets were collected from various sources, including: Department of Water Resources (DWR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tulare County, Kings County, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Water Service, and each of the communities within the District. Groundwater level data obtained from the DWR, and most sources of data, such as stream flow and precipitation data were in a spreadsheet (MS Excel) format. Existing databases were updated and expanded as new data were collected. Additional data for calendar years 2000 to 2012 related to land use, consumptive use, irrigation recharge, and precipitation recharge were collected by Davids Engineering (2013). To manage the types of data listed above, geospatial data from numerous sources were compiled for inclusion in a GIS database. All geographic data were re-projected as necessary to a common system. The coordinate system chosen for this project was State plane, California Zone IV, NAD83, feet. This coordinate system facilitates a simplified exchange of data. As needed, data were converted from native formats (AutoCAD, Excel, text, coverage) to ArcGIS shape files. Table 3 Summary of GIS Data, presents the data that was included in the database for production of maps, tabulation and calculation throughout the investigation. The extents of the urban areas were updated for the WRI Update to reflect urbanization which has occurred during the past decade, principally in Visalia and Tulare. The locations of precipitation stations and associated data were acquired from California DWR s Data Exchange Center (CDEC) and converted to GIS data. Additional precipitation data were compiled as GIS data by the USGS and distributed by the California Geospatial Information Library. 6
Table 3. Summary of GIS Data Theme Source Scale Updated 2012 County Boundary USGS 1:100,000 No Land Use* DWR / TID 1:24,000 No District Boundary KDWCD Unknown No Urban Areas ESRI Varies Yes Roads ESRI Varies Yes Water Features (arc) USGS 1:100,000 No Water Features (poly) USGS 1:100,000 No Soils (STATSGO) NRCS 1:250,000 No Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) NRCS 1:24,000 No Precipitation NOAA Unknown Yes Precipitation Stations Fugro 1:1,000,000 No Well Sites CA DWR Unknown Yes Wildcat Sites Fugro Unknown No Aerial Imagery CA DWR/Fugro N/A No Groundwater Basins CA DWR 1:250,000 No Cal Water Watersheds CA DWR 1:24,000 No Units Fugro 1:220,000 No Public Land Survey (sec) CA DWR 1:100,000 No Public Land Survey (t/r) Fugro 1:100,000 No Elevation USGS/Fugro 1:24,000 No Topographic Map USGS 1:100,000 No Topographic Map USGS 1:250,000 No Bovine Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Poultry Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Goat Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Swine Operations Tulare County Unknown Yes Dairy Operations Dairy Operations Land use data available by county for several years NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TIGER: United States Census Bureau TIGER file NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service UPDATED June 9, 2014 Tulare County and RWQCB Kings County and RWQCB Unknown N/A Yes Yes 7
1.4.2 Water Level Data The sources and compilation of water level data are described in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Adequate spatial distribution of Spring-period groundwater measurements from 2000 to 2012 in the District were generated by combining water level databases from DWR and the District. An adequate spatial distribution of Fall-period groundwater measurements within the District was available through 2012 and were based on both District and DWR records. Spring-period water level maps were constructed for each year from 2000 to 2012 and used in the specific yield method to estimate annual groundwater storage changes in each hydrologic unit and in the entire District. The DWR and District databases are the primary sources of information for water levels in the basin and were used to generate hydrographs at select locations from the 1940 s to 2012. Water level contour maps have been obtained from DWR for most years from 1981 to 2012, as available as well as several prior periods including 1952, the earliest available period in this format. The contour maps were used to generate maps displaying changes in water levels over particular periods within the 1981 to 2012 study period (e.g., from 1992 to 2012). A complete analysis of groundwater level and storage changes over the study period is provided in Section 2 of this report. 1.4.3 Precipitation Data Precipitation data were obtained by download from the CDEC website database. Monthly precipitation totals were obtained for eight gauging stations located in Tulare and Kings Counties. Information describing each of the eight stations is presented in Table 4 Key Precipitation Recording Stations, and six of the eight station locations are shown approximately on Plate 2 Precipitation Stations Location Map. Table 4. Key Precipitation Recording Stations Station No. Station Name Township/Range/ Section Year Record Began End of Record Years of Record Elevation (feet, MSL) Average 1981-2012 43747 Hanford 1 S T18S/R21E-S31 1931 2012 76 242 8.60 42012 Corcoran Irrig. Dist. T21S/R22E-S15 1945 2012 62 200 7.16 49367 Visalia T18S/R25E-S30 1905 2012 130 325 10.46 44957 Lindsay T20S/R27E-S9 1931 2012 76 420 11.94 44890 Lemon Cove T18S/R27E-S3 1931 2012 46 513 14.50 48917 Three Rivers Edison PH 1 T17S/R29E-S8 1948-1951 1972 2012 59 1,140 40343 Ash Mountain T17S/R29E-S32 1931 2012 76 5,602 25.73 45026 Lodgepole T15S/R30E-S21 1969 2012 38 6,735 44.12 Updated June 19, 2014 23.50 Each of the eight precipitation stations contain measurement records dating back to at latest 1969 (Table 4). Monthly precipitation data was compiled from the CDEC for each station from 2000 to 2012. The annual precipitation totals from the six of the eight stations were also used for a cumulative departure analysis to provide context for the representativeness of the 8
period from 1981 to 2012 as the study period for the updated WRI. However, it should be noted that the current 1981 to 2012 study period is intended to provide an up-to-date Water Resources Inventory for the District and is not meant to represent an ideal study period. As shown on Plate 2, there are six stations in and surrounding the study area with significant periods of record. The two other stations are located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of the District. A review of the precipitation data from 2000 to 2012 for the eight stations indicates that the overall dataset is adequate for the purposes of the updated WRI. Although only the Visalia station is within the boundaries of the District, the remaining precipitation stations are sufficiently dispersed geographically to evaluate precipitation patterns, spatially and temporally, over the Basin area. 1.4.4 Local Surface Water Data Surface water impacting the District generated on a local basis includes the Kaweah River, Dry Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Mehrten Creek, Yokohl Creek, and Lewis Creek. Sources of data for each of these rivers and creeks include the Kaweah and St. Johns River Association, the Consolidated Peoples Ditch Company, USACE and the USGS. The Kaweah and St. Johns River Association collect data on a daily basis for the Kaweah River, Dry Creek, and Yokohl Creek. This information is tabulated on a daily basis and since the late 1990s has been tabulated in an electronic database. Annual reports are published by the Association, which are continually in the process of being updated. District staff compiled the data, which was used to calculate various surface water delivery data for the hydrologic budget analysis. 1.4.5 Imported Surface Water Data Supplemental sources of water supply have been imported to the District since its inception. Deliveries to lands within the current boundaries of the District started in the late 1800s and were made available from the Kings River. An additional source of supplemental supply to lands located within the District in the early 1950s was made available from the CVP, taking the form of both long-term and short-term contract supplies. With the advent of the termination of short-term contracting procedures, supplemental supplies, in addition to the long-term CVP supplies, have been made available through the vehicle of temporary contracts. Groundwater use in the District is directly affected by the availability and delivery of surface water to lands within the service area of the State Water Project (SWP). Supplies made available from the Kings River impact the north, northwestern, and westerly areas of the District, and portions of the Kings Basin and Tulare Lake Basin, which overlie the District boundaries, as presented on Plate 1. Additional descriptions of imported surface water data sources were provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). Adequate data sources were available to break down deliveries of imported water by hydrologic unit for each year. Tabulation of imported water from both contract and supplemental sources was accomplished in a format consistent with that utilized for the prior WRI. The compilation and breakdown of this information is provided in Section 3. 1.4.6 Artificial Recharge For many decades the District has operated groundwater recharge basins for purposes of augmenting its water supply. Information on the history of development, operation, size, location, 9
approximate diversions, maintenance, and other features of each recharge basin were obtained from the District and described in the original WRI (Fugro, 2007). A summary of the characteristics of each recharge basin is presented in Table 5 Recharge Basin Inventory (2012) and a map of their locations is provided on Plate 3 Locations of Recharge Basins. 10
Table 5. Recharge Basin Inventory (2012) No. Name Hydraulic Unit No. Location (Township-Range- Section) Supply Date of Purchase Acreage Capacity (af) Approximate Rate of Percolation (af per day) 99 Peoples I 18-26-14 Lower Kaweah River 1999 N/A N/A N/A 105 Hannah Ranch I 18-27-07 Lower Kaweah River 2001 N/A N/A N/A 107 Curtis I 18-27-06 Lower Kaweah River 2001 N/A N/A N/A 5 Willow School II 18-24-14 Modoc Ditch 1958 50 200 25 22 Shannon-Modoc (CPC) II 18-24-13 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1959 10 50 4 28 Doe-Goshen II 18-24-09 Goshen Ditch Lease: 1962 20 80 10 30 Harrell II 17-24-34 Harrell No. 1 Lease: 1963 50 200 40 9 Goshen II 18-24-18 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1955 40 160 10 26 Doe-Ritchie II 18-24-21 Modoc Ditch Lease: 1961 20 80 10 43 Oakes III 19-25-25 Lower Kaweah River 1997 23 36 23 4 Packwood III 18-23-03 South Mill Creek 1940 160 800 35 13 Nelson Pit III 19-24-09 Evans Ditch 1950 34 340 14 31 Hammer IV 19-25-02 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Lease: 1965 3 6 1 32 Bill Clark IV 19-25-11 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Lease 2 5 1 44 Hutcheson West IV 18-25-36 TID Canal 1999 N/A N/A N/A 45 Hutcheson East IV 18-25-36 Cameron Creek 1999 N/A N/A N/A 108 Paregien IV 18-26-32 Deep Creek 2001 N/A N/A N/A 1 Art Shannon IV 19-25-23 Farmers Ditch 1969 22 180 20 7 Gary Shannon IV 19-25-32 Farmers Ditch 1969 5 30 4 21 Gordon Shannon IV 19-25-34 Farmers Ditch 1962 47 95 6 24 Anderson IV 20-25-17 Farmers Ditch 1960 147 600 20 27 Ellis IV 20-25-16 Farmers Ditch Lease: 1962 3 30 4 11
Table 5. Recharge Basin Inventory (2012) Continued No. Name Hydraulic Unit No. Location (Township-Range- Section) Supply Date of Purchase Acreage Capacity (af) Approximate Rate of Percolation (af per day) 29 Nunes IV 20-25-03 Farmers Ditch 1963 40 250 30 95 Sunset IV 20-25-01 Inside Creek 1973 103 320 60 106 Elk Bayou IV 20-24-36 Elk Bayou Creek Lease: 2001 6 22 3 16 Creamline V 19-25-20 TID Canal 1972 153 535 85 3 Colpien V 19-23-22 Tulare Canal 1940 160 640 60 6 Machado V 19-23-35 Packwood Creek 1942 166 665 80 11 Tagus V 19-24-15 Packwood Creek 1949 80 800 150 14 Abercrombie V 20-24-23 Tulare Canal 1953 20 80 5 2 Enterprise V 19-24-29 Tulare Canal 1940 20 100 8 8 Corcoran Hwy. V 20-23-10 Packwood Creek 1945 120 480 40 17 Franks V 20-23-06 Tulare Canal 1957 40 160 6 18 Guinn V 20-23-30 Tulare Canal 1957 168 675 25 19 Franks V 20-23-06 Tulare Canal 1958 130 520 16 20 Wilbur V 20-23-34 Tulare Canal 1959 20 90 10 25 Doris V 21-23-06 Cameron Creek 1962 15 60 7 10 Lakeside VI 19-22-10 Lakeside Ditch 1946 187 800 150 23 Green VI 19-22-21 Lakeside Ditch 1960 4 15 1 15 Howe VI 20-22-07 Lakeside Ditch 1954 53 210 15 Total Basin Area: 2,133 9,499 983 Other Basins 1 Lakeside VI 18-22-35 Lakeside Ditch 320 1,100 60 2 Lakeside VI 20-21-01 Lakeside Ditch 64 180 30 1-3 Corcoran 1,2,3 VI 20-22-21,28,35 Cross Creek 2,400 9,000 200 12
The District presently operates about 40 recharge basins with a combined area of about 2,100 acres. Recharge basins in the District serve to supplement natural replacement to the groundwater reservoir. Although the source of supply to each recharge basin is variable from year to year, the approximate quantities of artificial recharge were tabulated for each year from 2000 to 2012 for each hydrologic unit. Tabulation and accounting of inflows was a function of the accuracy of data relating to the number of days per year of wetted area in each basin and the hydraulic conductivity or percolation capacity of the basin, typically expressed in units of gallons per day per square foot. The results of the calculations and tabulations are presented in Section 3. Additional discussion of artificial recharge is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). 1.4.7 Municipal and Community Water Demand Water demand for municipal and community water systems in the District was available directly from the cities of Tulare, Farmersville, Exeter, Ivanhoe Public Utility District, Corcoran, and the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which services the City of Visalia. Although the City of Exeter lies partially within the District, pumpage from City wells are from outside of the District boundaries. Similarly, the City of Corcoran lies entirely outside of the District and does not produce water from within District boundaries. A portion of the Ivanhoe Public Utility District lies within the District and was included in this analysis. Data pertaining to small community water systems within the District were obtained from the Tulare and Kings County Environmental Health Departments. Most municipal and community consumptive water demand within the District is met through groundwater pumping; thus, the groundwater production data obtained from each purveyor was an important component of the hydrologic budget. Monthly production records were obtained directly from each of the municipal water systems; however, the duration of recorded production data varied with each water system. The most extensive period of record obtained was that of the City of Farmersville, which extended from 1957 to the present. Each of the five municipal water systems pump groundwater located predominantly within the service limits of each respective system. As previously mentioned, the City of Exeter and the Ivanhoe Public Utility District lie partially within the District. The Kings and Tulare County Environmental Health Departments lists contain approximately 90 small community water systems within the District. Production data for these systems are generally lacking. The only production data available from these systems are estimates based on permit application information and the number of connections within the system. Although these systems are reportedly required to monitor production and submit regular reports to the Kings and Tulare Environmental Health Department, no records are available. The locations of the 90 small community water systems are shown on Plate 4 Small Water Systems Location Map. The volume of groundwater pumped by the small community water systems in the District is relatively small, so any data gaps present do not introduce significant errors in the overall hydrogeologic budget Rural Water Demand Rural water demand is the water used by small to large animal farms and residential dwellings in unincorporated parts of the District not served by municipal or small community water 13
systems. These users include dairies and non-agricultural ranchette properties scattered throughout the District. Additional discussion of rural water demand is provided in the previous report (Fugro, 2007). A significant portion of the rural water demand is expected to be from the animal farms and dairies located throughout the District. The County and Regional Water Quality Control Board databases show that there are approximately 187 dairies and other animal farms within the District that vary in size and acreage. Plate 6 Location of Dairies, presents the locations of the dairies located within the District. Calculating water demand for these facilities was accomplished by assessing a water duty factor for each facility based on usage per animal, and for facility operations (i.e., wash down water). Care was taken to ensure that any water used on site is not accounted for in both the facility use and the associated silage irrigation use. Calculation of water demand for the remaining rural needs was based on population estimates and the total number of dwelling units within the District. The number of dwelling units for each hydrologic unit was multiplied by a water duty factor, which accounted for typical interior household use as well as a widely variable exterior water use. Groundwater demand related to the golf courses was evaluated based on land use data and turf consumption use minus estimated return flow figures. For the previous report, operators were contacted to estimate facility water use, the methodology for which was adopted for this update. The resulting demand values were added to the rural demand in Section 3. 1.4.8 Wastewater Data The lead oversight agency responsible for overseeing and regulation and discharge of wastewaters of various origins within the District is the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Central Valley Region (Fresno). The RWQCB was contacted and provided information on the numbers and locations of treated wastewater generation in the District study area. Of particular interest to the subject study was the number of wastewater treatment facilities currently operating within the District. Upon discussion with RWQCB staff, available data sources were identified, and the data downloaded and reviewed. The disposition of municipal wastewater discharged within the District was considered as part of this update and will be discussed later. For 2012, the RWQCB data indicated that a total of 24 facilities within the boundaries of the District were discharging wastewater under RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. The facilities listed range from city treatment facilities, a winery, small industrial, agricultural processing facilities and a slaughterhouse. In addition, nine of these listed facilities reportedly had ongoing active groundwater monitoring programs. Table 6, Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, summarizes the facilities present within the District in 2012. 14
Table 6. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Facility Name Geographic Area Groundwater Monitoring Program CEMEX Lemon Cove WDR American Air Co. Inc. Visalia WDR Coelho Meat Company Tulare WDR Del Monte Food Hanford WDR Exeter Dehydrator Inc Exeter WDR Exeter WWTF Exeter WDR Farmersville WWTF Farmersville WDR Golden State Citrus Packing Woodlake WDR Hanford WWTF Hanford WDR Ivanhoe WWTF Ivanhoe WDR Lemon Cove WWTF Lemon Cove WDR Vita-Pakt Lindsay WDR Lindsay WWTF Lindsay WDR Lobue Brothers Inc Exeter WDR Nichols Pistachio Hanford WDR Sun Pacific Shippers, l.p. Exeter/Woodlake WDR Tule River Cooperative Dryer Woodlake WDR The Wine Group Tulare WDR Tulare WWTF Tulare WDR Sequoia Field WWTF Visalia WDR Linnell Farm Labor Center Farmersville WDR Ventura Coastal Corporation Visalia WDR Vita-Pakt Citrus Product Company Lindsay WDR Woodlake WTF Woodlake WDR Clarklind Farms Tulare Reclamation Requirements Woodlake Sentinel Butte Recycling Woodlake Reclamation Requirements Courtright Lake Lemon Cove Enrollee Lemon Cove/Sequoia Campground Lemon Cove Enrollee Haury Farms Citrus Packing Visalia Enrollee Rush Creek OWTS Exeter Enrollee Smilodon Oil Company Tulare Enrollee Sierra Shadows WWTF Lindsay Enrollee US Army Corps Of Engineers Lake Kaweah Lemon Cove Enrollee Visalia Biosolids (Visalia WWTF) Visalia Enrollee WDR: Waste Discharge Requirements Stores East LP Hanford Enrollee 15