WRM - Chapter 4 _2014_ - Interbasin water transfers

Chapter 4

Interbasin Water Transfers

4. INTERBASIN WATER TRANSFERS Contents

Interbasin Water Transfers 4.1

Interbasin water transfer projects

4.2 Water transfers from northern to southern California 4.2.1 The Central Valley Project 4.2.2 The California State Water Project 4.2.3 The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 4.3

The south-to-north water transfers in China

References

1 3 9

12 13 15 19 21

List of Figures

Figure 4-1. The Snowy River basin (adapted from [5]) and part of the Snowy Mountains water transfer

scheme (adapted from [6]). ................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4-2. Proposals for water transfers from different European and Siberian rivers under

consideration in the 1970’s in the former Soviet Union (from *11+). ................................... 5

Figure 4-3. The Ebro river water transfer scheme. This project was proposed in 2001 and abandoned in

2005 (from [14]). ................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4-4. India’s proposed National River Linking Program (from *18+). ................................................... 8 Figure 4-5 Map of California showing the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers and some of their

tributaries. ........................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4-6. Water projects in California by ownership (DWR, 2005a, vol. 1, p 3-3). .................................. 11 Figure 4-7. Water deliveries by the California State Water Project (based on data from DWR, 2008). ... 15 Figure 4-8. “Typical” water budget in the Delta in (a) wet years, and (b) dry years. ................................ 16 Figure 4-9 SWP exports (Banks pumping station) from the Delta in 2001 (from [20], page 34). ............... 18 Figure 4-10. The three routes of the south-to-north water transfer scheme in China (base map from

[25]). .................................................................................................................................... 19

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-1

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Acronyms

CVP DCS DWR EWA SWP WWF USACE USBR

Central Valley Project Delta Stewardship Council

Department of Water Resources Environmental Water Account State Water Project World Wildlife Fund

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Abbreviations

af Ccf cfs Gm3/yr GWh Maf

acre feet

100 cubic feet

cubic feet per second (ft³/s, cu ft/s) billion cubic meters per year Giga watt-hours million acre feet

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-2

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

4.1 INTERBASIN WATER TRANSFER PROJECTS

Many parts of the world experiencing high population and economic growth do not adequate local water resources to sustain their growth, which can be driven by different factors such as the proximity to various natural resources other than water, attractive climate, location favoring trade, and historic, cultural and other factors. For example, major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Atlanta, Mexico City and many other cities, depend on distant sources for their water supply. In most such cases, water is transferred from one river basin to another. This requires the construction of large infrastructure projects such as dams and conveyance works. An interbasin water transfer is the diversion of water from one river basin to another or the transfer of water directly to users (e.g. cities or irrigated areas) outside the river basin.

There are hundreds of interbasin transfer projects around the world. Published estimates of the volume of water transferred worldwide by such projects were about 400 Gm3/yr in 1999 [1], and 571 Gm3/yr in 2007 [2]. Some interbasin water transfers are parts of very ambitious water projects moving large

volumes of water over long distances. Such examples are the water transfer from northern to southern California, discussed in Section 4.2 and the south to north water transfer in China discussed in Section 4.3. Another example discussed in Chapter 5 is the export of water from the Colorado River to parts of Colorado, Utah and California outside the basin of the Colorado River. A smaller scale example was discussed in Chapter 3, where water from the Oum Er Rbia River basin in Morocco is transferred to the neighboring basin of Haouz for use in irrigation, and to the cities of Marrakesh and Casablanca, both outside the Oum Er Rbia basin.

Concern about the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of interbasin water transfers has led to greater scrutiny of such projects. Ecological impacts of water transfers include the loss of endemic biota, the introduction of alien and often invasive aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals, and the genetic intermixing of once separated populations [3]. In addition, interbasin water transfers can affect water quality in both the donor and the recipient basin and can cause geomorphological changes in the

affected streams as the result of the alteration of their hydrologic regime. The reduction of the flows in the donor river basin affects the water quality in its estuary and adjacent coastal areas. In addition, critics of such transfers have argued that increasing the supply of water through interbasin transfers does not encourage water conservation. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has argued that interbasin water transfers should be the last resort, after all other options have been exhausted, including demand management, supply augmentation, reuse of treated wastewater and desalination, and opportunities offered though virtual water trade [4].

An example of a large-scale water transfer project is the Snowy Mountains Scheme in southeast

Australia, which diverts water from the Snowy River basin to the Murray-Darling Basin for irrigation use. Water is transferred through 225 km of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts that connect a complex system of reservoirs created by 16 dams [7]. The scheme also includes seven hydroelectric power stations with a total generating capacity of 3756 MW and one pumping station. Figure 4-1 shows the Snowy River basin and part of the Snowy Mountains water transfer scheme. The project was completed in 1974. The average annual rate of diversion from the Snow River is 1.1 Gm3/yr. This has significantly reduced river flows downstream of the diversion points, which has affected riparian vegetation and the river channel itself [5], and has caused morphological changes in the river mouth, which periodically closes [8].

Concerns about these problems and the overall degradation of the Snowy River led to an agreement in 2002 to start releasing environmental flows equal to 21 percent of the mean annual natural flow [9]. Environmental groups are now working to increase the environmental flows to at least 28 percent [10].

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-3

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Tunnel Snowy River basin Snowy River basin

Schematic representation of water transfer scheme in the vicinity of the upper part of the Snowy River basin

Figure 4-1. The Snowy River basin (adapted from [5]) and part of the Snowy Mountains water transfer scheme (adapted from [6]).

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-4

Chapter 4

Interbasin Water Transfers

Figure 4-2. Proposals for water transfers from different European and Siberian rivers under

consideration in the 1970’s in the former Soviet Union (from [11]). There have been many proposals for large water transfer projects in different parts of the world over the years. Most of these were abandoned after considerable study and debate. One of the most grandiose such schemes was the diversion of several rivers in the former Soviet Union. Following on earlier proposals going back to the nineteenth century, there were serious plans in the 1960’s through the mid 1980’s to divert several rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean to flow south instead of north. Some of the proposed diversions were in the European part of the Soviet Union, while others were to transfer water to Central Asia, including the Aral Sea basin (see Figure 4-2). The total reported water transfer in one such scheme was 60 Gm3/yr [12]. Such massive water transfers, besides the impact on the

morphology and ecology of the diverted rivers and their estuaries, could affect atmospheric circulation, temperature, and precipitation patterns over the entire northern hemisphere [13]. It was argued that the diversion of northern rivers would reduce the flow of freshwater and affect the salinity distribution in the Arctic Ocean, which would change its hydrodynamic circulation. The strong salinity stratification of the ocean inhibits the transfer of heat from the deeper warmer waters of the Arctic. Cutting off a good part of the fresh water flow into Arctic would have reduced its salinity stratification and have

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-5

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

made it easier for warmer water from below to come towards the surface. This, in combination with the reduction of the thermal input from the rivers, would have affected the extent, distribution, and period of ice cover [11], leading to changes in atmospheric pressure and circulation patterns over the entire Northern Hemisphere. Realizing the dramatic consequences of the proposed schemes, the Soviet Union abandoned these plans in 1986.

Figure 4-3. The Ebro river water transfer scheme. This project was proposed in 2001 and abandoned in

2005 (from [14]).

Another controversial water transfer scheme that was abandoned after intense public opposition was the Ebro River transfer project in Spain. This project, which was initially approved by the Spanish Government in 2001, was designed to transfer 1.05 Gm3/yr from the lower part of the Ebro River to

different basins along the eastern coast of Spain, including the area around Barcelona, and Júgar, Murcia and Almería (see Figure 4-3). The project was criticized intensively because of its environmental impacts on the lower Ebro River, especially the area of the Ebro delta, and its negative socioeconomic impacts [15], [16]. The project was abandoned in 2005 because of strong public opposition. A program of desalination plants and conservation was adopted to cover the water needs of the areas that would have been served by the Ebro transfer.

Another large interbasin water transfer proposal under consideration is India’s National River Linking Program. This proposal calls for the linking of 37 Himalayan and Peninsular rivers through a network of 12,500 km of canals (see Figure 4-4), transferring 178 Gm3/yr in total between different basins. The primary purpose of these transfers would be to provide water for irrigation to expand food production for a growing population. Proponents of this plan justify it based on the uneven water availability in India, with some river basins assessed as ‘surplus’ and others as ‘deficit’ basins [2]. The plan seems to be promoting the expansion of conventional intensive irrigation and heavily water-demanding crops in arid

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-6

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

areas [17]. Critics of the plan argue that the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the plan have not been assessed through proper studies.

It has also been argued that the need for the expansion of irrigated agriculture may be reduced through changes in food procurement and input subsidy policies. An analysis of inter-state virtual water trade concluded that presently the direction of virtual trade is from ‘deficit’ to ‘surplus’ basins because of biases in food and agriculture policies and other factors such as the per capita availability of arable land [18].

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-7

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Himalayan component of the ProgramPeninsular component of the ProgramFigure 4-4. India’s proposed National River Linking Program (from [18]).

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-8

Chapter 4

Interbasin Water Transfers

4.2 WATER TRANSFERS FROM NORTHERN TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

All the large cities and major agricultural areas in California, especially in the south, depend on

interbasin water transfers. Most of such transfers are from north to south. Water is also transferred from the Colorado River to Southern California.

The first such major project was the transfer of water from the Owens River to Los Angeles through a 223-mile aqueduct, which started delivering water to San Fernando Valley in 1913. The next large

transfer was made possible through the Colorado River Aqueduct, completed in 1941. This was followed by the construction of several dams, canals and pumping stations in the 1950’s through the 1970’s to transfer water from the two largest river basins in California, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin river basins to the south. These projects primarily serve irrigation in California’s Central Valley and municipal water supply in Southern California and other parts of the State.

The Sacramento and the San Joaquin river basins together cover about 27 percent of California and capture about 43 percent of the total runoff of the State. They both receive their water from the Sierra Nevada, and they flow through various parts of California’s Central Valley (see Figure 4-5). The two river systems join at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and flow through Suisun Bay and Carquinez Straits into the San Francisco Bay. The Sacramento River basin extends over about 27,000 mi2 (69,930 km2) in Northern and Central California and has an average annual runoff of 22.4 Maf (27.6 Gm3). Major

tributaries to the Sacramento River are the Feather River and the American River. The San Joaquin River Basin covers about 13,500 mi2 (34,950 km2) and its average annual runoff is about 7.9 Maf (9.7 Gm3). Major tributaries to the San Joaquin River are the Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mokelumne, and Cosumnes rivers.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) of California has the overall responsibility for water

resources management in the State. DWR works on strategic water planning by preparing updates to the California Water Plan every 5 years. The latest update was prepared in 2009 and outlines strategies for meeting the State’s needs through 2050 [19]. The surface water resources of California, including those in the Sacramento and the San Joaquin river basins, are managed through several water projects, owned and operated by different federal, state or local government organizations. Water allocation is based on various agreements, historic water rights and federal and state legislation for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

The central point for this transfer to the south is the upper end of the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Figure 4-6 shows the major water projects in California and their type of ownership (federal, state, and local). Most are water transfer schemes that move water from north to south. Most of the available surface water resources are managed by two large multi-purpose projects, the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).

The CVP has five major storage reservoirs (Shasta, Trinity, Folsom, New Melones, Milerton). The SWP has one major storage reservoir, Oroville Lake on the Feather River, a tributary to the Sacramento River. Each of the two projects has hundreds of miles of aqueducts, and they both share a large off-stream storage reservoir, the San Luis Reservoir. The SWP also has many smaller reservoirs.

In addition to the CVP and SWP, there are several smaller projects within these river basins managed by local districts. For example, the Hetch Hetchy regional water system brings water from the Tuolumne River, a tributary to the San Joaquin River, to the city of San Francisco. Also, the Mokelumne aqueduct

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-9

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

brings water from the Mokelumne River, another tributary to the San Joaquin River, to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serving several cities in the East San Francisco Bay.

Klamath RiverTrinity RiverFeather RiverSacramento RiverAmerican RiverSacramento -San Joaquin DeltaStanislaus RiverSan Joaquin RiverFigure 4-5 Map of California showing the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers and some of their

tributaries.

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-10

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Trinity Lake –3020 Mm3Shasta Lake –5,615 Mm3Klamath RiverTrinity RiverSacramento RiverNorth Bay AqueductClifton Court ForebaySacramento -San Joaquin DeltaLake Oroville –4,364 Mm3Feather RiverFolsom Lake –1205 Mm3New Melones–2,985 Mm3Delta Mendota CanalSouth Bay AqueductMilerton–641 Mm3LegendLake OrovilleSWP reservoirMilertonCVP reservoirSan Joaquin RiverSan Luis Reservoir –1,310 Mm3San Luis Reservoir –1,191 Mm3California AqueductCoastal Branch AqueductEdmonstonPumping PlantEast BranchSilverwoodLake –93 Mm3West BranchCastaic Lake –399 Mm3Lake Perris -162 Mm3Figure 4-6. Water projects in California by ownership (DWR, 2005a, vol. 1, p 3-3).

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-11

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

4.2.1 The Central Valley Project

4.2.1.1 Description The Central Valley Project (CVP) has reservoirs on the Trinity, Sacramento, American, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers (see Figure 4-6). The American River is a tributary to the Sacramento River, and the Stanislaus River is a tributary to the San Joaquin River. The Trinity River is a tributary to the Klamath River.

Shasta Lake, on the Sacramento River, is the largest reservoir of the system, and was the first to be

constructed. The second largest reservoir of the CVP is Clair Engle (Trinity) Lake on the Trinity River, just outside the Sacramento River basin. Water from Trinity Lake is diverted through a system of tunnels, first to Lewiston Lake, then to Whiskeytown Reservoir and finally into the Sacramento River. The other reservoir of the CVP in the Sacramento River basin is Folsom Lake on the American River. Water released from these dams flows down the Sacramento River to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. From there water is pumped into the concrete-lined Delta Mendota Canal, which delivers water for irrigation to the Central Valley and to the San Luis Reservoir, a large off-stream storage facility, which is used for interim storage of water prior to its final delivery. From the San Luis Reservoir, water flows south through the concrete-lined San Luis Canal and west through the Pacheco Tunnel to Santa Clara and San Benito counties.

The CVP also includes the Milerton Reservoir on the San Joaquin River, and the New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River, which provide water to the northern San Joaquin Valley. The CVP also shares with the SWP the off-stream storage San Luis Reservoir.

The CVP has over 600 miles of canals. Water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is pumped into the Delta-Mendota canal where it moves south for delivery to the Central Valley or for temporary storage in the San Luis Reservoir during the winter and spring months for later delivery to those who have contracts with the CVP.

The CVP was first conceived as a State project. In 1933, the California legislature authorized the sale of bonds for its construction, but because of the Great Depression, it was not possible to sell these bonds. Next, the federal government adopted the project; Congress authorized the construction of its first components in 1935. The first parts of the CVP were the Contra Costa Canal (constructed in 1937-48) and Shasta Dam (constructed in 1938-45). The Folsom Dam was built next and was completed in 1956. Other dams followed. The last CVP dam was the New Melones Dam completed in 1979. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed most of the CVP dams.

4.2.1.2 Operation With the exception of a few small dams and conveyance works, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) operates most of the CVP facilities. The California State Department of Water Resources operates the San Luis Dam and Reservoir and the San Luis Canal; these are Federal/State joint-use facilities. Each irrigation district operates its own distribution system. The Contra Costa Water District, the Madera and El Dorado Irrigation Districts, and the Westlands Water District manage some smaller facilities The operation of the CVP reservoirs aims at maximizing yields. The CVP and the SWP share many elements and they coordinate their operations. They both release water to the Sacramento River and take water from the Delta. They also both use the San Luis Reservoir, and more than 100 miles of the California Aqueduct, including its pumping and generating facilities. The operation of the San Luis

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-12

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Reservoir and the shared part of the California Aqueduct is coordinated at a Joint Operations Center in Sacramento. There is also coordination with the USACE for joint action during flood emergencies. There are several agreements for the coordination of the operation of the CVP and the SWP, especially in the Sacramento River and Delta, e.g. the Coordinated Operating Agreement, the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, and others.

The operation of the CVP includes water delivery from the main canals to the irrigation districts and other local organizations having long-term contracts with the CVP. The water distribution from the main canals to individual farmers through lateral canals and pipelines is the responsibility of the local districts and organizations.

In an average year, the CVP provides about 5 million acre-feet (Maf) of water for irrigation about

600,000 af for municipal and industrial use and dedicates 800,000 af to fish and wildlife and their habitat and 410,000 af to State and Federal wildlife refuges and wetlands. The CVP also generates about 5,600 GWh of electricity [27].

4.2.2 The California State Water Project

4.2.2.1 Description The California State Water Project (SWP) was developed primarily to supply irrigation, municipal, and industrial water to different parts of the State, primarily in the south. It serves as a multi-purpose project that, in addition to irrigation and municipal water supply, provides flood control, hydropower generation, recreation and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. It includes a complex system of 28 dams and reservoirs, 26 power and pumping plants, and approximately 660 miles of aqueducts. The California Legislature authorized the SWP in 1951, but the voters did not approve funding through general obligation bonds until 1960.

The largest storage facility of the SWP is Lake Oroville on the Feather River, formed by one of the tallest rock-fill embankment dams in the world, and with a storage capacity of about 3.5 Maf. Water released from Lake Oroville flows down the Feather River into the Sacramento River. Most of the water that reaches the Sacramento River Delta is diverted south to the Clifton Court Forebay where it is pumped into Bethany Reservoir. A small portion is diverted to Napa and Solano Counties through the North Bay Aqueduct. A small portion of the water pumped into Bethany Reservoir is pumped into the South Bay Aqueduct to supply Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Most of it flows into the 444-mile-long California Aqueduct to be delivered further south in the San Joaquin Valley for irrigation and for urban water supply in Southern California.

The California Aqueduct first delivers water to the San Luis Reservoir, with a capacity of more than 2 Maf, for temporary storage. Most of the water entering the San Luis Reservoir is delivered during late Fall through early spring, and it is released back to the California Aqueduct later in the summer when demand peaks.

Much of the water flowing south through the California Aqueduct is delivered to farms at several points in the San Joaquin Valley, and a small portion is diverted through the Coastal Branch Aqueduct to agricultural areas west of the California Aqueduct and municipal and industrial water users in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Four pumping plants are used to lift the water about 1,000 ft as it moves south through the San Joaquin Valley.

When the aqueduct reaches the Tehachapi Mountains, it is lifted more than 1,900 ft by the Edmonston Pumping Plant, and passes through 8.5 miles of tunnels and siphons as it flows south. At that point, the

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-13

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

California Aqueduct divides into two branches: the West Branch, which goes through Pyramid Lake and ends at Castaic Lake, and the East Branch, which goes through Silverwood Lake and ends in Lake Perris. An extension of the East Branch is still under construction.

The SWP is the single largest user of electrical power in California. Its own coal-fired plant and eight hydroelectric power plants produce about two-thirds of the power required to operate the project.

4.2.2.2 Water Delivery Agreements The SWP is managed and operated by the California State Department of Water Resources, which has long-term water supply contracts with 29 local agencies to deliver about 4.2 Maf (5.2 Gm3) per year in total. Through these contracts the agencies involved have agreed to repay all associated SWP capital and operating costs of the SWP facilities financed, constructed, operated, and maintained by the State of California.

The total volume of water that an agency may request each year from the SWP based on its contract is referred to as the \"Table A\" amount [21]. Depending on the hydrologic conditions, the available water in storage, and total water requests, the DWR may or may not be able to deliver all the requested water each year. Some years a lesser amount than requested is allocated for delivery.

Under certain circumstances when water is still available after operational requirements for project water deliveries, and assuming all water quality and other requirements have been met, additional quantities of water can be delivered to parties requesting water beyond the amount in their contract. The SWP also delivers water to several agencies which held water rights to Feather River water prior to the construction of Oroville Dam, and which agreed to exchange their water rights for a regulated water supply from Lake Oroville. This amount varies from year to year. For example, in 2002, of the

approximately 4 Maf of water delivered by the SWP, just over 1.1 Maf was delivered to ten agencies in the Feather River area. Figure 4-7 indicates the volume of water delivered every year to various uses from the construction of the SWP through 2006.

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-14

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

5,000,0004,500,0004,000,0003,500,000 Other water Feather River diversions Agricultural Municpal & industrialWater delivery, acre-ft3,000,0002,500,0002,000,0001,500,0001,000,000500,00001960196519701975198019851990199520002005 Figure 4-7. Water deliveries by the California State Water Project (based on data from DWR, 2008).

4.2.3 The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

A significant part of the SWP system is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. State and Federal agencies have improved the reliability of the water supply and the protection of fish and wildlife in the Delta through several different programs. One of the central issues is determining the levels of flow and salinity necessary to protect fish and wildlife habitat.

A critical for the health of the Delta is the water budget during periods of low flows. Figure 4-8 shows the components of the water budget of the Delta during a “typical” wet year and a typical dry year.

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-15

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Figure 4-8. “Typical” water budget in the Delta in (a) wet years, and (b) dry years.

(a)(b)Figure 4-9 shows the SWP water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 2001. The high variability of the pumping rate from the delta during this period was primarily due to the response to events of environmental concern. For example, water exports were significantly reduced several times to protect the delta smelt, or winter-run salmon in the delta. In addition, water exports were restricted a few times to control the salinity level in the delta.

To improve the management of environmental flow requirements in the delta a special program, the Environmental Water Account (EWA) was established in 2000. The EWA was operated under an agreement by five State and federal agencies. The purpose of this program was to assist in the protection and restoration of native fish species at-risk, and to increase the reliability of the water supply of the CVP and SWP by reducing the uncertainty associated with fish protective actions (USBR, 2008). Every year EWA had a water reserve that it used to meet the minimum flow requirements for the protection of salmon, smelt and other species. The managers of the EWA program decided when it was necessary to reduce, or completely stop pumping water from the delta based on actual conditions. This provided greater flexibility than the previously used rigid system of scheduling pumping from the delta on a seasonal basis.

The water account received a portion of high water flows when they are available, and it purchases water from parties owing water rights and willing to sell a part, or all of their allocation in a particular year. The water was stored in the San Luis Reservoir and was released from there to meet demand when pumping from the delta must be curtailed for environmental reasons. The EWA was funded from both State and Federal sources. Funding varied from year to year. During the first year of its operation in 2001, the EWA received $57 million in funding which was used to purchase 298,000 af of water

(Swanson, 2002, page 3). Between 2001 and 2007 the EWA purchased from different parties an average of 180,000 af/year, about half of all environmental water purchases [29]. The agreement between the State and Federal agencies involved in the EWA was not extended past 2007, but federal authorization of the program continued [28]. The EWA continues now to operate at a smaller scale (60,000 af/year) as part of a multiyear lease agreement with the Yuba County Water Agency [29].

In June 1994, the Federal and the State government jointly established a Framework Agreement, known as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which defined a joint Federal-State process for the development of long-term solutions to water supply, water quality, and ecosystem restoration of the Bay-Delta estuary. CALFED also considered levee protection, water-use efficiency programs, and other approaches to

dealing with the problems of the Delta. The agencies participating in CALFED prepared a 30-year plan for the Delta, which was not adopted for implementation because it “heavily dependent on goodwill, lots of State and federal funding, and Delta conditions remaining generally as they had in the immediate past”

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-16

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

[23]. Over the years, the CALFED program was viewed as weak and lacking the authority to force the parties involved moving beyond planning. In 2009 the California legislature created the Delta

Stewardship Council (DCS) with “the authority and responsibility to develop a legally enforceable Delta Plan, and to ensure that actions by State and local agencies in the Delta are consistent with the Plan” [23]. In May 2013, the DCS adopted the Delta Plan that was developed to help state and local agencies meet the coequal goals of a reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration. The Delta Plan includes a broad range of actions such as improved water efficiency, more storage, development of other local water supplies, protection of Delta farmlands and communities, and the improvement of Delta levees. The plan will incorporate the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which will provide the basis for the issuance of endangered species permits for the operation of the state and federal water projects. The BDCP is prepared by a group of local water agencies, environmental and conservation organizations, state and federal agencies, and other interest groups.

The proposed solution is to construct two large tunnels capable of discharging up to 255 cubic meters per second from north of the Delta directly to the pump intakes, thus avoiding the critical Delta habitat. Discharge rates will be heavily regulated.

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-17

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Figure 4-9 SWP exports (Banks pumping station) from the Delta in 2001 (from [20], page 34).

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-18

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

4.3 THE SOUTH-TO-NORTH WATER TRANSFERS IN CHINA

The south-to-north water transfers in China are very ambitious schemes planned in phases that include three major canals: the eastern, middle and western routes. The estimated volume of water to be

transferred by each of these projects is 14.8, 13 and 17 Gm3/yr respectively, bringing the total transfer close to 45 Gm3/yr [24]. The source of the water is the Yangtze River basin, which accounts for nearly forty percent of China’s runoff. Planning for this project started in the 1950’s. Construction of the eastern route started in 2002 and of the middle route in 2003. The western route is still in planning phase. It estimated that it would take 50 years to complete the entire project.

The eastern route transfers water from the lower part of the Yangtze River through 1150 km of canals to several Northern provinces and Tianjing city. Several lakes and reservoirs are used for storage along the way. The scheme also includes several pumping stations. The eastern route crosses the Yellow River where water passes through tunnels under the streambed of the Yellow River.

The middle route transfers water from the Hanjiang (Han) River, a tributary of the Yangtze River, to the north through 1246 km of canals. It serves primarily urban and industrial users. The planned western route will transfer water from the upper reaches of the Yangtze River to the upper reaches of the Yellow River for use in northwestern China.

Figure 4-10. The three routes of the south-to-north water transfer scheme in China (base map from

[25]). Concerns over the need to assess environmental impacts have slowed down the project’s

implementation. Even though the total transfer from the Yangtze River basin is only 4 to 5 percent of its mean annual runoff, it represents 21 percent of its flow in the dry season [25].

Environmental impact concerns of the Eastern Route include saltwater encroachment in the Yangtze estuary, sediment deposition in the lower Yangtze channel, soil salinization and alkalization in the

transfer region, the possibility of spread of the water-borne disease schistosomiasis to North China, and various impacts on aquatic life in the Yangtze estuary [25].

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-19

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

Because of the significant level of pollution in the Yangtze River, the water quality at the point of diversion barely meets drinking water standards. There is also the potential of further water quality deterioration along this route due to the influx of the untreated wastewater from small, mostly rural factories along its way [31]. However, because this project will refurbish, expand and upgrade the existing infrastructure along the route, including the old Grand Canal, it is expected to have also some substantial environmental benefits [4].

The impacts of the Middle Route include the relocation of large numbers of people. Raising the

Danjiangkou Dam will inundate these areas, forcing the relocation of 340,000 people, China's second largest relocation program after the Three Gorges project [32]. In addition, some people living near diversion canals and other reservoirs in the North China Plain will have to relocate. The diversion of water will impact the aquatic ecosystem of the Han River because of the reduction of its flow between the Danjiangkou Dam, from where the water is diverted, and the point where the Han joins the Yangtze River. This concern led to the extension of the middle route further south to the Three Gorges Dam. The impacts of the Western route are limited to the upper and middle reaches of the Tongtian, Dadu and Yalong rivers where new dams will be constructed. Another concern is the potential of water contamination from the many pollution sources along the transfer routes [26].

The diversion of water from the Yangtze River in combination with the construction of the Three Gorges Dam is expected to lead to dramatic reduction in the sediment load carried to its estuary, impacting the coastal system and eventually causing the recession of the Yangtze Delta [25].

Finally even though it is obvious that there the north of China faces severe water shortages, the specific estimates of future demand to justify the construction of the overall project have been questioned. It has been argued that these estimates have not accounted for the uncertainty in future water demand in different sectors and that the knowledge of the amount of ecosystem water demand and the associated costs and benefits is inadequate [31].

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-20

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

REFERENCES

[1] Shiklomanov, I. A. 1999. Water transfer as one of the most important ways to eliminate water

resources deficits and to solve water management problems. Interbasin water transfer. Proceedings of the International Workshop (UNESCO, Paris, 25-27 April 1999). IHP-V | Technical Documents in Hydrology I No. 28. International Hydrological Programme. Paris, UNESCO: 203-210. [2] Thatte, C.D., 2007: Inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) for the augmentation of water resources in

India: A review of needs, plans, status and prospects, International Journal of Water Resources Development, v 23, n 4, p 709-725 [3] Davies, B. R., Thomas, M., et al. 1992. An assessment of the ecological impacts of interbasin water

transfers, and their threats to river basin integrity and conservation. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2(4): 325-349 [4] Pittock, J., J.-H. Meng, A.K.Chapagain, 2009: Interbasin water transfers and water scarcity in a changing world - a solution or a pipedream?, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main [5] Pigram, J.J., 2000: Options for rehabilitation of Australia's Snowy River: An economic perspective,

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, v 16, n 4, p 363-373, 2000 [6] Snowy Hydro, 2009: Snowy Hydro Water Operations Reference Report, Snowy Hydro Limited,

Sydney [7] Australian Government, 2008: The Snowy Mountains Scheme, last updated 20 March 2008,

accessed on July 15, 2011 [8] Wheeler, P.J., T.T. Nguyen, J. Peterson and L. Gordon-Brown, 2009: Morphological Change at the

Snowy River Ocean Entrance, Victoria, Australia, Australian Geographer, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-28 [9] Rose T. and R. Bevitt, 2003: Snowy River Benchmarking and Environmental Flow Response Monitoring Project, Summary Progress Report on Available Data from 1999-2001, Report to Environment Australia, published by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, Cooma, New South Wales [10] Snowy River Alliance website

[11] Micklin, P.P., 1978: Environmental Factors in Soviet Interbasin Water Transfer Policy,

Environmental Management Vol. 2, No. 6 pp. 567-580 [12] Micklin, P.P., 1985: The vast diversion of Soviet rivers, Environment, vol 27, no 2

[13] Kelly, P.M., P.P Micklin, J.R. Tarrant, D.R. Campbell, 1983: Large-scale water transfers in the USSR,

GeoJournal, v 7, n 3, p 201-214, 1983

[14] u o , I., L. il -i-Canals, and A.R. Fernández-Alba, 2010: Life Cycle Assessment of Water

Supply Plans in Mediterranean Spain The Ebro River Transfer Versus the AGUA Programme, Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 902-918

[15] Ib ez, C. and N. Prat. 2003: The environmental impact of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

on the Lower Ebro River Delta. International Journal of Water Resources Development 19(3): 485–500

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-21

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

[16] Embid, A., 2003: The Transfer from the Ebro Basin to the Mediterranean Basins as a Decision of

the 2001 National Hydrological Plan: The Main Problems Posed, Water Resources Development, Vol. 19, No. 3, 399–411, September 2003 [17] Bandyopadhyay, J. and S. Perveen, 2007: The Interlinking of Indian Rivers: Questions on the Scientific, Economic and Environmental Dimensions of the Proposal in Mirza, M. Monirul Qader, Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, Q. K. Ahmad (Eds) Inter-Linking Rivers in India: Issues and Concerns, published by Taylor and Francis [18] S Verma, D.A. Kampman, P. van der Zaag, A.Y. Hoekstra, 2009: Going against the flow: A critical

analysis of inter-state virtual water trade in the context of India’s National River Linking Program, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, vol. 34, pp. 261–269 [19] DWR, 2005: California Water Plan Update 2009, Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 160-09,

Sacramento, California, December 2005 [20] DWR, 2004: Management of the California State Water Project, Appendix E 2001 Water

Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Bulletin 132-02, State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento [21] DWR, 2008: Bulletin 132-07, Management of the California State Water Project, State of

California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, December 2008

[22] Swanson, C., 2002; The Second Annual State of the Environmental Water Account Report, The Bay

Institute, Novato, October 2002 [23] DCS, 2012: Preliminary Staff Review Draft Final Staff Draft Delta Plan, Delta Stewardship Council,

May 14, 2012 [24] Liu C. and H. Zheng (2002) “South-to-north Water Transfer Schemes for China”, Water Resources

Development, Vol. 18, No. 3: pp.453-471 [25] Zhang, Q., 2009: The South-To-North Water Transfer Project Of China: Environmental Implications

And Monitoring Strategy, Journal Of The American Water Resources Association, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 1238-1247 [26] Liu, J. and J. Wan, 2001: Environmental Impact of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project in

China, proceedings of the World Water Congress 2001, Orlando Florida, May 20-24, 2001 [27] USBR: The Central Valley Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation website,

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Valley+Project,

accessed July 5, 2013

[28] DWR, 2012: Bulletin 132-09, Management of the California State Water Project, December 2012 [29] Hanak, E. and E. Stryjewski, 2012: California’s Water arket, By the Numbers: Update 2012, Public

Policy Institute of California, November 2012 [30] Lin, C. S. Suh, and S. Pfister, “Does South-to-NorthWater Transfer Reduce the Environmental

Impact of Water Consumption in China?”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, v 16, n 4, p 647-654, August 2012 [31] Yang, H. and A.J.B. Zehnder, 2005: “The South-North Water Transfer Project in China, An Analysis

of Water Demand Uncertainty and Environmental Objective in Decision Making”, Water International, Volume 30, Number 3,

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-22

Chapter 4 Interbasin Water Transfers

[32] Xinhua, 2012: “China's water diversion project carries risks”, September 19, 2012,

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2012-09/19/content_26566828.htm, accessed on July 5, 2013

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT revised: July 7, 2014

4-23