PUB00020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

or instream flow augmentation. However, it is difficult to assess whether the proposed fallowed crop actually would have been planted and whether the transfer would result in a reallocation of or a decrease in supply because a certain percentage of farmland is not planted in any given year for a variety of reasons. The quantity of water available for marketing from fallowing also is uncertain because the water proposed for transfer has likely been used in a variety of ways. For example, it may have irrigated various crops over the years that had different water needs. It also is a challenge to quantify the percentage of applied water that percolates into the soil to become groundwater and the amount of water available for transfer. A grower's water allotment is not fixed and may vary each year, and deliveries could be cut back because of drought and/or legislative or policy changes. A transfer may be the result of a farmer selling surface water and irrigating instead with ground- water, which is known as groundwater substitution. Although surface and groundwater are treated as separate resources, they can be hydrologically connected, This makes it difficult to determine how much of the transferable water is actually new water. If transferred surface water is replaced with ground- water that is interconnected with a nearby stream, the surface supply could be diminished. In addition, replacement of surface water with groundwater can lead to overdraft if there is excessive pumping of a groundwater basin that is not replenished or recharged. Groundwater can be pumped directly into a stream, river or canal and exported to another region. Direct diversions of groundwater into surface water supply can pose the same problems as groundwater substitution and there are some legal and regulatory limitations on out-ot-basin groundwater transfers. Water transfers may involve water made available through crop shifting - replacement of a water intensive crop with one that consumes less water. One example would be shifting from tomatoes to safflower, which uses less water. A prime benefit of crop shifting is that it provides an alternative to fallowing and its associated economic and social impacts on third parties. Transfers may be derived from conserved water. These types of transfers can lead to an increase in supply when the marketable water is a result of a more efficient use of water, such as practices that 8 reduce the amount of applied irrigation water. Trans~ ferring conserved water often is a less capital- intensive way to increase supply in comparison with building dams and diversion facilities. More efficient water management that reduces applied irrigation and drainage outflow can stretch supply and produce new water however, not all conservation measures produce new water. For example, the benefits of TIME LINE 1859 ,1862 1913 1914 1928 1931 19.33 1959 1970 1972 1973 .California Supreme Court holds that ap. propriative rights are transf~rable in McDonald v. Bear River and Aubwn Wa- ter Mining Co' California Supreme Court rules against the transfer of water or water rights that . r~sults In injury to .other water rights hold, . ers in Butte T. M, Co,. v Morga.n. Los Angeles Department'of Power and Water completes the first aqueduct that transports surface water from the Owens Valley to the city at Los Angeies. Water Commission Act becomes<effective and appropriators are required to comply. with the state centralized vyateruse per- mit,process. The California Constitution is amended to include language which requires all wa- ter uses to be reasonable and beneficial, and prohibits waste and unreasonable ~se (Article X, Section ;:>), The Feigenbaum Act adopted in 1927 is amended to provide protecti.on of water resources in the counties of origin by re- stricting the state's appropriative alithor: ity, The Watershed Protection Act is passed that prohibits the state from .operating in a manner that would deprive a county in which water originates of water reason- ably needed fer development (Water Code Section 11460-65). Delta Protection Act is adopted that de- clares it necessary to ensure< adequate water supply in the Delta to maintain and expand agriculture,- industry, urban ,and< recreation development (Water Co<de Sec- tion 12200'05). '. Los Angeles completes second aquedu?t that transports surface and groundwater from Owens Valley and Mono Lake to Los Angeles, < Owens Valley residents sue LADWP. to halt increased groundwater pumping from th.e valley" < State legislation is passed that authorizes, the State Board t.o grant approval of tem- I i I i I , ,! : , I I I I I I I I I ! i , I < " , I I I I I I I I , " I i I , I , I 1 I 'I I I