Gerald Bowes, Ph.D. Manager, Cal/EPA Scientific Peer Review Program

TO:
Gerald Bowes, Ph.D.
Manager, Cal/EPA Scientific Peer Review Program
Office of Research, Planning and Performance
FROM:
Patricia Fernandez
Senior Water Resources Engineer
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
DATE:
March 22, 2012
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC
MODELING FOR THE PHASE 1 UPDATE TO THE 2006 WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY/SACRAMENTO-SAN
JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY (2006 BAY-DELTA PLAN)
In accordance with Health and Safety Code section 57004, the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board), Division of Water Rights (Division) submits this request for
identification of at least three peer reviewers to conduct a peer review of the State Water
Board’s draft report titled “Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow
Alternatives” (Agricultural Economics Report). This report is part of the environmental
documentation being prepared by the State Water Board in support of potential Phase 1
modifications to the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan, which include modifications to the San Joaquin River
flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses, and water quality objectives
for the protection of southern Delta agricultural beneficial uses and the program of
implementation for those objectives. The Draft Agricultural Economics Report was developed to
provide estimates of the potential effects to agricultural production and related sectors of the
Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) watershed economy from estimated changes in allowable
surface water diversions that may be needed to achieve potential LSJR flow alternatives.
For this peer review, we suggest that you solicit reviewers with expertise in the following areas:
1.
Agricultural economics
2.
Experience with the use of economic models, such as the Statewide Agricultural
Production (SWAP) and Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) models, and the
interpretation of model results
The following attachments are enclosed in this request:

Attachment 1: Plain English Summary of the Draft Report “Agricultural Economic Effects
of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives”
Gerald Bowes, Ph.D.
-2-
MAR 22 2012

Attachment 2: Listing of Economic Conclusions or Assumptions Subject to Review

Attachment 3: List of Participants Involved in Development of the Draft Agricultural
Economics Report

Attachment 4: Rationale for the Development of the Draft Agricultural Economics Report

Attachment 5: Draft Agricultural Economics Report
Expected Date of State Water Board Action:
The State Water Board released the Draft Agricultural Economics Report for public review on
February 24, 2012, and will be holding a public workshop on this report and the related
environmental documentation in June 2012. The final documents are anticipated to be released
in August 2012. In order to meet this schedule, we request receipt of the peer reviewers’
comments within 20 days of receipt of the peer review package.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (916) 319-9141, or via
email at [email protected].
Attachments
cc:
Les Grober
Assistant Deputy Director
Division of Water Rights
Diane Riddle
Environmental Program Manager
Hearings and Special Projects Section
Karen Niiya
Senior Water Resource Control Engineer
Special Projects Unit
Mark Gowdy
Senior Water Resource Control Engineer
Special Projects Unit
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-3-
MAR 22 2012
Attachment 1: Plain English Summary of the Draft Report “Agricultural Economic Effects
of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives”
INTRODUCTION
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is in the process of reviewing
and potentially modifying the San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and
wildlife beneficial uses and water quality objectives for the protection of southern Delta
agricultural beneficial uses and the program of implementation for those objectives included in
the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary (2006 Bay-Delta Plan). In support of that review, the State Water Board is developing
environmental and technical documents that analyze potential amendments to the 2006 BayDelta Plan and their associated potential environmental and economic impacts. Part of the
State Water Board’s evaluation of potential economic impacts is contained in a draft report titled
“Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives” (Agricultural
Economics Report), which is the subject of this peer review.
The Draft Agricultural Economics Report provides estimates of the potential effects to
agricultural production and related sectors of the Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) watershed
economy from estimated changes in allowable surface water diversions that may be needed to
achieve potential LSJR flow alternatives. This analysis does not address potential effects to
other beneficial uses or environmental resources potentially caused by the LSJR flow
alternatives. Those effects will be addressed separately in the environmental document that will
be written for the proposed amendments to the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan.
The analysis in the Draft Agricultural Economics Report followed three major steps. First, the
LSJR flow alternatives’ effects on allowable surface water diversions were estimated relative to
baseline conditions using the Water Supply Effects (WSE) model previously described in
Chapter 5 of the State Water Board’s October 2011 Draft Scientific Basis for San Joaquin River
Flow and Southern Delta Salinity Objectives (Scientific Report). For the purposes of the
analysis, baseline flow conditions were assumed to be the conditions that existed in the LSJR
watershed in 2009. Second, the Statewide Agricultural Production (SWAP) model, an
agricultural production model, was used to estimate the direct effect of the changes in allowable
surface water diversions on agricultural production and related revenues. Third, the Impact
Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), a regional economic model, was used to estimate the total
economic and jobs effects, including the indirect and induced effects, of the changes in
allowable surface water diversion on agricultural production on all connected sectors of the
regional economy.
Please note that the analysis and results reported in the section of the Draft Agricultural
Economics Report titled “Surface Water Diversion Estimates” are used as inputs to the
economic analysis, and are not the subject of this peer review. As stated previously, the
surface water diversion estimates were generated using methods described in a previously
peer-reviewed document, the Scientific Report, which can be found at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/w
ater_quality_control_planning/docs/scientific_report.pdf.
The peer review comments on the Scientific Report can be found at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/peer_review/sanjoaquin_river_flow.shtml
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-4-
MAR 22 2012
The State Water Board will make a determination, concerning the required percentage of
unimpaired flow, based, in part, on the consideration of environmental impacts of LSJR flow
alternative percentages (20, 40, and 60 percent), economic information, and information
concerning other competing beneficial uses of water. The State Water Board is required to
consider a reasonable range of economic factors and economic considerations in its
deliberative process. The Draft Agricultural Economics Report that is the subject of this peer
review provides an analysis of the potential agricultural economic effects of the range of
unimpaired flows (20 to 60 percent) that are being considered. The conclusions in the Draft
Agricultural Economics Report will be used to inform the State Water Board’s decision-making
process in the selection of the preferred LSJR flow alternative.
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-5-
MAR 22 2012
Attachment 2: Listing of Economic Conclusions or Assumptions Subject to Review
The statutory mandate for external scientific peer review (Health and Safety Code, § 57004)
states that the reviewer's responsibility is to determine whether the scientific portion of any
proposed rule is based upon sound scientific knowledge, methods, and practices.
Similarly, for this review of the agriculture-related economic effects, we request that you make a
determination whether the subject economic analysis is based upon sound economic
knowledge, methods, and practices. This determination should be made for each of the
following issues regarding the analyses in the draft report titled “Agricultural Economic Effects of
Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives” (Agricultural Economics Report). An explanatory
statement is provided for each issue to focus the review.
For those work products which are not proposed rules, such as the case with the review that is
the subject of this document, reviewers must measure the quality of the product with respect to
the same exacting standard as if it was subject to Health and Safety Code section 57004.
The State Water Board requests that the peer reviewers review the Draft Agricultural Economics
Report, which includes estimates of the potential effects on agricultural production and related
Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) watershed economy from estimated changes in allowable
surface water diversions needed to meet potential LSJR flow alternatives. This peer review is
requested to assure that the best economic analysis and available models are appropriately
used and interpreted.
Please note that the analysis and results reported in the section of the report titled “Surface
Water Diversion Estimates” are used as inputs to the economic analysis, and are not the subject
of this peer review. These inputs were generated using methods described in a previously
peer-reviewed document, titled “Draft Scientific Basis for San Joaquin River Flow and Southern
Delta Salinity Objectives (Scientific Report) which can be found at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/w
ater_quality_control_planning/docs/scientific_report.pdf.
In the event peer reviewers have a question on a topic or issue in the Draft Agricultural
Economics Report, which requires further clarification from the State Water Board, they are asked
to submit their request for clarification to Patricia Fernandez via email at
[email protected]. All requests for clarification will be responded to via email and
will be made a part of the report.
Economic Conclusions or Assumptions Regarding the Analysis Approach in the Draft
Agricultural Economics Report
1.
Use of the Statewide Agricultural Production (SWAP) model was based on sound
economic knowledge, methods, and practices.
State Water Board staff reviewed models for estimating agricultural production and
revenues associated with the surface water diversions potentially needed under the
LSJR flow alternatives and baseline conditions. Staff found that the SWAP model was
an appropriate model for estimating the effect of the LSJR flow alternatives and baseline
conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the SWAP model was calibrated to the
Department of Water Resources (DWR) estimates of land use and applied water data for
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-6-
MAR 22 2012
water year 2005, because this water year represented the most recent normal water
year in terms of both water availability and crop prices. This data is presented in
Table X-7 of the report. Annual surface water diversion changes estimated in the
section of the report titled “Surface Water Diversion Estimates” were input to the SWAP
model to estimate the associated agricultural production and revenues. For each water
year, SWAP uses a Positive Mathematical Programming (PMP) methodology to
calculate the crop acreage mix that would maximize revenue from the annual available
surface water diversions. The output from the SWAP model was used as input to the
IMPLAN model. State Water Board staff believes the use of the SWAP model with the
described assumptions and approach was based on sound economic knowledge,
methods, and practices.
2.
Use of version 3 of the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model was based
on sound economic knowledge, methods, and practices.
Version 3.0 of the IMPLAN model was used to predict the indirect, and induced
economic effects associated with the changes to agricultural direct revenue estimated by
the SWAP model. Output from the SWAP model, appropriate region-specific multipliers,
and other assumptions, were input to IMPLAN to estimate the indirect and induced
economic activity on the agricultural industry in the LSJR, and related effects on other
connected sectors of the economy. State Water Board staff believes the use of the
IMPLAN model with the described assumptions and approach was based on sound
economic knowledge, methods, and practices.
3.
The LSJR flow alternatives have the potential to affect the amount of allowable
surface water diversions from within the LSJR watershed. The economic analysis
assumes that construction or installation of alternative water supplies would not
be implemented in response to changes in estimated allowable surface water
deliveries. Staff believes this is a conservative assumption.
For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that irrigation water from alternative
water supplies, such as groundwater pumping or Central Valley Project water deliveries,
would not be increased to make up for any decrease in surface water diversions. This is
a conservative assumption that would result in higher economic impacts than an
analysis that assumes implementation of alternative water supplies.
4.
Reasonableness of other assumptions.
Other assumptions beyond those identified above were utilized in the analysis. For
example, a time series of 82 annual estimates of differences in crop acreages and
revenue was used to estimate effects on crop acreages and agricultural revenue. It was
also assumed that surface water diversion reductions can be applied equally across the
Central Valley Production Model regions analyzed. Another key assumption in the
IMPLAN analysis was that trading patterns between industries were fixed. State Water
Board staff believes these assumptions and others, as described in the report, are
conservatively valid and are consistent with those used in similar types of economic
analyses.
5.
The level of effort used in analyzing the potential economic effects to agriculture
covers a reasonable range of economic factors and considerations.
As a certified regulatory program, the State Water Board is required to take economic
considerations into account, but is not required to perform a cost/benefit analysis.
Therefore, State Water Board staff believes the level of detail in the report’s analysis
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-7-
MAR 22 2012
appropriately considers a reasonable range of economic factors and economic
considerations as they relate to the impacts of the proposed project on agriculture, is
consistent with the requirements of a certified regulatory program, and provides
adequate input to the State Water Board’s decision-making process.
6.
The results of the analysis are valid.
The Draft Agricultural Economics Report contains conclusions regarding the agricultural
economic effects of the proposed flow alternatives. Table X-9 of the report displays the
predicted changes in economic output for crop production that would be associated with
the proposed flow alternatives. Estimates of total sector output changes from baseline
conditions ranged from an increase of 0.3 percent to a decrease of 4.1 percent.
Table X-10 of the report displays the estimated change in regional employment that
would be associated with the proposed flow alternatives, which ranged between an
increase of 0.3 percent to a reduction of 4.1 percent from baseline conditions. State
Water Board staff believes these results are valid estimates of the effects of the
proposed flow alternatives on the regional economy of the LSJR watershed.
7. Other Issues
Additionally, reviewers are not limited to addressing only the specific issues presented above,
and are asked to contemplate the following “Big Picture” questions:

In reading the Draft Agricultural Economics Report, are there any additional agriculturerelated economic issues that should be a part of the report’s analysis that are not
described above? Effects of the LSJR flow alternatives on other non-agriculture related
sectors of the economy will be addressed elsewhere in the SED.

Taken as a whole, is the report’s analysis based upon sound economic knowledge,
methods, and practices?
Reviewers should note that some conclusions or proposed actions, for instance selection of flow
alternatives for the amended Bay-Delta Plan, may rely significantly on professional judgment in
instances where economic data and our understanding of the underlying processes are not as
extensive as may be ideal. Nonetheless, the evaluation of the economic data and use of
professional judgment are appropriate in the context of current economic knowledge regarding
such actions. In these situations, the proposed course of action is favored over no action.
The preceding guidance will ensure that reviewers have an opportunity to comment on all
aspects of the agriculture-related economic effects of the proposed State Water Board action.
At the same time, reviewers also should recognize that the State Water Board has a legal
obligation to consider and respond to all feedback on the proposed rules. Because of this
obligation, reviewers are encouraged to focus feedback on economic issues that are relevant to
the central regulatory elements being proposed.
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-8-
MAR 22 2012
Attachment 3: List of Participants Involved in Development of the Draft Agricultural
Economics Report
State Water Board staff, with the assistance of consultants, prepared this report using regulatory
guidance, available economic literature, and the examples of other regulatory programs.
ICF International and UC Davis are assisting the State Water Board with the development of a
Substitute Environmental Document and supporting documents, which include this report. ICF
International and UC Davis are under separate consultant contracts with the State Water Board.
State Water Board staff:
Les Grober
Mark Gowdy
Lucas Sharkey
Collaborating non-staff members:
Russ Brown (ICF International)
Nicole Williams (ICF International)
Tom Wegge (ICF International subconsultant)
Mark Roberson (ICF International subconsultant)
Richard Howitt (UC Davis)
Josue Medellin-Azuara (UC Davis)
Jay Lund (UC Davis)
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
-9-
MAR 22 2012
Attachment 4: Rationale for the Development of the Draft Agricultural Economics Report
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Planning
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is in the process of reviewing and
potentially modifying the San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife
beneficial uses and water quality objectives for the protection of southern Delta agricultural
beneficial uses and the program of implementation for those objectives included in the 2006
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
(2006 Bay-Delta Plan).
The State Water Board is considering amendments to the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan pursuant to the
provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) and the federal Clean
Water Act. Fundamentally, a water quality control plan consists of three parts: 1) establishment,
for the waters within a specified area, of the beneficial uses to be protected; 2) establishment of
water quality objectives; and 3) a program of implementation (Wat. Code, § 13050(j)). Together,
the beneficial uses and the water quality objectives established to reasonably protect the beneficial
uses are called water quality standards, under the terminology of the federal Clean Water Act.
Components of the Bay-Delta Plan when implemented also: 1) carry out provisions of the
reasonable use doctrine (Cal. Const. Art. X, § 2; Wat. Code, §§ 100, 275, and 1050); 2) protect
public trust resources (See National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 189
Cal.Rptr. 346); and 3) carry out statutory principles pertaining to water rights (Wat. Code, §§ 183,
1243, 1243.5, 1251, 1253, and 1256-1258). As such, the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan addresses the
interrelated fields of water quality and water supply and plans for their coordination.
The current San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife beneficial
uses are included in Table 3 on page 15 of the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan, and the program of
implementation for these objectives starts on page 23. Water quality objectives for the
protection of agricultural beneficial uses are currently included in Table 2 on page 13 of the
2006 Bay-Delta Plan, and the program of implementation for these objectives starts on page 27.
Draft Changes to the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan
The State Water Board developed a report titled “Technical Report on the Scientific Basis for
Alternative San Joaquin River Flow Objectives for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife Beneficial
Uses and Water Quality Objectives for the Protection of Southern Delta Agricultural Beneficial Uses
and the Program of Implementation for Those Objectives” (Technical Report) in October 2010. The
report was modified in response to comments received at two public workshops in 2011, and then
submitted for scientific peer review in October 2011. A revised draft of the Technical Report,
renamed the Draft Scientific Basis for San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Salinity
Objectives (Scientific Report), was released in February 2012, and contained modifications to
address the comments received through the scientific peer review. This report contains State
Water Board staff’s review of existing scientific information concerning flow needs for the protection
of fish and wildlife beneficial uses in the San Joaquin River basin, and salinity and other needs for
the protection of southern Delta agricultural beneficial uses. The Scientific Report also contains
information about tools that will be used to develop and evaluate alternatives for those objectives.
The tools described in the Scientific Report were used to develop the flow inputs needed for the
economic analysis in the Draft Agricultural Economics Report.
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
- 10 -
MAR 22 2012
One of the conclusions in the Scientific Report is that higher and more variable inflows during
the spring period (February through June) from the three salmon bearing tributaries to the
mainstem San Joaquin River (Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced Rivers) are needed to reasonably
protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses. The Scientific Report also noted, however, that flow
objectives established for the reasonable protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses would
need to consider the competing demands for water. Competing beneficial uses of water in the
San Joaquin River watershed include municipal and industrial, agricultural, and other
environmental uses.
The State Water Board’s draft program of implementation for the flow objectives specifies that
the narrative San Joaquin River flow objective is to be implemented through water right actions,
water quality actions, and actions by other agencies in an adaptive management framework
informed by required monitoring, special studies, and reporting. The purpose of the
implementation framework is to achieve the narrative San Joaquin River flow objective by:
1) providing less altered flow conditions that more closely mimic the shape of the unimpaired1
hydrograph, including: increased flow of a more natural spatial and temporal pattern;
2) providing for adaptive management, in order to respond to changing information on flow
needs and to minimize water supply costs; and 3) allowing for and encouraging coordination
and integration of existing and future regulatory processes. Specifically, the draft program of
implementation provides for maintaining a certain percent of unimpaired flow (20 to 60 percent),
during February through June, from each of the three salmon bearing tributaries to the
mainstem San Joaquin River at Vernalis. A minimum flow that must be maintained at Vernalis
during this period, along with a maximum flow at which point additional flows would not be
required, will also be specified.
Statutory Requirements for Economic Analysis
The State Water Board’s water quality control planning process is a certified regulatory program
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is not required to prepare an
environmental impact report. Instead, certified regulatory programs are required to prepare a
substitute environmental document (SED) that describes the proposed project, project
alternatives, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce any significant or potentially significant
effects that the project might have on the environment. As such, the State Water Board is not
required to include a discussion of economic or social effects, or an economic cost/benefit
analysis of a proposed project. However, California Public Resources Code section 21159(a)(c)
requires environmental analyses conducted in accordance with a certified regulatory program to
take into account a reasonable range of environmental, economic, and technical factors,
population and geographic areas, and specific sites. In addition, California Water Code section
13141 specifies that a water quality control plan shall include an estimate of the total cost of the
program, together with identification of potential sources of funding, and that when establishing
water quality objectives, the State Water Board must take economic considerations into account
(among other things).
1
In this case, unimpaired flow is a modeled flow generally based on historical gage data with factors applied to
primarily remove the effects of dams and diversions within the watersheds. The modeled unimpaired flow does not
attempt to remove changes that have occurred such as channelization and levees, loss of floodplain and wetlands,
deforestation, and urbanization.
Gerald Bowes, PhD.
- 11 -
MAR 22 2012
There is a high level of stakeholder interest in the water quality planning process for amending
the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan due to the wide variety of beneficial uses associated with the waters of
the Delta. Examples of the beneficial uses of the Delta include agricultural supply, municipal
and domestic supply throughout a large portion of California, hydroelectric generation, fish
migration, and preservation of endangered species. Given the level of stakeholder interest, the
State Water Board has chosen to prepare an analysis of the potential economic effects to
agriculture that may result from the proposed flow alternatives.
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT APPENDIX X*: AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER FLOW ALTERNATIVES February 2012 *Lettering of Appendix to be determined during the preparation of the Draft Substitute Environmental Document Appendix X DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives X.1
Table of Contents Appendix X DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives .............................................................................................................. X‐1 X.1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. X‐1 X.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... X‐2 X.3 Surface Water Diversion Estimates ................................................................................. X‐3 X.3.1 WSE Model Inputs and Approach .................................................................................... X‐3 X.3.2 Summary of Results ......................................................................................................... X‐6 X.4 Effects on Agricultural Production ................................................................................. X‐12 X.4.1 SWAP Model Overview .................................................................................................. X‐12 X.4.2 Model Inputs and Approach .......................................................................................... X‐14 X.4.3 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... X‐19 X.5 X.6 Effects on Regional Economy ......................................................................................... X‐28 X.5.1 IMPLAN Model and Approach ....................................................................................... X‐28 X.5.2 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... X‐29 References ..................................................................................................................... X‐34 DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐1 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency X.2
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Introduction AgriculturalproductionintheLowerSanJoaquinRiver(LSJR)watershedisdependentonirrigation
watersupplyfromvarioussources,includingsurfacewaterdiversions,groundwaterpumping,and
deliveriesfromthestateandfederalwaterprojects.TheLSJRflowobjectiveshavethepotentialto
affecttheamountofallowablesurfacewaterdiversionsfromwithintheLSJRwatershed,andhence
agriculturalproductiondependentonthosediversions.
Theanalysisinthisappendixestimatesthepotentialeffectstoagriculturalproductionandrelated
sectorsoftheLSJRwatershedeconomyfromestimatedchangesinallowablesurfacewater
diversionsneededtomeettheLSJRflowalternatives.Thisanalysisdoesnotaddresspotential
effectstootherbeneficialusesorenvironmentalresourcespotentiallycausedbytheLSJRflow
alternatives.ThoseeffectsareaddressedseparatelyinvariouschaptersoftheSubstitute
EnvironmentalDocument(SED).
Theanalysisinthisappendixfollowsthreemajorsteps,eachdescribedinSectionsX.3throughX.5
below.First,theeffectsonallowablesurfacewaterdiversionsforeachoftheLSJRalternativesare
estimatedrelativetobaselineconditionsusingtheWaterSupplyEffects(WSE)model.Forthe
purposesoftheanalysis,baselineflowconditionsarethoserepresentingwhatexistedintheLSJR
watershedin2009.Second,theStatewideAgriculturalProduction(SWAP)model,anagricultural
productionmodel,isusedtoestimatethedirecteffectofthesechangesonagriculturalproduction
andrelatedrevenues.Third,ImpactAnalysisforPlanning(IMPLAN),aregionaleconomicmodel,is
usedtoestimatethetotaleconomicandjobseffects,includingtheindirectandinducedeffects,of
thesechangesinagriculturalproductiononallconnectedsectorsoftheregionaleconomy.
TherearethreeLSJRflowalternatives,eachconsistingofspecifiedpercentageofunimpairedflow
requirementfortheStanislaus,Tuolumne,andMercedRivers.Foraparticularalternative,each
tributarymustmeetthespecifiedpercentageofitsownunimpairedflowatitsconfluencewiththe
LSJRduringthemonthsofFebruarythroughJune.Thepercentageunimpairedflowrequirements
are20%,40%and60%respectivelyforeachLSJRflowalternative,andapplywhenflowsare
otherwisebelowaspecifiedtriggerlevel.Flowsmustnotdropbelowspecifiedlevelsoneach
tributary,andtogethermustmaintainaminimumflowontheSJRatVernalis.Specifictriggerand
minimumflowlevelsandotherdetailsoftheLSJRflowalternativesarepresentedinSection3.2of
theSED,andarethebasisforhowthealternativesaremodeledinthisappendix.
TheallowablesurfacewaterdiversionsandassociatedagriculturalproductiongeneratedbySWAP
andrelatedeconomicvalueestimatedbyIMPLANforeachoftheLSJRflowalternativesare
comparedagainstthoseestimatedforbaselineflowconditionsintheLSJRwatershed.Thenet
differenceistheagriculturalproductionandrelatedeconomiceffectattributedtoimplementingthat
alternative.TheanalysesincorporatesseveralconservativeassumptionsasdetailedinSectionsX.3
throughX.5,including:noincreaseduseofgroundwatertoaugmentwatersupplyreductionsforthe
SWAPanalysisandfixedtradingpatternsbetweenindustriesforIMPLAN.Ingeneral,asflow
requirementsoneachoftheriversincrease,thesurfacewaterdiversionswouldneedtodecrease,
andhaveacorrespondingeffectonagriculturalproductionandtheregionaleconomy.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐2 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency X.3
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Surface Water Diversion Estimates ThissectiondescribesinputstotheStateWaterBoardLSJRWSEmodelanditsestimatesof
allowableagriculturalsurfacewaterdiversionsforthethreeLSJRflowalternatives.Italsodescribes
thedifferencesbetweenthoseestimatesandthebaselinecondition.AnoverviewoftheWSEmodel
anditscalculationsarepresentedinAppendixX(drafttechnicalreport).Toimprovetheresolution
ofthisanalysis,inadditiontothe20%,40%,and60%unimpairedflowLSJRalternatives,model
runswerealsoperformedatintermediatelevelsof30%and50%ofunimpairedflow.Estimatesof
thesurfacewaterdiversionsallowableunderbaselineconditionswereobtaineddirectlyfromthe
“Current(2009)Conditions”CALSIMIImodelrunfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofWater
Resources(DWR)StateWaterProjectReliabilityReport2009.Theseestimatesarethenusedas
inputstotheagriculturalproductionmodeldescribedfurtherinSectionX.4.
X.3.1
WSE Model Inputs and Approach TheWSEmodelisamonthlywaterbalancespreadsheetmodelthatestimatesallowablesurface
waterdiversionsandreservoiroperationsneededtoachievethetargetflowrequirementsofthe
LSJRflowalternativesonthethreeeast‐sidetributariestotheLSJR.Amoredetaileddescriptionof
thecalculationsinthemodelispresentedinAppendixX(drafttechnicalreport).Themodelallows
foruser‐definedconstraintsoneachtributary,including:1)minimumandmaximummonthlyflows,
2)diversiondeliveryrulecurves,3)monthlydiversiondistributionpatterns,and4)reservoirflood
controlstoragelimitations.Withintheseconstraintsthemodelusesawaterbalancetocalculatethe
resultingriverflows,allowablesurfacewaterdiversions,andreservoirstoragelevels.Model
calculationsareperformedonamonthlytimestepforeachtributaryusingthe82yearsofCALSIMII
hydrologyasinputtoNewMelones,NewDonPedro,andLakeMcClurerespectively.
Model Inputs ThefollowingsetsofinputswereusedintheWSEmodeltoestimatetheeffectsoftheLSJRFlow
Alternatives:

TableX‐1containstheminimummonthlyflowrequirementsandmaximumtriggerlevelsfor
eachtributary.ThetargetpercentunimpairedflowrequirementsforaparticularLSJRflow
alternativeonlyapplywhenflowsarebelowthespecifiedtriggerleveloneachtributary.This
eliminatesthepercentageunimpairedflowrequirementwhenflowsareabovealevelthatcould
potentialcontributetofloodingorothernegativedownstreameffects;althoughreservoirflood
controlreleases,asrequiredbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),couldotherwise
causeriverflowstoexceedtheselimits.Flowsmustnotdropbelowspecifiedlevelsoneach
tributary,andtogethermustmaintainaminimumflowontheSJRatVernalisfortheprotection
offisheriesinthetributariesandLSJR.

TablesX‐2athroughX‐2cshowtheuser‐defineddiversiondeliveryrulecurvesusedinthis
analysisforeachofthethreemainreservoirs(NewMelones,NewDonPedro,andLake
McClure).TheserulecurvesrelatetheendofJanuarystorageeachyeartotheallowabletotal
surfacewaterdiversions(asapercentageofthemaximumallowableannualdiversion)forthe
remainderofthatyear,startinginFebruaryandendingthefollowingJanuary.Intheir
respectivetables,Januarystorageforeachreservoirisdividedintofourlevelswith
correspondingannualcutbackpercentagesfordiversions.Thefirstandfourthlevelsrepresent
maximumstorageanddead‐pool(minimum)storageforeachreservoir.Thecurveswere
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐3 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
developediterativelytomaximizediversionsandminimizethenumberofyearsresultingin
carryoverstoragelowerthan300thousandacrefeet(TAF),500TAF,and200TAFforNew
Melones,NewDonPedro,andLakeMcClurereservoirsrespectively.Maximumallowableannual
surfacewaterdiversionswereestablishedat750TAF,1,100TAF,and625TAFonthe
Stanislaus,Tuolumne,andMercedriversrespectivelybasedonthemaximumdiversionrates
allowedintheCALSIMmodel.

TableX‐3showshowtheannualallowablesurfacewaterdiversions(asdeterminedbythe
diversiondeliveryrulecurvedescribeabove)aredistributedacrosseachmonthoftheyear
startinginFebruaryandendingthefollowingJanuary.AsexplainedinAppendixX(draft
technicalreport),themonthlydiversiondistributionpatternsusedforeachtributaryare
derivedfromthesamepatternexhibitedintheCALSIMbaselinemodelrun.

TableX‐4containsthefloodcontrolstoragelimitationsusedintheWSEmodelforNewMelones,
NewDonPedro,andLakeMcClurereservoirs.Thesearebasedonamonthlyinterpretationof
USACEfloodcontrolcurvesforeachreservoir.Whenstoragewouldotherwisebegreaterthan
theselimitations,theWSEmodelreleasestheadditionalflowtobringthestoragelevelsdownto
thelimitation.
Table X‐1. Minimum Monthly Flow Requirements and Maximum Trigger Levels Input to WSE Model for Each LSJR Flow Objective Alternative MinimumMonthlyFlow(cfs)
MaximumTriggerFlow(cfs)
Calendar
Month
Stanislaus
Tuolumne
Merced
Stanislaus
Tuolumne
Merced
2
150
200
150
2,500
3,500
2,000
3
150
200
150
2,500
3,500
2,000
4
150
200
150
2,500
3,500
2,000
5
150
200
150
2,500
3,500
2,000
6
150
200
150
2,500
3,500
2,000
Notes:NoflowssetforJulythroughJanuaryasnochangesfrombaselineflowaremadeinthosemonths.
cfs=cubicfeetpersecond
Table X‐2a. Stanislaus River Diversion Delivery (Cutback) Curves at New Melones Reservoir for each LSJR Flow Objective Alternative New
Melones
Stanislaus
20%Alternative
30%Alternative
40%Alternative
50%Alternative
60%Alternative
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
Level1
1,970
100%
1,970
100%
1,970
100%
1,970
90%
1,970
80%
Level2
1,500
95%
100
50%
100
40%
100
35%
100
30%
Level3
100
50%
99
Level4
99
0%
NA
0%
NA
99
NA
0%
NA
99
NA
0%
NA
99
NA
0%
NA
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐4 Delivery
February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐2b. Tuolumne River Diversion Delivery (Cutback) Curves at New Don Pedro Reservoir for Each LSJR Flow Objective Alternative NewDon
Pedro–
Tuolumne
20%Alternative
30%Alternative
40%Alternative
50%Alternative
60%Alternative
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
Delivery
(%)
Level1
1,690
95%
1,690
85%
1,690
80%
1,690
70%
1,690
65%
Level2
1,000
55%
850
45%
1,000
45%
1,000
38%
1,000
30%
Level3
115
20%
115
15%
115
10%
115
5%
Level4
114
0%
114
0%
114
0%
114
0%
115
NA
0%
NA
Table X‐2c. Merced River Diversion Delivery (Cutback) Curves at Lake McClure for Each LSJR Flow Objective Alternative. 20%Alternative
30%Alternative
40%Alternative
50%Alternative
60%Alternative
Lake
McClure
Merced
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
Storage
Delivery
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
(TAF)
(%)
Level1
675
95%
675
90%
675
85%
675
80%
675
75%
Level2
100
40%
300
60%
100
30%
100
25%
100
20%
Level3
99
NA
0%
NA
100
30%
99
0%
99
NA
0%
NA
99
NA
0%
NA
99
NA
0%
NA
Level4
Table X‐3. Monthly Distribution Pattern (Starting in February Through the Following January) for Annual Allowable Diversions on Each Tributary Stanislaus
Tuolumne
Merced
CalendarMonth
(%ofannual)
(%ofannual)
(%ofannual)
2
1.5%
2.1%
0.2%
3
4.7%
5.1%
3.3%
4
10.9%
11.1%
10.3%
5
15.4%
15.0%
16.1%
6
16.1%
15.4%
19.7%
7
17.4%
18.3%
21.3%
8
9
16.0%
9.3%
15.7%
8.6%
17.4%
8.2%
10
4.1%
4.8%
3.0%
11
2.0%
0.7%
0.2%
12
1.3%
1.0%
0.2%
1
1.3%
2.1%
0.1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐5 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐4. Monthly Flood Control Storage Limitations Applied to New Melones, New Don Pedro, and Lake McClure Reservoirs in the WSE Model CalendarMonth
NewMelones
(TAF)
NewDonPedro
(TAF)
LakeMcClure
(TAF)
1
1,970
1,690
674.6
2
1,970
1,690
674.6
3
4
2,030
2,220
1,690
1,718
735
845
5
2,420
2,002
970
6
2,420
2,030
1,024
7
2,300
2,030
1,024
8
2,130
2,030
1,024
9
2,000
1,773
850
10
11
1,970
1,970
1,690
1,690
674.6
674.6
12
1,970
1,690
674.6
BasedonmonthlyinterpretationofUSACEdefinedfloodcurves.
Maximumstoragevolume(tospillway)inNewMelones=2,420TAF;NewDonPedro=2,030
TAF;andLakeMcClure=1,024TAF
X.3.2
Summary of Results TheWSEmodelgeneratesatimeseriesofestimatedallowablemonthlydiversionsfrom1922
through2003.Forthepurposesofthisanalysisthesemonthlyvaluesareaddedtogetherforagiven
yearandpresentedasannualallowablediversionsinTAF.Theresultsarealsopresentedforeach
alternativeasanannualdifferenceinTAFandasapercentdifference,bothrelativetobaseline
conditions.TheresultsoftheWSEmodelneededforsubsequentagriculturalproductionand
economiceffectsanalysisarepresentedbelow.TheWSEresultsarepresentedbothastotalsforthe
entirewatershedandfortheindividualtributaries.
Entire LSJR Project Area WatersuppliesandrelatedconditionsintheLSJRwatershedarehighlyvariableovertime,and
associateddataormodelingresultsaresometimesbettercharacterizedbyexceedanceplotsthanby
simpleaverageormedianstatistics.FigureX‐1presentsanexceedanceplotofWSEestimatesfor
totalLSJRwatershedannualsurfacewaterdiversionsforeachoftheLSJRflowobjectivesandthe
baselineconditionacrossthe82yearsofsimulation.
ForaparticularLSJRalternative,thediversionsestimatedforagivenyear,maybeaboveorbelow
thatsameyear’sestimateforthebaselinecondition.Thisdifferenceinannualdiversionsaboveor
belowthebaselineconditioniscalculatedacrossall82yearsofsimulationforeachLSJRflow
alternativeandpresentedonanexceedanceplotinFigureX‐2.Toputinrelativeterms,thesesame
annualdifferencesarepresentedinFigureX‐3asapercentdifferenceaboveorbelowthebaseline
condition.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐6 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Project Area Diversions Compared to Baseline
3.0
Annual Diversions (maf)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Maximum Diversion
20% unimpaired alternative
40% unimpaired alternative
60% unimpaired alternative
Baseline
0.5
0.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐1. Exceedance Plot of WSE Estimates for Total LSJR Watershed Annual Surface Water Diversions for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across the 82 Years of Simulation Annual Diversion Change from Baseline (taf)
Project Area Diversions Compared to Baseline
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
20% unimpaired alternative
-1000
40% unimpaired alternative
-1200
60% unimpaired alternative
-1400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
90% 100%
Figure X‐2. Exceedance plot of WSE Estimates of the Difference in Total LSJR Watershed Annual Surface Water Diversions for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐7 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Annual Diversion Change from Baseline (%)
Project Area Diversions Compared to Baseline
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
20% unimpaired alternative
40% unimpaired alternative
-60%
60% unimpaired alternative
-80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐3. Exceedance Plot of WSE Estimates for Total LSJR Watershed Annual Surface Water Diversions for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives, as a Percent Difference Above or Below the Baseline Condition, Across the 82 Years of Simulation Tributary Breakdown TableX‐5summarizestheaveragedifferenceinallowablediversionsaboveorbelowthebaseline
condition,andtheaveragepercentdifferencefromthebaseline,foreachofthethreetributariesand
theentireLSJRwatershedacross82yearsofsimulation.Thisinformationprovidesageneralpicture
oftherelativedistributionbetweenthetributariesofthediversionreductionsthatwouldbe
needed.Ingeneral,asthepercentofunimpairedflowincreases,theaveragedifferenceindiversions
foraparticularalternativerelativetobaselineconditionsincreases(i.e.,greaterdiversion
reductionswouldbeneededtoaccommodatetheincreaseinunimpairedflow).Potentialdiversion
reductionsontheStanislausRiveraregenerallylessthanthosepotentiallyneededontheTuolumne
andMercedRivers.ThisisduetothegenerallyhigherlevelofexistingflowsontheStanislausRiver,
asdescribedinChapter2ofAppendixX(drafttechnicalreport).
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐8 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐5. Average Difference in Diversions Above or Below the Baseline Condition, Along with the Average Percent Difference from the Baseline, for Each of the Three Tributaries and the Entire LSJR Watershed Across 82 Years of Simulation PercentofUnimpairedFlowAlternative
20%Alternative
40%Alternative
60%Alternative
20%Alternative
40%Alternative
60%Alternative
Stanislaus
(TAF)
Tuolumne
(TAF)
Merced
(TAF)
LSJR
Watershed
(TAF)
+96
+4
‐115
‐5
‐172
‐328
‐10
‐87
‐163
+83
‐255
‐606
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
+18%
+1%
‐20%
0%
‐19%
‐37%
+1%
‐14%
‐29%
+5%
‐13%
‐31%
FigureX‐4throughFigureX‐6presentsexceedanceplotsofthedifferenceinannualallowable
diversionsaboveorbelowthebaselineconditionforeachLSJRflowalternativeacrossall82yearsof
simulationontheStanislaus,Tuolumne,andMercedRiversrespectively.Thisprovidesthe
distributionandvariabilityofthedifferencesoneachtributary.Positivevaluesindicatediversions
foragivenyearcouldbegreaterthanbaselineconditions,andnegativevaluesindicatediversionsin
agivenyearwouldneedtobelessthanbaselineconditions.Overallmorediversionreductions
wouldbeneededtomeethigherpercentunimpairedflowrequirements.Potentialdiversion
reductionsontheStanislausfortheunimpairedflowalternativesaregenerallylessthantheother
tworiversduetothegenerallyhigherlevelofexistingflowsontheStanislausRiver.
Tofurtherdescribethevariablenatureofrevenuesoverthe82yearsofsimulation,FiguresX‐7
throughX‐9presenttheWSEestimatesofallowableannualdiversionsfromtheStanislaus,
Tuolumne,andMercedRiversrespectivelyforthebaselineandtheLSJRflowalternativesastime‐
seriesoverthe82yearsimulation.Thesefiguresdemonstratethevariabilityofdiversionsthat
wouldbeexpectedthroughaseriesofdryandwetwateryearsforbaselineconditionsandunder
theLSJRflowalternatives.TheyalsoshowthedifferencesthatwouldbeexpectedforthethreeLSJR
tributaries.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐9 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Stanislaus River Diversions Compared to Baseline
Annual Change in Diversion (taf)
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
20% unimpaired alternative
40% unimpaired alternative
-300
60% unimpaired alternative
-400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐4. Exceedance Plot of Difference in Annual Allowable Diversions Above or Below the Baseline Condition for Each LSJR Flow Alternative on the Stanislaus River Across 82 Years of Simulation Tuolumne River Diversions Compared to Baseline
Annual Change in Diversions (taf)
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
20% unimpaired alternative
-500
40% unimpaired alternative
-600
60% unimpaired alternative
-700
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐5. Exceedance Plot of Difference in Annual Allowable Diversions Above or Below the Baseline Condition for Each LSJR Flow Alternative on the Tuolumne River Across 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐10 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Merced River Diversions Compared to Baseline
Annual Change in Diversions (taf)
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
20% unimpaired alternative
40% unimpaired alternative
-400
60% unimpaired alternative
-500
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐6. Exceedance Plot of Difference in Annual Allowable Diversions Above or Below the Baseline Condition for Each LSJR Flow Alternative on the Merced River Across 82 Years of Simulation Annual Diversion Delivery from Stanislaus River
Annual Diversion Delivery (TAF/yr)
Baseline
20%
40%
60%
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure X‐7. Estimated Stanislaus River Allowable Annual Diversions from WSE Model for 1922 through 2003 DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐11 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Annual Diversion Delivery from Tuolumne River
Baseline
20%
40%
60%
Annual Diversion Delivery (TAF/yr)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Figure X‐8. Estimated Tuolumne River Allowable Annual Diversions from WSE Model for 1922 through 2003 Annual Diversion Delivery from Merced River
Baseline
20%
40%
60%
Annual Diversion Delivery (TAF/yr)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Figure X‐9. Estimated Merced River Allowable Annual Diversions from WSE Model for 1922 through 2003 X.4
Effects on Agricultural Production Changestotheamountofsurfacewaterdiversionshavethepotentialtoeffectwateravailablefor
cropirrigationandthushavethepotentialtoaffectagriculturalproductivity.Theestimatesofthe
surfacewaterdiversionsdevelopedintheprevioussectionareusedintheSWAPmodeltoestimate
agriculturalproductionandrevenuesforeachoftheLSJRflowalternatives.Theagricultural
productionandrevenuesarethencomparedtothebaselinecondition.BecausetheWSEmodel
simulateschangesinsurfacewaterdiversionsover82yearsofhydrology,theresultsarehighly
variableacrossarangeofpossibleannualeffects.
X.4.1
SWAP Model Overview TheSWAPmodelwasselectedtoestimatetheagriculturalproduction(cropacreages)andrevenues
(totalproductionvalue)associatedwiththesurfacewaterdiversionspotentiallyneededunderthe
LSJRflowalternativesandbaselineconditions.SWAPisanagriculturalproductionmodelthat
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐12 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
simulatesthedecisionsoffarmersataregionallevelbasedonprinciplesofeconomicoptimization.
Themodelassumesthatfarmersmaximizeprofit(revenueminuscosts)subjecttoresource,
technical,andmarketconstraints.Themodelselectsthosecrops,watersupplies,andirrigation
technologythatmaximizeprofitsubjecttotheseequationsandconstraints.Themodelaccountsfor
landandwateravailabilityconstraintsgivenasetoffactorsforproductionprices,andcalibrates
exactlytoobservedyearlyvaluesofland,labor,waterandsuppliesuseforeachregion.
Justification and Previous Applications ThebasisforSWAPisPositiveMathematicalProgramming(PMP),whichisaself‐calibrating
agriculturalproductionmodelaimedtomaximizefarmprofitsandemployingacalibrationmethod
thatensuresthatcropproductionmatchestheobservedbasedatainagivenyear(Howitt1995).
PMPintroducesanon‐linearcostfunctionderivedfromthefirstorderconditionsofLeontief
productionconstrainedmodel.AdditionaldetailsonthePMPmethodologyarepresentedinseveral
reportsandpeerreviewedpublicationsincluding:Howittetal.(2010),Medellín‐Azuaraetal.
(2010),andMedellín‐Azuaraetal.(2012).
PMPhasbecomeawidelyacceptedmethodforanalyzingwaterdemandandundertakingpolicy
analysisandaredeemedasthedominantmethodwithrespecttoinductive(statistical)based
modelstorepresentagriculturalproduction(Young2005;Scheierlingetal.2006).Thistypeof
modelworkswellwiththemultitudeofresource,policy,andenvironmentalconstraintsoften
observedinpractice(Griffin2006).Furthermore,PMPdoesnotrequirelargedatasets,isdirectly
basedonprofit‐maximizingbehavioroffarmers,andisbettersuitedtoestimatepolicyresponseof
farmingactivitiesthanstrictlystatisticalmethods(Howittetal.2010).Incontrasttostatistical
methods,SWAPmoreexplicitlyaccountsforchangesinwateravailabilityduetoreduceddiversions
aspartoftheconstraintsetinthemodel.Bycomparingabasecasewithcurrentdiversionsanda
policyscenariowithreduceddiversions,theanalystisabletoeconomicallyquantifychangesin
revenue,croppingpatternsandappliedwaterperunitarea.
SWAPalsohassomecomparativeadvantagesovercurrentandpreviouslyusedagriculturalwater
usemodels.TwosuchmodelsareDWRCaliforniaAgriculture(CALAG)andDWRNetCropRevenue
Models(NCRMs).Thefollowingisabriefdescriptionofthosemodelsandthecomparative
advantagesofSWAP.

CALAGisanextendedandimprovedversionofCVPM.LikeSWAPthenumericalbasisofCALAG
isPMP(CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources2008).CALAG,however,doesnotexplicitly
includecostsofproductionsfactorsintheirformulation,andinsteaduseconstantvariable
productioncostsbycropandregion.SWAPincontrast,cancapturefarmeradjustmentsininput
usesuchaswaterperacrechangesduringdroughtconditions.ThusCVPMandCALAGarewell
suitedtorepresentwatersupplyoperationsbutarelessusefulformodelingdetailedchangesin
productionsuchaswaterperunitarea,laborperunitareaorsuppliesperunitarea.SWAP
estimatescroppingpatternsandinputuseforallpoliciesevaluated,capturingadaptationof
cropfarmingproductiontochangingwateravailabilityconditions.Whenfacedwithincreasing
waterscarcity,farmershavebeenshowntoadjustinthreeways,changesinwaterperacre,
changesincropmix,andchangesintotalirrigatedacres.CVPMandCALAGarerobustmodels
thatcanaccountfortwoofthesechanges,butSWAPhasbeenextendedtoincorporateallthree
adjustments.SWAPincorporatesinformationfrombothmodels,intermsofwatersupply
sourcesandusesregionscompatiblewithbothmodels.SWAPhasadditionalmodulestoaccount
fortechnologicalimprovement,climatechange,changesincroppricesandwaterquality.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐13 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency 
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
TheNCRMsarespreadsheetprogramsthatestimateaveragenetcroprevenuesfor26crop
groupsin27Californiacountiesandregions.Thesemodelscombinedataonacres,andaverage
yieldsandpricesfromnumerouscountyandstatesources.Thespreadsheetsprice‐leveladjust
costandgrossrevenuedatatoacommonyear,adjustforchangesinvariouscosts,andthen
calculateweighted‐averageestimatesofatypicalgrower'sannualnetcroprevenue,whether
profitorloss(CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources2008).Howeverusingfixedbudgets,it
isnotpossibletomodelreactionstochangesinwateravailabilitybasedonfarmersprofit‐
maximizingbehaviorascanbedoneinSWAP.Instead,theNCRMspreadsheetsprovidea
snapshotofagriculturebutdonotcapturechangesincroppingpatternsorproductioninputuse
asaresultofchangingwateravailability.
TheSWAPmodelhasbeenusedinawiderangeofpolicyanalysisprojects.Thefirstformal
applicationofthismodelwastoestimatetheeconomicscarcitycostsofwaterforagricultureinthe
statewidehydro‐economicoptimizationmodelforwatermanagementinCaliforniaknownasthe
CaliforniaValueIntegratedNetwork(CALVIN)model.SWAPprovideseconomicvalueofwater
shortagetoCALVINbymonthandregionthatisweightedagainstvalueofshortageinotherusesin
decidingwaterallocation.(Draperetal.2003).Also,DWRusedSWAPsubsequenttotheCALAG
modeltoaidindevelopmentofplanningscenariosandstudiessupportingpreparationofthe2009
WaterPlanUpdate(http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm#volume4).
SWAPhasalsobeenusedbytheStockholmEnvironmentInstituteasasubsidiarymodelforaWater
EvaluationandPlanning(WEAP)modelapplicationintheCaliforniaCentralValley,withother
participantssuchastheU.S.BureauofReclamationandconsultingfirmsincludingCH2MHILL.
WEAPisaclimate‐driven,waterresourcemodelthatsystematicallysimulatesnaturalwaterflows
andmanagementofinfrastructuretobalancesupplyanddemand.SWAPtakesadvantageofthe
WEAPpriority‐basedallocationandprovidescroppingpatternsforawiderangeofwater
availabilityconditions.Indoingthis,SWAPturnsawaterallocationsimulationmodelintoahydro‐
economicmodelthatallocateswaterbasedoneconomicvalueofthefinaluse(Yatesetal.2005).
Morerecently,SWAPapplicationshavebeengreatlyexpandedtoincludesalinityinsoilandshallow
groundwaterintheSacramento‐SanJoaquinDeltainCalifornia(Lundetal.2007)andsouthofthe
Delta(Howittetal.2009a;Tanakaetal.2008),climatechange(Howittetal.2009c;Medellin‐Azuara,
etal.2007),anddroughtimpactanalysis(Howittetal.2009b).
X.4.2
Model Inputs and Approach SWAPwasconfiguredtomodelagriculturalproductioninthemainagriculturalareasoftheLSJR
watershedandcalibratedtoDWRlanduseandappliedwaterdatafor2005.Usingoutputfromthe
WSEmodel,theSWAPmodelestimatestheagriculturalproduction(cropacreages)andrevenues
(totalproductionvalue)resultingfromeachoftheLSJRflowalternativesandthebaseline.The
annualresultsforeachLSJRflowalternativearethencomparedtothoseforthebaselinecondition
tocalculatetheneteffectofthealternatives.
SWAP Regions SWAPdisaggregatestheCentralValleyusingtheCentralValleyProductionModel(CVPM)regionsas
describedintheCentralValleyProjectImprovementActProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpact
Statement(UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation1997).ForanalysisofLSJRflowalternatives,CVPM
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐14 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
regions11,12,and13wereusedinSWAPasshowninFigureX‐10.Thesecorrespondwelltothe
mainagriculturalareasoftheLSJRwatershed.
Forcomparison,FigureX‐11showstheboundariesofCVPMregions11,12,and13,alongwith
majorirrigationdistrictandLSJRtributaryboundaries.Whiletheirrigationdistrictboundaries
generallycorrespondwiththeCVPMregions,thesedistrictsobtainsurfacewaterdiversions,and
provideservicetoagriculturalareasinmorethanonewatershed.Therefore,thesurfacewater
diversionreductionsforeachtributarywatershed,asestimatedbytheWSEmodel,cannotbeused
directlyasinputtotheindividualCVPMregionsofSWAP.ThethreeCVPMregionsasawhole,
however,adequatelyencompassestheLSJRwatershed,andthus,thesurfacewaterdiversion
reductionsforallthreetributariesfromtheWSEmodelareappliedequallyacrosstheCVMPregions
inSWAP.ThiseffectivelyprovidesanaverageresultfromSWAPacrosstheentireLSJRwatershed,
butnotfortheindividualwatershedsorCVPMregions.
Figure X‐10. CVPM Regions Used in SWAP and Those Used in the Project Area (CVPM regions 11, 12, 13) DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐15 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency Figure X‐11. Major Water District Boundaries Within the Project Area (CVPM regions 11, 12, 13)
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives X‐16 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency SWAP Calibration SWAPiscalibratedtoDWRestimatesoflanduseandappliedwaterdataforwateryear2005.This
representsthemostrecentnormalwateryearintermsofbothwateravailabilityandcropprices.
Theseestimateswerealsousedforpreparationofthe2009CaliforniaStateWaterPlan.Todevelop
theseestimates,DWRsurveyslandandwateruseswithineachcountyperiodicallydependingon
changesthathaveoccurredwithinthatcounty.Surveysbeganin1947withthefirstdigitizedsurvey
completedin1988,andareavailablefromtheDWRwebsite.TableX‐6belowliststhecounties
withintheprojectareaandwhenthelatestlandusesurveywastaken.DWRusestheAgriculture
Commissionerannualreportstothenupdatecropyieldsappropriateforwateryear2005.
Table X‐6. Counties Within Project Area and Date Last Surveyed by DWR County
YearLastLand
Surveyed
DateLastEstimatedbyDWRfromCommissioner
Reports
Calaveras
Madera
Mariposa
SanJoaquin
Stanislaus
Tuolumne
Merced
2000
2001
1998
1996
2004
1997
2002
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
TheDWRlandusesurveyscontainabreakdownbyirrigatedandnon‐irrigatedlandsandcrop
groups.ThecropgroupsinSWAPfollowtheDWRclassificationsandinclude:almondsand
pistachios,alfalfa,corn,cotton,cucurbits,drybeans,freshtomato,processingtomato,grains,onion
andgarlic,pasture,potato,rice,safflower,citrusandsubtropical,andvineyards,aswellasother
orchards,fieldcrops,andtruckcrops.TableX‐7summarizesacrosstheprojectarea(CVPMregions
11,12,and13)thetotal2005acreagesforthesecropgroups,alongwiththeassociatedwateruse
andproductionvaluesperacre.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives X‐17 State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐7. Irrigated Crop Area, Water Use Intensity, and Crop Type by Crop Groups Used in SWAP CropGroup
Alfalfa
2005DWRIrrigated
CropArea(Acres)
WaterUse(Acre‐
feet/Acre)
Value
($/Acre)
CropType
97,704
4.05
$ 918
Perennial
Almond/Pistachio
296,773
3.32
$ 3,871
Perennial
Corn
148,872
2.48
$ 673
Annual
31,577
3.08
$ 906
Annual
Cucurbits
2,709
1.66
$ 3,802
Annual
DryBean
1,937
2.15
$ 994
Annual
92,576
2.41
$ 332
Annual
6,778
1.5
$ 5,811
Annual
21,446
0.74
$ 285
Annual
819
2.01
$ 4,348
Annual
66,200
3.39
$ 2,718
Perennial
112,218
4.43
$ 631
Annual
6,370
5.37
$ 754
Annual
446
1.58
$ 472
Annual
Subtropical
5,859
2.52
$ 6,639
Perennial
Sugarbeet
2,495
1.25
$ 1,275
Annual
Tomato‐Processing
12,428
2.38
$ 2,018
Annual
TruckCrops
30,435
0.96
$ 5,192
Annual
112,602
2.25
$ 4,066
Perennial
Cotton
Field
FreshTomato
Grain
OnionandGarlic
Orchards
Pasture
Rice
Safflower
Vine
SWAP Simulation of Alternatives and Baseline Condition TheseannualsurfacewaterdiversionchangesestimatedbytheWSEmodel(describedinSection
X.3)wereinputtoSWAPtoestimatetheassociatedagriculturalproduction(cropacreages)and
revenues(totalproductionvalue).ForeachwateryearSWAPusesthePMPmethodologyto
calculatethecropacreagemixthatwouldmaximizerevenuefromtheannualavailablesurface
waterdiversions.
Forthepurposeofthisanalysisitwasassumedthatirrigationsuppliedfromgroundwaterandother
sources(e.g.,CVPprojectdeliveries,etc.)wouldnotbeincreasedtomakeupforanydecreasein
surfacewaterdiversions.Whilesomeadditionalalternativesupplymightactuallybeavailablefrom
othersources,forthepurposeofeconomicanalysis,thisisaconservativeassumption.
TheSWAPoutputforaparticularLSJRflowalternativeorthebaselineconditionisatime‐seriesof
82annualestimatesoftheassociatedcropacreages,appliedwater,andrevenueacrosstheperiodof
simulation.ForthepurposeofevaluatingeachLSJRflowalternative,theseestimatesforagivenyear
arecomparedagainstthoseforthebaselinecondition.Theresultisatimeseriesacrossall82years
ofsimulationofannualdifferencesincropacreagesandrevenueassociatedwithLSJRalternative
whencomparedtothebaselinecondition.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐18 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency X.4.3
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Summary of Results ThissectionpresentsSWAPmodeloutputcharacterizingthetotalagriculturalproduction(crop
acreages)anddirectly‐relatedrevenues(totalproductionvalue)associatedwiththethreeLSJRflow
alternativesandthebaselinecondition.Alsopresentedarethedifferencesinthesevaluesbetween
thethreeLSJRalternativesandthebaselinecondition.Asdescribedearlier,SWAPprovidesan
averageresultacrosstheLSJRwatershed.
Effects on Crop Acreage TableX‐8presentstheaverageoverthe82‐yearstudyperiodoftheannualirrigatedacreageofeach
croptypeforthebaselineconditionandtheaveragedifference,inbothacresandpercent,between
LSJRflowalternativesandthebaselinecondition.Aswaterbecomeslessavailable,thecropsmost
affectedarerice,pasture,andfieldcrops,followedbycorn.Theseareaffectedmorebecausethey
arerelativelyhighwater‐useannualcropswithlowervaluecropsperacre.Thelowvaluecrop
groupsthatcoverlargeareasaresubstantiallyreducedastheLSJRflowalternativeincreasesfrom
20%to60%ofunimpairedflow.FiguresX‐12throughX‐15presenttheannualcropacreagefor
eachcropgroupasatimeseriesfrom1960to2003forthebaselineconditionandthe20%,40%
and60%LSJRflowalternativesrespectively.,Insomeyearsofextremedrought,pastureandfield
cropsarenearlyeliminatedfromproductionparticularlyunderthe40%and60%alternatives.
FigureX‐16presentstheannualcropacreageforselectedcrops(cotton,grain,processtomatoes,
sub‐tropicalfruit,riceanddrybeans)asatimeseriesfrom1960to2003foreachoftheLSJRflow
alternatives.Thisdemonstratesthathighervaluecrops,suchastomatoesarelessaffectedby
increaseddiversionreductionsthanlowervalue,highwater‐usecrops,suchasrice,andthatthe
effectsaregenerallygreaterduringthehigherpercentagealternatives.FigureX‐17presentsthe
annualcropacreageforsomelow‐acreagecrops(freshtomatoes,cucurbits,sugarbeets,
onions/garlic,andsafflower)asatimeseriesfrom1960to2003foreachoftheLSJRflow
alternatives.Generally,thesecropsarenotasaffectedbydiversionreductions.Perennialcropssuch
asvines,almondsandpistachios,andsub‐tropicalcropgroupsexperiencedecreasesinproduction
onlyinprolongedextremedroughtsuchasexperiencedintheearly1990s.Thisisshownbya
constantacreagefromyeartoyearevenastheflowobjectivealternativeisincreased.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐19 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐8. Average Annual Acreage of Irrigated Crops for Baseline Condition and Average Difference (in Acres and Percent) Between LSJR Flow Alternatives and Baseline Condition by Crop Group CropGroup
Alfalfa
Baseline
20%Alternative
(TAF)
+/‐TAF
40%Alternative
%Change +/‐TAF
60%Alternative
%Change +/‐TAF
%Change
94,180
+569
+1%
‐3,439
‐4%
‐10,283
‐11%
295,630
+157
<+1%
‐670
<‐1%
‐2,651
‐1%
137,020
+945
+1%
‐14,517
‐11%
‐38,576
‐28%
30,660
+180
+1%
‐468
‐2%
‐1,213
‐4%
Cucurbits
2,700
+2
<+1%
‐7
<‐1%
‐23
‐1%
DryBean
Field
1,890
57,510
+6
+5,290
<+1%
+9%
‐42
‐23,004
‐2%
‐40%
‐239
‐42,752
‐13%
‐74%
6,770
+2
<+1%
‐4
<‐1%
‐10
<‐1%
21,220
+75
<+1%
‐318
‐1%
‐1,092
‐5%
820
+1
<+1%
‐1
<‐1%
‐4
‐1%
Orchards
65,420
+111
<+1%
‐542
‐1%
‐4,422
‐7%
Pasture
Rice
76,570
4,520
+2,603
+54
+3%
+1%
‐27,400
‐1,595
‐36%
‐35%
‐56,386
‐3,442
‐74%
‐76%
430
+3
+1%
‐14
‐3%
‐46
‐11%
Subtropical
5,850
+2
<+1%
‐3
<‐1%
‐8
<‐1%
Sugarbeet
2,480
+3
<+1%
‐7
<‐1%
‐15
‐1%
Almonds/Pistachio
s
Corn
Cotton
FreshTomato
Grain
OnionandGarlic
Safflower
Tomato
(Processing)
TruckCrops
Vine
12,330
+20
<+1%
‐57
<‐1%
‐238
‐2%
30,410
112,390
+4
+42
<+1%
<+1%
‐16
‐107
<‐1%
<‐1%
‐55
‐289
<‐1%
<‐1%
TOTAL
958,800
+1%
‐72,211
‐8% ‐161,744
‐17%
+10,069
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐20 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Area of Irrigated Crops : Baseline
160000
140000
Corn
Vines
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
120000
Alfalfa
Pasture
Other Field Crops
100000
Deciduous
Other Truck Crops
Cotton
80000
Cucurbits
Dry Beans
Fresh Tomatoes
60000
Grain
Onions/Garlic
40000
Rice
Safflower
Subtropical
20000
Sugar Beet
Process Tomatoe
2002
2003
2000
2001
1998
1999
1997
1995
1996
1993
1994
1991
1992
1989
1990
1987
1988
1985
1986
1984
1982
1983
1980
1981
1978
1979
1976
1977
1974
1975
1973
1971
1972
1969
1970
1967
1968
1965
1966
1963
1964
1962
1960
1961
0
Year
Figure X‐12. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under Baseline Conditions from 1960 to 2003 Area of Irrigated Crops : 20% Unimpaired Flow Objective
160000
140000
Corn
Vines
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
120000
Alfalfa
Pasture
Other Field Crops
100000
Deciduous
Other Truck Crops
Cotton
80000
Cucurbits
Dry Beans
Fresh Tomatoes
60000
Grain
Onions/Garlic
40000
Rice
Safflower
Subtropical
20000
Sugar Beet
Process Tomatoe
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
Year
Figure X‐13. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under 20% Unimpaired Flow Alternative from 1960 to 2003 DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐21 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Area of Irrigated Crops : 40% Unimpaired Flow Objective
160000
140000
Corn
Vines
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
120000
Alfalfa
Pasture
Other Field Crops
100000
Deciduous
Other Truck Crops
Cotton
80000
Cucurbits
Dry Beans
Fresh Tomatoes
60000
Grain
Onions/Garlic
40000
Rice
Safflower
Subtropical
20000
Sugar Beet
Process Tomatoe
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
Year
Figure X‐14. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under 40% Unimpaired Flow Alternative from 1960 to 2003 Area of Irrigated Crops : 60% Unimpaired Flow Objective
160000
140000
Corn
Vines
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
120000
Alfalfa
Pasture
Other Field Crops
100000
Deciduous
Other Truck Crops
Cotton
80000
Cucurbits
Dry Beans
Fresh Tomatoes
60000
Grain
Onions/Garlic
40000
Rice
Safflower
Subtropical
20000
Sugar Beet
Process Tomatoe
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
Year
Figure X‐15. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under 60% Unimpaired Flow Alternative from 1960 to 2003 DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐22 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Acreage of Selected Crops : 20, 40, and 60 Percent of Unimpaired Flow
35000
20%
Cotton
30000
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
40%
60%
25000
20%
Grain
20000
40%
60%
15000
Process Tomatoes
10000
Sub‐Tropical
5000
Rice
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Dry Beans
0
Year
Figure X‐16. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under 20%, 40%, and 60% Unimpaired Flow Alternatives from 1960 to 2003 for Selected Crops Acreage of Small Acreage Crops : 20, 40, and 60 Percent of Unimpaired Flow
8000
Fresh Tomatoes
7000
Area of Irrigated Crops per year (acres)
6000
5000
4000
Cucurbits
3000
2000
Sugar Beets
Onions/Garlic
1000
Safflower
Year
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
0
Figure X‐17. Annual Crop Acreage by Crop Group Under 20%, 40%, and 60% Unimpaired Flow Alternatives from 1960 to 2003 for Selected Higher‐Value Crops with Low Total Acreage DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐23 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Effects on Agricultural Revenue SWAPestimatesthetotaldirectgrosscroprevenuesgeneratedacrossCVPMregions11,12,and13
forthethreeLSJRflowalternativesandthebaselinecondition.Thesearethedirectrevenues
generatedbyfarmingoperations(i.e.,grosstotalproductionvalue).Itdoesnotincludethe
associatedindirectorinducedeffectontheregionaleconomy,whichwillbeaddressedinthenext
section.SWAPiscalibratedandoutputisreportedin2005dollars,butissubsequentlyadjusted
usingEngineeringNewsRecordconstructioncostindicesandreportedbelowin2008dollarsto
correspondwiththesubsequentregionaleconomicanalysis.
WatersuppliesandrelatedconditionsintheLSJRwatershedarehighlyvariableovertime,and
associateddataormodelingresultsaresometimebettercharacterizedbyexceedanceplotsthanby
simpleaverageormedianstatistics.Tocharacterizethemagnitudeandvariabilityofrevenues,
FigureX‐18presentsanexceedanceplotofSWAPestimatesfortotalLSJRwatershedannual
agriculturalrevenuesacrossthe82yearsofsimulationforeachoftheLSJRflowobjectivesandthe
baselinecondition.
Revenuesestimatedforaparticularyear,foraparticularLSJRalternative,maybeaboveorbelow
thatsameyear’sestimateforthebaselinecondition.Tounderstandthisdifference,it’simportantto
notcomparetheexceedanceplotsinFigureX‐18,butratheruseaplotoftheannualdifferences.The
differenceinannualrevenueaboveorbelowthebaselineconditioniscalculatedacrossall82years
ofsimulationforeachLSJRflowalternativeandpresentedonanexceedanceplotinFigureX‐19.
Under60%unimpairedflowrequirementsthemodelsestimatesadecreaseinagricultural
productivityinallyears,whileat20%itestimatesmanyyearswithanincrease.Toputinrelative
terms,thesesameannualdifferencesarepresentedinFigureX‐20asapercentdifferenceaboveor
belowthebaselinecondition.
Project Area Direct Revenue Compared to Baseline
Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
Agriculture Direct Revenue ($ Billion)
$2.9
$2.8
$2.7
$2.6
$2.5
$2.4
$2.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐18. Exceedance Plot of SWAP Estimates for Total LSJR Watershed Annual Agricultural Revenues for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across the 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐24 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Project Area Direct Effects Compared to Baseline
Change in Agriculture Direct Revenue ($ Million)
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
$100
$50
$0
-$50
-$100
-$150
-$200
-$250
-$300
-$350
-$400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐19. Exceedance Plot of the Difference in SWAP Estimates of Total LSJR Watershed Annual Agricultural Revenues Between the Three LSJR flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across the 82 Years of Simulation Project Area Direct Effects Compared to Baseline
Change in Agriculture Direct Revenue (%)
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐20. Exceedance Plot of the Percent Difference in SWAP Estimates of Total LSJR Watershed Annual Agricultural Revenues between the Three LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across the 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐25 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Tofurtherdescribethevariablenatureofrevenuesoverthe82yearsofsimulation,FigureX‐21
presentsthetotalannualdirectrevenueasatime‐seriesforyears1922through2003forthe
baselineandthreeLSJRalternatives.Tounderstandtherelativemagnitudeoftheeffectonrevenues
associatedwiththealternatives,FigureX‐22presentsthepercentdifferenceintotalannualdirect
revenuebetweenthethreeLSJRalternativesandthebaselineconditionasatime‐seriesforyears
1922through2003.
Asdiversionreductionsincrease(i.e.,assurfacewaterdiversionsbecomelessavailable)theeffect
onagriculturalrevenuesrelatedtoanadditionalincreaseindiversionreductionsbeginstoclimb
faster.Todemonstratethis,FigureX‐23displaysthemarginalrevenuelossperacre‐footof
diversionreductionforLSJRflowalternativesrangingfrom25%to60%ofunimpairedflow.
Agriculture Sector Direct Revenue Compared to Baseline
Baseline Direct Revenue
20% Alternative Direct Revenue
40% Alternative Direct Revenue
60% Alternative Direct Revenue
Annual Direct Revenue ($Billion)
$2.9
$2.8
$2.7
$2.6
$2.5
$2.4
$2.3
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure X‐21. Total Annual Direct Revenue ($Billion) for Years 1922 through 2003 for the Baseline and Three LSJR Alternatives DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐26 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Agriculture Sector Direct Revenue Compared to Baseline
20% Alternative Direct Revenue
40% Alternative DirectRevenue
60% Alternative Direct Revenue
Change in Direct Revenue (% of Baseline)
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure X‐22. Percent Difference in Total Annual Direct Revenue Between the Three LSJR Alternatives and the Baseline Condition for Years 1922 through 2003 Marginal Revenue Loss
‐100
Revenue Losses ($2008/acre‐ft)
‐120
‐140
25% UF
35% UF
‐160
45% UF
30% UF
50% UF
40% UF
‐180
55% UF
‐200
‐220
‐240
60% UF
‐260
‐280
UF = Unimpaired Flow
‐300
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
Average Annual Diversion Reduction from Three East Side Tributaries (taf)
Figure X‐23. Marginal Revenue Loss Per Acre‐Foot of Additional Diversion Reduction for LSJR flow Alternatives Ranging from 25% to 60% of Unimpaired Flow DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐27 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency X.5
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Effects on Regional Economy Theanalysisinthissectionprovidesestimatesofthetotalregionaleconomicactivityassociated
withagriculturalproductionintheLSJRwatershedforeachoftheLSJRflowalternativesand
comparestheseestimatestobaselineconditions.ThisanalysisusestheIMPLANeconomicmodelto
estimatetheindirectandinducedeconomicactivityassociatedwiththedirectagricultural‐related
revenuefromtheSWAPmodel(asdiscussedandpresentedintheprevioussection).Ingeneral,
changesinagriculturalproductionandrelatedjobswouldalsoaffectbusinessesservingfarming
operationsandfarmworkers.TheIMPLANmodelappliesjobandincomemultiplierstocalculatethe
effectstootherconnectedsectorsoftheregionaleconomy.Thedirectagricultural‐relatedrevenue
effectsfromtheSWAPmodelandtheindirectandinducedeconomiceffectsfromtheIMPLANmodel
togetherprovideanestimateofthetotaleconomicsectoroutputandjobseffectsfortheregion.
X.5.1
IMPLAN Model and Approach Reductionsinwaterdeliveriestoagriculturaluserswouldaffectseveralsectorsoftheeconomy,not
justagriculture.Whenfarmproductionfallsasaresultofreducedwateravailability,farmerswould
hirefewerseasonalworkersandmaylayoffsomeyear‐roundworkers.Withoutjobs,household
spendingbytheseworkersislikelytofall,affectingretailersandotherbusinessesinthearea.In
addition,farmerswouldreducepurchasesofequipment,materials,andservicesfromlocal
businesses,reducingjobsandincomewiththesesuppliers.Thetotalregionaleconomiceffectisthe
sumofthedirecteffectstoagricultureandtheseassociatedindirectandinducedeffects.
ToestimatetheregionaleconomiceffectstheLSJRflowalternatives,the2009ImpactAnalysisfor
Planningmodel(IMPLAN)Version3.0(2009)wasused.IMPLANhasbeenusedformanyyearsby
state,federal,andmunicipalentitiesthroughoutthecountrytocalculateeconomiceffects.This
includestheCaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources,theStateWaterBoard,theU.S.ArmyCorps
ofEngineers,U.S.BureauofReclamation,theBureauofEconomicAnalysis,andtheBureauofLand
Management.IMPLANwasusedpreviouslybytheStateWaterBoardtodeterminethepotential
regionaleffectsofreducedfarmproductionintheSanJoaquinValleyintheEIRforthe
Implementationofthe1995Bay/DeltaWaterQualityControlPlan(StateWaterResourcesControl
Board1999).ThisprevioususewassimilartothecurrentuseofIMPLANtodeterminetheregional
economiceffectsoftheLSJRflowobjectivesalternatives.
IMPLANisaninput‐outputmultipliermodelandconsidersinterrelationshipsamongsectorsand
institutionsintheregionaleconomy.Productioninthedifferenteconomicsectorsissimulatedin
IMPLANbyusingfixedfactors,whichaccountfordynamicssuchasproductionperunitofinput,
valueadded,andemployment.Itthenappliesthesefactorsinasocialaccountingmatrix,which
accountsforchangesintransactionsbetweenproducersandintermediateandfinalconsumersin
othersectorsoftheeconomy.TheIMPLANapproachalsoconsidersnon‐markettransactionssuch
unemploymentinsurancepaymentsandassociatedchangesintaxrevenuesforgovernment.
TheIMPLANmodelusesregion‐specificmultiplierstoestimatetheindirectandinducedeconomic
effects(positiveornegative)ofchangesinonesectoronallotherconnectedsectorsintheregional
economy.Forthisanalysis,thetendefaultIMPLANcropgroupswereaggregatedintosector111
(cropproduction)oftheNorthAmericanIndustryClassificationSystem(NAICS)Thusdirect
revenueeffect,anoutputfromtheSWAPmodel(describedinSectionX.4above),wereappliedto
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐28 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
sector111asawhole.Theindirectandinducedeffectsarethencalculatedbyapplyingthese
multipliersforeachsectoraffectedbychangestosector111.Becausemultipliersareappliedtothe
directrevenuesfromtheSWAPmodel,itwaspossibletolimitthemodeledareaintheregional
effectsmodelingtotheareamodeledbySWAPandasshownpreviouslyinFigureX‐10.Themajority
oftheareamodeledinIMPLANiscontainedwithinthecountiesofMadera,Merced,andStanislaus
andisagoodrepresentationoftheagriculturalareaintheLSJRwatershed.
TheIMPLANmodelthenusesabuilt‐insetofregionalmultiplierstodevelopthedirect,indirectand
inducedeffectsonemploymentandsectoroutput.Asmentionedearlier,changesinagricultural
revenuescorrespondtodirectimpactsonsectoroutput.Thebuilt‐inratiosofjobsperunitofsector
outputarethenusedtocalculatedirectimpactsofagriculturalrevenuelossesinregional
employment.Thusthedirecteffecttoemploymentisthedirectrevenueeffectmultipliedbythe
agriculturesectoremploymentmultiplier.Theadditionalindirectandinducedemploymenteffectis
theindirectandinducedeconomiceffectmultipliedbytheagriculturesectoremployment
multiplier.
Input‐outputanalysisapproachemployedbyIMPLANusuallyoverestimatesindirectjobandincome
losses.Oneofthefundamentalassumptionsininput‐outputanalysisisthattradingpatterns
betweenindustriesarefixed.Thisassumptionimpliesthatsuppliersalwayscutproductionandlay
offworkersinproportiontotheamountofproductsuppliedtofarmsorotherindustriesreducing
production.Inreality,businessesarealwaysadaptingtochangingconditions.Whenafarmcuts
backproduction,somesupplierswouldbeabletomakeuppartoftheirlossesinbusinessbyfinding
newmarketsinotherareas.Growthinotherpartsofthelocaleconomyisexpectedtoprovide
opportunitiesforthesefirms.Fortheseandotherreasons,jobandincomelossesestimatedusing
input‐outputanalysisshouldoftenbetreatedasupperlimitsontheactuallossesexpected(SWRCB
1999).
X.5.2
Summary of Results ThissectionpresentsestimatesofthetotaleconomicoutputfromIMPLANforcropproduction
(Sector111)andrelatedeconomicsectorsassociatedwiththeLSJRflowalternatives.Thisincludes
boththedirecteffectsonagricultural‐relatedrevenuesandjobsasestimatedbytheSWAPmodel
(whichareinputtothecropproductionsectorofIMPLAN)andtheassociatedindirectandinduced
effectsontheagriculture‐relatedregionaleconomyandjobmarketasestimatedbyIMPLAN.
Entire LSJR Project Area Asanoverview,TableX‐9,presentsthebaselineaveragetotaloutputfromSector111–Crop
Productionplusallothersectorswithassociatedindirectorinducedeffectsalongwiththe
differencefrombaseline,bothindollarsandpercent,foreachLSJRflowalternative.Tobetter
understandtheeffectsasafunctionofpercentageunimpairedflow,outputisalsopresentedfor30
and50%ofunimpairedflow.Thetablefurthersplitsthetotalsectoroutputintoaveragedirect
effectsandaverageinducedandindirecteffects.Ingeneral,asthepercentofunimpairedflowforan
alternativeincreases,theeconomicandrelatedemploymenteffectsalsoincrease.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐29 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Table X‐9. Average (Over the 82 Years of Simulation) Baseline Economic Output for the Crop Production and Related Sectors and Changes Associated with Various Percentage of Unimpaired Flow Requirements ChangefromBaselinebyPercentUnimpairedFlow($Millions)
EconomicEffects
(2008Dollars)
TotalSectorOutput
%ofSector
Direct
IndirectandInduced
Baseline
20%
($Millions)
$4,701
+$13
100%
+0.3%
$2,760
+$7
$1,941
+$5
30%
40%
‐$29
‐0.6%
‐$17
‐$12
50%
‐$75
‐1.6%
‐$44
‐$31
60%
‐$131
‐2.8%
‐$77
‐$54
‐$193
‐4.1%
‐$113
‐$80
Tocharacterizethemagnitudeandvariabilityofrevenues,FigureX‐24presentsanexceedanceplot
ofthetotaleconomicoutputfromtheIMPLANcropproductionandrelatedsectorsacrossthe82
yearsofsimulationforeachoftheLSJRflowobjectivesandthebaselinecondition.
Thedifferenceinthistotaleconomicoutputaboveorbelowthebaselineconditioniscalculated
acrossall82yearsofsimulationforeachLSJRflowalternativeandpresentedonanexceedanceplot
inFigureX‐25.Toputinrelativeterms,thesesameannualdifferencesarepresentedinFigureX‐26
asapercentdifferenceaboveorbelowthebaselinecondition.
TheSWAPandIMPLANmodelingoutputisnotdisaggregatedtotheindividualtributary
watersheds.AsdemonstratedearlierinTableX‐5,theLSJRflowalternativeswouldbeexpectedto
reducesurfacewaterdiversionsoverallontheTuolumneandMercedRiversmorethanthoseonthe
StanislausRiver.Solikewise,theassociatedeconomiceffectsarenotexpectedtobedistributed
equallyacrossthethreeLSJRtributarywatersheds.
Project Area Sector Output Compared to Baseline
Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
Regional Sector Output ($ Billion)
$4.9
$4.8
$4.7
$4.6
$4.5
$4.4
$4.3
$4.2
$4.1
$4.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐24. Exceedance Plot of IMPLAN Estimates for Total Economic Output from the Crop Production and Related Sectors for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐30 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Project Area Sector Output Compared to Baseline
Change in Regional Sector Output ($ Million)
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
$200
$100
$0
-$100
-$200
-$300
-$400
-$500
-$600
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐25. Exceedance Plot of the Difference in IMPLAN Estimates for Total Economic Output from the Crop Production and Related Sectors between the Three LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition across 82 Years of Simulation Project Area Sector Output Compared to Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
Change in Regional Sector Output (%)
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐26. Exceedance Plot of the Percent Difference in IMPLAN Estimates for Total Economic Output from the Crop Production and Related Sectors Between the Three LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across the 82 Years of Simulation Inadditiontorevenue,theIMPLANmodelalsoestimatesthenumberofjobsassociatedwiththe
cropproductionandrelated(indirectandinduced)sectorsoftheeconomy.Thetotaleffectsonjobs
associatedwiththeLSJRflowobjectivesaresimilar,inrelativeterms,totheeffectoneconomic
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐31 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
output.TableX‐10presentsasummaryofthetotalnumberofjobsassociatedwiththeIMPLANcrop
productionandrelatedsectorsandhowtheyareaffectedonaveragebyvariouspercentageof
unimpairedflowrequirements.Italsopresentsthebreakdownofjobswithinthecropproduction
sector(directeffects)andthosewithintherelatedsectors(indirectandinduced).
Table X‐10. Average (over the 82 Years of Simulation) Number of Crop Production and Related Sector Jobs for Baseline Condition and Changes Associated with Various Percentage of Unimpaired Flow Alternatives. ChangefromBaselinebyPercentUnimpairedFlow
EconomicEffects
TotalRegionalEffectto
Employment(#jobs)
%ofSector
Direct
IndirectandInduced
Baseline
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
31,787
+86
‐196
‐504
‐889
‐1,302
100%
13,080
18,707
+0.3%
+35
+50
‐0.6%
‐81
‐115
‐1.6%
‐207
‐297
‐2.8%
‐366
‐523
‐4.1%
‐536
‐766
FigureX‐27presentsanexceedanceplotofIMPLANestimatesofthetotalnumberofcrop
productionandrelated(indirectandinduced)sectorjobseachyearintheLSJRwatershedforeach
oftheLSJRflowobjectivesandthebaselineconditionacrossthe82yearsofsimulation.The
differenceinthenumberofjobseachyearaboveorbelowthebaselineconditioniscalculatedacross
all82yearsofsimulationforeachLSJRflowalternativeandpresentedonanexceedanceplotin
FigureX‐28.FigureX‐29presentsanexceedanceplotofthepercentdifferenceinthetotalnumberof
jobseachyearintheLSJRwatershedbetweenthethreeLSJRflowobjectivesandthebaseline
conditionacrossthe82yearsofsimulation.TheeffectoftheLSJRflowalternativesonjobsissimilar
inrelativemagnitudetotheireconomiceffect.
Project Area Regional Employment Compared to Baseline
Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
33,000
Regional Employment (# Jobs)
32,000
31,000
30,000
29,000
28,000
27,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐27. Exceedance Plot of IMPLAN Estimates for Total Jobs for the Crop Production and Related Sectors in the LSJR Watershed for Each of the LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐32 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Project Area Regional Employment Compared to Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
Change in Regional Employment (# Jobs)
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000
-1,500
-2,000
-2,500
-3,000
-3,500
-4,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
Figure X‐28. Exceedance Plot of the Difference in IMPLAN Estimates for Total Jobs for the Crop Production and Related Sectors Each Year Above or Below the Baseline Condition in the LSJR Watershed for the Three LSJR Flow Objectives Across 82 Years of Simulation Project Area Regional Employment Compared to Baseline
20% Alternative
40% Alternative
60% Alternative
Change in Regional Employment (%)
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure X‐29. Exceedance Plot of the Percent Difference in IMPLAN Estimates for Total Jobs for the Crop Production and Related Sectors Each Year Above or Below the Baseline Condition in the LSJR Watershed Between the Three LSJR Flow Objectives and the Baseline Condition Across 82 Years of Simulation DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐33 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency X.6
DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
References CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(DWR).2008.EconomicAnalysisGuidebook.(ed.
DepartmentofWaterResources),pp.59.DepartmentofWaterResources,,Sacramento
California.Availableat
<http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/planning/economic_analysis_guidebook/econguidebook.pdf>.
January2010.
Draper,A.J.,M.W.Jenkins,K.W.Kirby,J.R.Lund,andR.E.Howitt.2003.Economic‐engineering
optimizationforCaliforniawatermanagement.JournalOfWaterResourcesPlanningAnd
Management,129,155‐164.
Griffin,R.C.2006.Waterresourceeconomics:theanalysisofscarcity,policies,andprojects.
Cambridge,Mass.;London,England:MITPress.
Howitt,R.E.1995.Positivemathematicalprogramming.AmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics,
77,329‐342.
Howitt,R.,J.Kaplan,D.Larson,D.MacEwan,J.Medellin‐Azuara,G.Horner,andN.S.Lee.2009a
CentralValleySalinityReport.ReportfortheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard.Universityof
California,Davis,California.Availableat<http://swap.ucdavis.edu/>.01November2009.
Howitt,R.,J.Medellin‐Azuara,D.MacEwan.2009b.MeasuringtheEmploymentImpactofWater
Reductions.UniversityofCalifornia:Davis,California,p.10.Availableat
http://swap.ucdavis.edu
Howitt,R.E.,J.Medellin‐Azuara,D.MacEwan.2009c.EstimatingEconomicImpactsofAgricultural
YieldRelatedChanges.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,PublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER):
Sacramento,CA.
Howitt,R.,D.MacEwan,J.Medellin‐Azuara,andJ.R.Lund.2010.EconomicModelingofAgriculture
andWaterinCaliforniaUsingtheStatewideAgriculturalProductionModel.pp.25.Universityof
California,Davis.Availableat.
Lund,J.R.,E.Hanak,W.Fleenor,R.Howitt,J.Mount,andP.Moyle.2007.EnvisioningFuturesforthe
Sacramento‐SanJoaquinRiverDelta.(edP.P.I.o.California),pp.300.PublicPolicyInstituteof
California,SanFrancisco,California.Availableat
<http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=671>.
Maneta,M.,M.Torres,S.A.Vosti,W.W.Wallender,S.Allen,L.H.Bassoi,L.Bennett,R.Howitt,L.
Rodrigues,andJ.Young.2009.Assessingagriculture‐waterlinksatthebasinscale:hydrologic
andeconomicmodelsoftheSaoFranciscoRiverBasin,Brazil.WaterInternational,34,88‐103.
Medellin‐Azuara,J.,R.E.Howitt,andJ.R.Lund.2007.Californiaagriculturalwaterdemandsforyear
2050underhistoricandwarmingclimates.InCaliforniaEnergyCommission,PIERProgram.
CEC‐500‐2005‐195,CaliforniaEnergyCommission.Sacramento,California:CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐34 February 2012
ICF 00427.11
State Water Resources Control Board California Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT Agricultural Economic Effects of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Alternatives
Medellín‐Azuara,J.,J.J.Harou,andR.E.Howitt.2010.Estimatingeconomicvalueofagricultural
waterunderchangingconditionsandtheeffectsofspatialaggregation.ScienceofTheTotal
Environment,408,5639‐5648.
Medellin‐Azuara,J.,R.E.Howitt,D.MacEwan,andJ.R.Lund.2012.EconomicImpactsofClimate‐
RelatedYieldChangesinCalifornia.ClimaticChange,109,387‐405.
Scheierling,S.M.,J.B.Loomis,andR.A.Young.2006.Irrigationwaterdemand:Ameta‐analysisof
priceelasticities.WaterResourcesResearch,42,9.
StateWaterResourcesControlBoard(StateWaterBoard).1999.FinalEnvironmentalImpact
ReportforImplementationofthe1995Bay/DeltaWaterQualityControlPlan.
Tanaka,S.K.,C.R.Connell,K.Madani,J.Lund,E.Hanak,andJ.Medellin‐Azuara.2008.TheEconomic
CostsandAdaptationsforAlternativeDeltaRegulations.InComparingFuturesforthe
Sacramento‐SanJoaquinDelta,eds.J.R.Lund,E.Hanak,W.Fleenor,W.Bennett,R.E.Howitt,J.
Mount&P.Moyle.SanFrancisco,California:PublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia.
UnitedStatesBureauofReclamation(USBR).1997.CentralValleyProjectImprovementAct.Draft
ProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpactStatement.TechnicalAppendixVolumeEight.U.S.
DepartmentofInterior.U.S.BureauofReclamation,Sacramento,California.Availableat
<http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/docs_reports/fpeis/index.html>.December2010.
Yates,D.,J.Sieber,D.Purkey,andA.Huber‐Lee.2005.WEAP21‐Ademand‐,priority‐,and
preference‐drivenwaterplanningmodelPart1:Modelcharacteristics.WaterInternational,30,
487‐500.
Young,R.A.2005.Determiningtheeconomicvalueofwater:conceptsandmethods.Resourcesfor
theFuture,Washington,D.C.
DRAFT Evaluation of San Joaquin River Flow and Southern Delta Water Quality Objectives and Implementation X‐35 February 2012
ICF 00427.11