|
Additional Water for the San
Joaquin River Agreement,
2000 2010 Supplemental EIS/EIR
8. LAND USES
8.1
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 3.6 of Meeting
Flow Objectives for the San Joaquin River Agreement,
1999-2010, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR, Reclamation 1999)
describes existing land uses and related socioeconomic
conditions in the Project Area and vicinity. The
affected environment is the socioeconomic context
in which the Proposed Action would provide additional
water for instream flows. The primary issue for
the subsequent impact analyses is the potential
for the Proposed Action to affect agricultural activity
and land use. In this section, updates have been
made to the population data, population density,
and agricultural employment from the Final EIS/EIR.
This is followed by a brief discussion of land uses
in the Project Area focusing on agriculture, the
primary land use.
8.1.1
Socioeconomic Environment
The boundaries of 14
counties are partially or wholly within the entire
San Joaquin River Basin. Of these, five contain
the major facilities and irrigation districts associated
with the No Action Alternative and the Proposed
Action; these are used to represent the Project
Area and vicinity. Tuolumne County covers portions
of these reservoirs and all of New Don Pedro Reservoir,
while all of Lake McClure is located in Mariposa
County.
The districts who are
willing sellers have service areas that are located
in the following counties (see Figure 3.1-1 of the
Final EIS/EIR):
- Modesto Irrigation
District (MID): Stanislaus County
- Turlock Irrigation
District (TID): Stanislaus and Merced counties
- Merced Irrigation
District (Merced ID): Merced County
New Melones Reservoir
and the Stanislaus River could be affected by the
Proposed Action. These facilities are located in
Calaveras and Tuolumne counties. Either these seven
counties (excluding Calaveras, which covers half
of New Melones Reservoir only and not the affected
rivers) or other geographic approximations of the
Project Area are used to describe the affected rural
environment, depending on the availability of information.
The other geographic areas used are:
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamations
San Joaquin River Region comprised of eight counties
and used in the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act Draft Programmatic EIS (Reclamation 2000a)
- San Joaquin River
Region as described in the Draft Programmatic
EIS/EIR (CALFED 1998).
These two regions are
explained further Section 3.6 of the Final EIS/EIR.
For information on poverty and ethnicity, see Chapter
13, Environmental Justice.
8.1.1.1 Population
The total county population
and recent growth in the San Joaquin River Project
Area and vicinity (Table 8-1) document that growth
for the area since the 1990 Census was 323,400 people
or 15.9 percent, which is close to the rate of growth
in the state as a whole. Both San Joaquin and Stanislaus
counties have higher growth rates, 16.3 and 17.2
percent, respectively, which reflect more rapid
urbanization here than in many other counties in
California.
Table
8-1
Population
Growth, 1990-1999
|
County
|
Total
Population
July 1, 1999
|
Total
Population
July 1, 1990
|
Numerical
Increase
1990 - 1999
|
Percent
Increase
1990-1999
|
| Mariposa |
15,900
|
14,550
|
1,350
|
9.3
|
| Merced |
207,000
|
180,200
|
26,800
|
14.9
|
| San
Joaquin |
562,600
|
483,800
|
78,800
|
16.3
|
| Stanislaus |
439,800
|
375,200
|
64,600
|
17.2
|
| Tuolumne |
52,800
|
48,650
|
4,150
|
8.5
|
| San
Joaquin River Area |
1,278,100
|
1,102,400
|
175,700
|
15.9
|
| State |
33,899,000
|
29,679,000
|
4,220,000
|
14.2
|
Source: California
Department of Finance 2000.
The centers of municipal
and industrial land use in the Project Area and
vicinity include the cities of Stockton, Modesto,
and Merced. The cities of Stockton and Tracy have
grown recently, largely in response to job development
and housing constraints in the nearby San Francisco
Bay Area. Table 8-2 contains the 1999 population
totals for the major cities located within the five
Project Area counties.
Table
8-2
City Populations, 2000
|
City
|
County
|
Total
Population
January 1, 2000
|
| Merced |
Merced
|
63,300
|
| Lodi |
San
Joaquin
|
57,900
|
| Los
Banos |
Merced
|
23,250
|
| Manteca |
San
Joaquin
|
49,500
|
| Stockton |
San
Joaquin
|
247,300
|
| Tracy |
San
Joaquin
|
54,200
|
| Modesto |
Stanislaus
|
188,300
|
| Turlock |
Stanislaus
|
53,500
|
Source: California
Department of Finance 2000.
8.1.1.2 Population
Density
Although the Project
Area contains major cities (Table 8-2), it also
contains substantial nonurbanized or rural land
that reduces overall population density. The San
Joaquin River areas population density rounded
to the nearest person is 58 persons per square kilometer
(sq km), which is 26 percent less dense than the
state as a whole with 84 persons per sq km (Table
8-3). San Joaquin Countys population density
is the highest in part because the land area excludes
portions in the Delta usually covered by water.
Table
8-3
Population Density, 1999
|
County
|
Land
Area (sq km)1
|
Total
Population2
January 1, 1999
|
Population
Density
(persons/sq km)
|
| Mariposa |
3,759
|
15,900
|
4
|
| Merced |
4,996
|
207,000
|
41
|
| San
Joaquin |
3,625
|
562,600
|
155
|
| Stanislaus |
3,871
|
439,800
|
114
|
| Tuolumne |
5,790
|
52,800
|
9
|
| Total
Region |
22,041
|
1,278,100
|
58
|
| State |
403,970
|
33,899,000
|
84
|
Sources:
1 Gaquin
and Littman 2000.
2 California Department of Finance
2000.
8.1.1.3 Employment
As reported
in the Final EIS/EIR, the San Joaquin River Region
is comprised of eight counties: Calaveras, Fresno,
Madera, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tuolumne (Reclamation 2000a). This region is
slightly larger than the Project Area and vicinity
discussed above, which excludes Calaveras, Fresno,
and Madera counties. Employment in the San Joaquin
River Region is described in Technical Appendix,
Volume 5 of the Final Programmatic EIS and summarized
here (Reclamation 2000f).
In 1940, agriculture
was the largest single employer out of the following
industry sectors: agriculture, mining, construction,
manufacturing, transportation/communications/utilities,
trade, finance/insurance/real estate, services,
and government. At that time, agricultural production
provided 34.9 percent of total household employment
in the region. By 1992, agricultural production
provided only 8.3 percent of total wage and salary
employment in the area or about 56,000 jobs. Currently,
the largest proportions of wage and salary jobs
in the region are in services, wholesale and retail
trade, and government sectors, respectively (Reclamation
2000f).
More recent data on
agricultural wage and salary employment are available
from the California Employment Development Department
(EDD 2000a). Table 8-4 presents the average employment
during March 1999, with March used as a benchmark
since agricultural employment peaks during the period
May through September with short-term and migrant
labor. Total agricultural wage and salary employment
in the seven-county San Joaquin River area averaged
36,480 jobs or over 7 percent of all wage and salary
jobs in the region. In contrast, only 2 percent
of all the jobs in the state were in agriculture
in 1999. About 11 percent of the states farm
employment of 320,200 is located in the San Joaquin
River area. Wage and salary workers are all employees
receiving compensation from agricultural employers,
both production workers and other staff not involved
in production.
Table
8-4
Annual Average Industry Employment, March 1999 Benchmark
|
County
|
Total
Employment All Industries
|
Farm
Employment
|
|
Total
|
Production
|
Services
|
| Mariposa |
5,680
|
20
|
NA
|
NA
|
| Merced |
69,400
|
8,100
|
6,600
|
1,500
|
| Stockton-Lodi
MSA1
(San Joaquin
County)
|
223,700
|
15,800
|
11,100
|
4,700
|
Modesto
MSA1
(Stanislaus County) |
175,100
|
12,400
|
7,200
|
5,200
|
| Tuolumne |
18,300
|
160
|
NA
|
NA
|
| San
Joaquin River Area |
492,180
|
36,480
|
24,900
|
11,400
|
| State |
15,527,500
|
320,200
|
193,800
|
126,400
|
Source: EDD 2000b.
Notes:
NA = Data not available.
1 1990 Census Metropolitan Statistical
Area
8.1.2
Land Uses
The Final
EIS/EIR discusses land uses that refer to other
geographic areas that approximate the Project
Area and vicinity. That discussion is summarized
below.
8.1.2.1 General
Land Use
General land
use within the San Joaquin River Region (i.e., CALFEDs
San Joaquin and Tulare Lake hydrologic basins) consists
largely of agriculture, particularly in the western
portion of the San Joaquin River basin. The foothills
of the Sierra Nevada range, located in the eastern
portion of the basin are largely open space. Watershed
lands, such as the Merced River watershed, contain
forest resources at the higher elevations.
In 1990, urban land
use was approximately 295,000 acres (CALFED 1998).
Urban areas include the cities of Stockton, Modesto,
Merced, and Tracy, as well as smaller communities
such as Lodi, Galt, Madera, and Manteca. The western
side of the region is sparsely populated. Small
farming communities, all along State Highway 33,
provide services for farms and ranches in the area.
CALFED reports that about 4,750,000 acres of important
farmland were mapped in the San Joaquin River Region
in 1994, excluding the legal Delta portion of San
Joaquin County (CALFED 1998).
Land uses along the
San Joaquin River consist primarily of rural residential
and agricultural areas until the river enters the
Delta near the community of Vernalis, below the
confluence with the Stanislaus River. Predominant
land use within the Stanislaus County portion of
the Stanislaus River watershed is agriculture. As
the Stanislaus River passes through the city of
Oakdale, land uses consist of urban uses including
commercial and residential. In the San Joaquin County
portion of the watershed, land uses are primarily
agriculture and open space. Land use in the Tuolumne
River watershed is primarily agriculture. Urban
land uses in the lower reaches of the Tuolumne River
watershed include the city of Modesto and the communities
of Waterford and Ceres. Land use in the Merced River
watershed is primarily open space (foothill pasture)
within the upper reaches, and agriculture in the
lower reaches. A few rural communities are located
within the watershed with the largest being the
town of Livingston.
8.1.2.2 Agricultural
Land Use
The San Joaquin River
Region, including the following counties: Fresno,
Kern, King, Madera, Merced, 54 percent of San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tulare, encompasses approximately
64 percent of farmland in the Central Valley (CALFED
1998).
The importance of agricultural
land in the San Joaquin River Project Area and vicinity
(five counties) is shown in Table 8-5, which provides
information on land devoted to agriculture: land
in farms, cropland, and irrigated acreage. The San
Joaquin River area contains 2,774,000 acres of farmland
as of 1997. This acreage represents just over 50
percent of the total land area in the five counties
(5,446,256 total acres) and 10 percent of the total
farmland in California. Irrigated acreage in the
San Joaquin River area was 1,377,000 acres, over
49 percent of the areas total farmland, which
is substantially higher than the 31 percent irrigated
farmland for the state.
Table
8-5
Agricultural Land and Irrigated Acreage, 1997
|
County
|
Total
Land in Farms(1,000 acres)
|
Total
Cropland (1,000 acres)
|
Total
Irrigated Acreage (1,000 acres)
|
Percent
Irrigated Farmland
|
| Mariposa |
198
|
9
|
3
|
1.5
|
| Merced |
882
|
532
|
493
|
55.9
|
| San
Joaquin |
809
|
559
|
519
|
64.2
|
| Stanislaus |
733
|
382
|
359
|
49.0
|
| Tuolumne |
152
|
13
|
3
|
2.0
|
| San
Joaquin River Area |
2,774
|
1,495
|
1,377
|
49.6
|
| State
Total |
27,699
|
10,804
|
8,713
|
31.5
|
Source: Gaquin and
Littman 2000, pp. 140, 154.
California leads all
other states in the value of crops produced, and
Central Valley crops, which account for about 10
percent of total U.S. market value of agricultural
crops, are responsible for most of this production
(Reclamation 2000c). In the San Joaquin River Region,
fruit and nuts, vegetables, and cotton account for
approximately 50, 20, and 10 percent, respectively,
of the total value of crop production (CALFED 1998).
Agriculture in the
San Joaquin River Region receives irrigation water
from the Central Valley Project (CVP), the State
Water Project (SWP), local water rights and water
projects, and groundwater as shown in Table 8-6.
Most of this water is delivered to farmers through
irrigation districts and other water agencies (CALFED
1998). About 40 percent of irrigation water sources
in the San Joaquin River Region are from local water
rights or local water projects. CVP water provides
35 percent of total irrigation water uses, mostly
to the Westlands Water District, which is south
of the Project Area. The rest of the regions
water is from the SWP and groundwater pumping (CALFED
1998).
Table
8-6
Irrigation
Applied Water Use in the San Joaquin River Region,
1985 to 1990
|
Water
Source
|
Thousand
acre-feet
|
| Local
Surface Water |
4,854
|
| CVP
Water |
4,268
|
| SWP
Water |
1,168
|
| Local
Groundwater |
1,803
|
| Total
Water |
12,093
|
Source: CALFED 1998,
p. 8.1-11.
8.2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section evaluates
the impact the Proposed Action would have on land
uses and the economy in the Project Area and vicinity.
As described in Section 8.1, agricultural land uses
and the agricultural sector of the economy are important
resources in the Project Area and vicinity.
8.2.1
Key Impact Issues and Evaluation Criteria
With respect
to land use, the primary issue is the extent to
which the additional water from the willing sellers
(up to 47,000 acre-feet) would affect agricultural
land uses and, therefore, the agricultural economy
in counties in the Project Area and vicinity.
Evaluation criteria
for determining impact thresholds of significance
include the following:
- Reductions
in municipal water supplies that could affect
local populations
- Permanent or long-term
reduction in jobs in the agricultural sector of
the economy
- Permanent or long-term
reduction in agricultural acreage within the San
Joaquin River area
8.2.2
Environmental Consequences
This analysis
relies on information provided in the Final EIS/EIR
regarding water uses potentially affected by the
Proposed Action. The analysis also relies on economic
information provided in the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act Draft Programmatic EIS and its
Technical Appendix, Volume 5 (Reclamation 2000a,
2000f), the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR (CALFED
1998), and the Draft EIS/EIR for Implementation
of the 1998 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan
(State Board 1998) in addition to information
presented above in Section 8.1.
The hydrologic analysis
(Appendix A) indicates that the Project releases
would occur during approximately 10 percent of the
years (for the model period 1922 through 1992).
During these few years when supplemental water would
be released, a direct release to the lower Tuolumne
River from New Don Pedro Reservoir would be made
by MID and TID or to the Merced River from Lake
McClure by Merced ID. In most of the modeled releases,
the reservoir storage recovered the following year
by reducing the releases that would otherwise be
in excess of minimum flows on either of the rivers.
In a couple of instances, the storage did not recover
until 1 or more years after release.
The hydrologic analysis
(Appendix A) indicates that release of up to 47,000
acre-feet would only take place during water years
where available water supply is present. Irrigation
deliveries to water users in the willing sellers
service areas would not be affected. This means
that the groundwater demands by the local irrigation
districts would not increase because of the Proposed
Action and no direct or indirect impacts would occur
to groundwater. In fact, the releases could have
the potential for a short-term recharge of groundwater
due to the increased river stage in the downstream
reaches of either the Tuolumne or Merced rivers
(see Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2).
8.2.2.1 Socioeconomic
Impacts
Population
The concern
is to what extent the resident population would
experience any water shortages as a result of implementation
of the Proposed Project. Water shortages could constrain
planned growth in the affected areas.
No Action. Under the
No Action Alternative, which represents the existing
condition, most of the available water for the San
Joaquin River Agreement comes from carry-over storage
in Project Area reservoirs and does not affect deliveries
to irrigation customers in the years that would
trigger the need for additional water. Deliveries
to water users would occur consistent with current
and planned contracts with the CVP, SWP, and local
water districts. The water that could be used for
the supplemental 47,000 acre-feet would remain in
storage until released at a future date as spills
or flood control releases.
Proposed Action. The
Proposed Action would use available water (up to
47,000 acre-feet) from storage from either New Don
Pedro Reservoir or Lake McClure that would otherwise
be released under discretionary operations of the
two reservoirs, and would not affect deliveries
to irrigation customers. Consequently, no direct
or indirect adverse impact would occur to local
populations, nor would local population growth be
affected.
Population Density
The density
of population (persons per sq km) would be affected
if the Proposed Action constrained development of
land for residential uses and spurred population
growth as infill development on vacant parcels within
the urbanized area/agency sphere of influence.
No Action. Under the
No Action Alternative, municipal water users receive
their water supplies as explained above.
Proposed Action. The
Proposed Action would not affect municipal water
users because the additional water would come from
carry-over storage. Consequently, no impact would
occur to population density.
8.2.2.2 Regional
Economy and Employment
As detailed
in Section 4.6.2.2 of the Final EIS/EIR, the economic
importance of agriculture to the communities of
the Sacramento Valley, Delta and San Joaquin Valley
is greater than just the gross value of farm products
or the number of direct farm-related jobs. The agricultural
industry impacts local and regional economies either
directly in the activities that are required to
produce and harvest a crop, or indirectly by the
farm and farm-related incomes that may be spent
on food, housing, and other consumer items.
Reductions in water
deliveries to agriculture could lead to reduced
farm production that generally results in the hiring
of fewer workers. The following analysis evaluates
the effect the Proposed Action would have on the
regional economy.
No Action
The No Action
Alternative (existing condition) relies on willing
sellers to provide Vernalis Adaptive Management
Program water that otherwise could be made available
for irrigation uses. This full amount of water (110,000
acre-feet) would be needed in only a few years (short
term), and the potential impact in some years would
be substantially avoided through the use of groundwater
to substitute for reduced surface water supplies
to irrigate agriculture. Under No Action, the supplemental
water would remain in storage until released at
a future date for flood control or discretionary
releases above minimum flow requirements.
Proposed Action
The Proposed
Action would rely on TID and MID, or Merced ID,
to provide up to 47,000 acre-feet of supplemental
water approximately 1 year in 10. This water would
be made available only in years where carry-over
storage occurs. Therefore, no impact would occur
to total jobs because no reduced farm production
would occur from reduced water deliveries. There
would be no reductions in water deliveries to irrigation
customers due to the Proposed Action.
8.2.2.3 Agricultural
Land Use
Agricultural land
use can be described for this analysis as irrigated
acreage, but it is also described by its cropping
pattern.
No Action
Under the No
Action Alternative (existing condition), a reduction
to irrigation customers could occur (see Table 4.6-1
of the Final EIS/EIR) in some years. When irrigation
water is reduced, farmers have several options:
(1) obtain alternative sources of supply to supplement
reduced surface water allocations, (2) increase
water use efficiency including the reduction in
deep percolation, and (3) match land use and cropping
patterns to available water supplies through a combination
of fallowing and shifts in crop type (State Board
1998). All of these measures affect farm profits
(Reclamation 2000f). However, most of this surface
water would be replaced by groundwater, including
conjunctive use water, or come from surface water
supplies (carry-over storage).
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action
would rely on TID, MID, or Merced ID providing up
to 47,000 acre-feet of supplemental water approximately
1 year in 10. This water would be made available
only in years where carry-over storage occurs, and
deliveries to water users would not be affected.
Therefore, no impacts would occur to irrigation
customers.
8.2.3
Impact Summary and Mitigation of Impacts
The following
summary compares the Proposed Action on the Tuolumne
and Merced rivers together with No Action.
8.2.3.1 Socioeconomic
Impacts
Population and Population
Density
- No impact would
occur to local populations, and local population
growth would not be affected. No mitigation is
necessary.
- No impact would
occur to municipal users, so no impact would occur
to population density. No mitigation is required.
Regional Economy
and Employment
- No impacts would
occur to jobs, because no reduced farm production
would occur. No mitigation is required.
Agricultural Land
Use
- No impacts would
occur to water deliveries to irrigation customers
in years where the supplemental water would be
needed. No mitigation is required.
Draft
SES/EIR
CH8 |
December
20, 2000
|
|