Laserfiche WebLink
Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating <br />The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was <br />developed in cooperation with Nichols- Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the <br />Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is <br />presented by Nichols- Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA <br />Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the <br />development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would <br />need to be represented in this system. <br />First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural <br />production (such as being forced to change to lower -value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, <br />or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation <br />on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused <br />on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California <br />to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are <br />referred to as restrictions. <br />Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and <br />unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual <br />systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost -- a more reliable <br />water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were <br />classified into two major categories -- physical and economic. These are separated because, <br />generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be <br />reflected in the LESA system. <br />Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the <br />drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The <br />impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to <br />avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. <br />Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or <br />simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options <br />included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or <br />leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be <br />scored as high as a similar project site that does not. <br />The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential <br />restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, <br />was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last <br />drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to <br />levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? <br />PAN <br />