1. 20 Years of Restoration in the Carmel River
Introduction
Introduction

2. ENVIRONMENTAL WATER NEEDS PENINSULA WATER RESOURCES
Mission Statement
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
BALANCE COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER NEEDS by
MANAGING
PROTECTING
and
AUGMENTING
PENINSULA WATER RESOURCES

3. Carmel River Watershed
MPWMD
BOUNDARY

4. MPWMD Service Area Monterey Bay Sand City Pacific Grove Seaside
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Monterey Bay
Sand City
Pacific Grove
Seaside
Del Rey Oaks
Pebble Beach
Monterey
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carmel Highlands
Carmel Valley Village
Carmel River
San Clemente Dam
Los Padres Dam

5. Current Water Sources

6. State Cuts Cal-Am Supplies
Order 95-10
State Cuts Cal-Am Supplies
Past Use
Current Limit
In 1995, the State limited the amount of water that can be pumped from under the Carmel River by Cal-Am, which supplies most of the water on the Monterey Peninsula, and declared the alluvial aquifer to be fully appropriated during the dry season.
Future Limit
The State ordered cut in pumping from the Carmel River is very strict. To give you an idea of how drastic a cut that is, take a look at the screen here. Up until the 1980s, the average annual pumping was 14,106 acre-feet (point out ). The 75% reduction would allow only 3,376 acre-feet to be pumped (point out), an amount that would allow Cal-Am to serve about one-half of its customers.
Recognizing that an immediate full cut would affect public health and safety, the State Water Resources Control Board imposed a 20% interim cut (point out) to 11,285 acre-feet, until the full reduction can be achieved. This interim annual limit will remain in effect as long as a diligent effort is made toward a long-term solution.
Order was imposed in 1995, but in 1997 Cal-American and its customers were assessed $168,000 for exceeding the annual limit. The $168,000 was used to pay for improvements to a local water recycling project. Larger fines could be handed down in the future if there is continued, excessive pumping.
(Key issues: Order 95-10, how to solve it and protection of the environment)
11,285 AF, temporary permission to use this much water
3,376 AF, Cal-Am’s recognized water right
14,106 acre-feet (AF), average Carmel River production in 1980s

7. Carmel River Flow LEFT – THE RIVER RISES RAPIDLY
IN RESPONSE TO WINTER RAINS.
THIS PHOTO, TAKEN MARCH 10, 1995 AT THE BORONDA ROAD BRIDGE, SHOWS THE RIVER AT APPROXIMATELY 15,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. IN JUST TWO DAYS (MARCH 10 & 11, 1995), THIS STORM EVENT PRODUCED ENOUGH RUNOFF TO SUPPLY MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER NEEDS FOR A YEAR.
RIGHT – PHOTO TAKEN IN MAY 2002 AT THE SAME LOCATION AT A FLOW OF ABOUT 20 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS). FLOW AT THIS SITE DROPS TO AS LITTLE AS FIVE CFS IN THE DRY SEASON.

8. San Clemente Dam and Reservoir
TWO MAIN STEM RESERVOIRS
STORE LESS THAN 3% OF ANNUAL FLOW FOR SUMMER RELEASE (NOTE – ONLY ONE RESERVOIR IS SHOWN HERE). INFLOWING SEDIMENT HAS REDUCED SURFACE STORAGE AND CONTRIBUTED TO CHANNEL DEGRADATION AND STREAMBANK EROSION DOWNSTREAM.
FEBRUARY 9, 1998
ABOVE – DEBRIS CLOGS RESERVOIR PORTS DURING HIGH FLOWS IN FEBRUARY WORKERS SPENT THREE MONTHS CUTTING WOOD AND SENDING PIECES DOWNSTREAM.
RIGHT – LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE DAM FACE
JULY 1982

9. San Clemente Reservoir Foreset Slope
July 1982
500 feet
upstream
San Clemente Reservoir Foreset Slope
April 2001
January 2003
December 2003
TWO VIEWS LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM THE DAM FACE AT THE FORESET SLOPE CREEPING DOWNSTREAM AS SEDIMENT FILLS THE RESERVOIR. LESS THAN 10% OF THE ORIGINAL STORAGE VOLUME REMAINS.

10. San Clemente Reservoir Drawdown Project
To reduce the potential for catastrophic dam failure during an earthquake or very large flood, six ports were installed through the dam, 10 feet below the spillway level in June 2003 (lower center of photo). During low flow periods, the water level is drawn down to relieve pressure on the dam. The foreset slope (the leading edge of the sediment) can be seen in the center of the photograph. Silt and sand is expected to advance toward the dam and begin spilling in the very near future.
July 2003

11. Groundwater Extraction
Except in extremely wet years, groundwater pumping causes a portion of the river to dry up annually. Here, in this 1980 photo, a well was located in the bottom of the channel (note the flow in the center of the photo), nine miles upstream of the ocean. Up to 15 miles were annually dewatered. After the addition of wells closer to the end of the river, pumping was shifted downstream, resulting in fewer miles of river going dry.

12. Steelhead Migration Impacted
April 30, 1987
Low flows in late spring combined with groundwater extraction leads to stranding of adults, smolts, and fingerling steelhead. Groundwater pumping lowers water levels, which ultimately dries up the river and results in dead and dying fish. Since 1984, MPWMD has annually rescued stranded fish from drying sections in the main stem. Depending on life cycle stage, fish are transferred either to the ocean or to perennial sections. This is a kelt, which is an adult returning to the ocean, that either evaded capture or died of natural causes.

13. Carmel River Restoration
Left – looking upstream from the Schulte Bridge area. Prior to 1978, this reach was a single-thread channel, flanked by a dense riparian corridor. By the spring of 1982, erosion had transformed the reach into a braided, meandering channel with virtually no streamside cover.
January 10, 1982
Degradation of the riparian corridor culminated in an episode of erosion that scoured the channel and streambanks between 1978 and Faced with destroyed streambanks, a precipitous drop in the steelhead run, and an almost complete loss of streamside vegetation, property owners and concerned environmental groups demanded – and received - a restoration program. The program, which began in 1984 with funding from riverfront property owners and District water users, continues today.

14. Schulte Restoration Project
Right – looking upstream from Schulte Bridge. With no streamside vegetation to hold the banks together, streambanks are prone to scour and slumping. Most of the concrete rubble seen here was placed on the streambank in 1982, washed out in 1983, and was replaced by tires banded together (see photo below). Prior to rules prohibiting the use of deleterious materials, property owners placed whatever material they could afford to on streambanks to prevent additional loss.
1983
1982
Left – looking downstream to Schulte Bridge.
MPWMD carried out a pilot project in 1986 to restore this area using biotechnical methods (see Schulte Restoration Project). MPWMD continues protection and restoration work in the Carmel River under the District’s Mitigation Program.

15. MITIGATION PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT (July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002)
In 1990, MPWMD certified the Water Allocation Program Environmental Impact Report, which officially recognized that water extraction practices were causing environmental damage. To mitigate for the damage, MPWMD enacted the Mitigation Program, which combined the District’s fisheries, riparian corridor irrigation, and river restoration programs into a single integrated approach to water supply and resource management. Because water extraction practices are still impacting the environment, the program continues today.
Please visit the links below for more information about MPWMD’s activities in the Carmel River and around the District.
MITIGATION PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT (July 1, June 30, 2002)
Carmel River
Restoration Projects
MPWMD
homepage
Fisheries