My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0084717_SSNL
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
285
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SR0084717_SSNL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 12:18:44 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 9:53:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSNL
RECORD_ID
SR0084717
PE
2602
FACILITY_NAME
285 S AUSTIN RD
STREET_NUMBER
285
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
22802048
ENTERED_DATE
1/12/2022 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
285 S AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1028
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
74 Part i california Water <br />Very little indoor water use is net use, unless the resulting wastewater is discharged <br />to the sea. Most (but not all) landscape and agricultural irrigation becomes net <br />water use, as it evapotranspires to the atmosphere. <br />Net use can never exceed gross use. But because recoverable flow is often reused, <br />total gross water use usually exceeds total flow into a region. This can be seen by <br />comparing average statewide gross water use (about 83 maf/year) with the total <br />available supplies over the same period (71 maf/year) (Table 2.1). <br />Conservation actions often target reductions in gross water use. But only net <br />water savings provide more water (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez 2008; Clemmens, <br />Allen, and Burt 2008; Huffaker 2008; Hanak et al. 2010; CALFED 2006; Scheierling, <br />Young, and Cardon 2006). In agriculture, achieving significant net water savings <br />generally requires switching to crops that consume less water or reducing irrigated <br />land area. By contrast, irrigation efficiency investments may reduce gross water <br />use per acre but increase net water use on farms by making it easier for farmers to <br />stretch their gross supplies across additional acres of cropland. Reductions in net <br />water use by agriculture usually imply reductions in agricultural production (Perry <br />et al. 2009). <br />Even when they do not result in lower net use, reductions in water withdrawals <br />from streams and groundwater basins can have environmental benefits, including <br />improved stream flow; reduced pollution runoff into rivers, streams, and beaches <br />(Noble et al. 2003); and reduced energy use and costs for acquiring and treating <br />water (California Energy Commission 2005). For example, a major means of manag- <br />ing soil and aquifer salinization in the southern Central Valley has been to improve <br />irrigation efficiencies, so that less salt-laden water from the Delta is applied to fields. <br />Even though these irrigation improvements make little net water available for use, <br />the resulting runoff is of better quality. <br />and Tulare Basin, and 20 times as high as local runoff in the arid Colorado <br />River region (Figure 2.1). <br />Water availability also varies by season and between years. California’s <br />Mediterranean climate has wet winters and very dry summers, reflected in the <br />monthly variations in the Sacramento River’s natural stream flow (Figure 2.2), <br />the state’s largest river. The historical record also shows both very wet years, <br />often with substantial floods, and long multiyear droughts (Figure 2.3). The <br />geologic record of the past 2,000 years shows even larger and longer droughts <br />(Stine 1994).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.