TC 824 C2 A2 no, 76 appx. ' Dec. 1961 THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Department of Wa ter Resources ECONOMIC ASPECTS APPENDIX to BULLETIN No. 76 DELTA WATER FACILITIES reiiminary Edition DECEMBER 1961 EDMUND G. BROWN WILLIAM E. WARNE Adminisfrafor The Resources Agency of California State of California and Director Department of Water Resources '-^^mrn^ State o\ California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Department of Wa ter Resources ECONOMIC ASPECTS APPENDIX to BULLETIN No. 76 DELTA WATER FACILITIES STATEMENT OF ClAR(FICATION Preliminary Editiop r-^-^'^fF-- r*" """"^ €*icot. th. ,.laf;», J;,-^ 'f r '. '• '"»•'•<'••( .My ,o i^ r«f.otion Of. .volucd for "o^o^r^r •"•"*' "''"«' •• f»cr.ofi.„ benefit,. "^ " P'ogrea, will i„dlcof. .p«a(. Subsequent to local review — j DECEMBER 1 961 -£.tr;*xriS''^'":'a- id EDMUND G. BROWN WILLIAM E. WARNE _ Adminisfrafor Governor -ri n T TT3P A T> V Resources Agency of California State of California /•»>«.» ,-n„ , ^ ^ - • and Director t»)AiJ Hcj ;Kij/v>:!.«» »*B>-WSP TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD xill CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Previous Reports and Legislation 1 Abshire -Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1953 .... 3 Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955 .... 3 Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1957 .... k Additional Legislation of 1959 h Purpose and Scope of Investigation 6 Comparison of Plans 6 Evaluation of Benefits and Detriments 6 Summary of Project Costs 8 Development of Benefit-Cost Ratios and Project Formulation 9 Allocation of Project Costs 9 Repayment Analysis 9 CHAPTER II. EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND DETRIMENTS 11 Water Salvage 11 Summary of Project Effects 12 Evaluation of Benefit 16 Water Qxiality in the Western Delta 18 Effect of Alternative Delta Water Facilities 19 Industrial and Municipal Water Quality Benefits 20 Agricultural Water Quality Benefits 26 - i - Page Western Delta Supplemental Water Supply 29 Flood and Seepage Control Benefits 33 Reclamation Problems 35 Land Subsidence 36 Foundation Conditions 36 Seepage Problems 37 Land Use Patterns kO Cost Per One Inundation Ul Comparison of Nonproject and Project Flood Damages 49 Nonproject Conditions 1+9 Project Conditions 49 Comparison of Nonproject and Project Flood Maintenance Costs ^2 Comparison of Nonproject and Project Seepage Control Costs 59 Summary of Flood and Seepage Control Benefits 61 Vehicular Transportation 6h Project Effects 6h Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 65 Comprehensive Delta Water Project 66 Evaluation of Project Benefits . ... 66 Sximmary of Transportation Benefits 7I Recreation 73 Project Effects 75 ii - Page Chipps Island Barrier Project yg Single Purpose Delta Water Project 76 Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Project 78 Summary of Project Effects on Recreation 79 Navigation 81 Project Effects 85 Chipps Island Barrier Project 85 Comprehensive Delta Water Project 88 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 92 Single Purpose Delta Water Project 93 Summary of Navigation Detriments 93 Fish and Game 95 Anadromous Fisheries 95 Striped Bass . . . 95 Salmon 96 Steelhead 97 Shad 97 Fresh-water Fisheries 98 Wildlife 98 Waterfowl 98 Miscellaneous Species 99 iii Page Project Effects j^qo Chipps Island Barrier Project 100 Single Purpose Delta Water Project 104 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 105 Comprehensive Delta Water Project IO6 Comparison of Project Effects on Fish and Game 107 Migratory Fish , I08 Striped Bass iqq Shad 2.09 Salmon "LOQ Steelhead 2.10 Fresh-water Fish ~ HO Catfish iiQ Black Bass ^iq Waterfowl 2^1^]^ CHAPTER III. SUMMARY OF COSTS 112 Schedules of Cost 1_12 Separable Costs 121 Separable Costs to Transportation 121 Separable Costs to Flood and Seepage Control 125 Separable Costs to Water Supply 126 Separable Costs to Recreation 129 Joint Costs 132 - iv Page Alternative Costs 13Y Alternative Cost of Water Supply 137 Alternative Cost of Water Salvage 137 Alternative Cost of Supplemental Water 137 Alternative Cost of Agricultural Water Quality 138 Alternative Cost of Mvmicipal and Industrial Water Quality 139 Alternative Cost of Flood and Seepage Control 139 Alternative Cost of Vehicular Transportation 1^0 Alternative Cost of Recreation 1^0 Summary l40 CHAPTER IV. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION 1^*2 t CHAPTER V. ALLOCATION OF COSTS ikQ Prime Allocation II4.9 Allocation of Water Supply Costs li4.9 Allocation of Flood and Seepage Control Costs I50 Allocation of Vehicular Transportation Costs I50 Allocation of Recreation Costs , . . . 151 Allocation of Costs, Chipps Island Barrier Project I5I Allocation of Costs, Single Purpose Delta Water Project 152 Allocation of Costs, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 153 Primary Allocation I54 Suballocation of Water Supply Costs 155 Suballocation of Flood and Seepage Control Costs I55 - V - Page Suballocation to Vehicular Transportation 158 Suballocatlon to Recreation . . * 158 Allocation of Costs, Comprehensive Delta Water Project 160 Primary Allocation 160 Suballocation of Water Supply Costs I6I Suballocation of Flood and Seepage Control Costs I6I Suballocation to Vehicular Transportation 165 Summary of Cost Allocations . ^ I67 CHAPTER VI. REPAYMENT OF PROJECT COSTS . I69 Water Salvage 169 Local Water Supply 1?! Flood and Seepage Control 173 Vehicular Transportation 175 Recreation 177 Unasslgned Costs 177 Sunmjary of Project Repayment 177 TABLES Table No. 1 Summary of Outflow Requirements During Periods of Low Flow II4. 2 Summary of Outflow Requirements I5 3 Staging of the Units of the California Water Resources Development System With Alternative Delte Water Facilities I6 vi - Table No. Page k Reductions In the Delta Water Charge Resulting From Alternative Delta Water Facilities 1? 5 'Average Monthly Salt Concentrations In Old River Under Project and Nonproject Conditions 21 6 Chemical Costs Used In Evaluating Benefits In Water Treatment Costs 22 7 Water Treatment Costs and Savings With State Water Facilities 23 8 Capital Investment In Water-Softening and Demineralization Equipment 2k 9 Annual Benefits Based on Industrial Water Treatment Costs 25 10 Area of Ajgricultural Water Quality Zones Within the Western Delta 26 11 Salinity of Irrigation Water Available From Existing Channel Regimen Under Present and Futvire Conditions of Upstream Consumptive Use .... 28 12 Annual Benefits of Salinity Protection To Agricultural Lands In the Western Delta 29 13 Futvire Water Requirements of the Western Delta Which Could Be Met From Existing Channels and Facilities 30 Ik Schedule of Supplemental Water Deliveries To Portions of Contra Costa and Solano Co\uities Within the Western Delta 32 15 Progressive Reclamation In the Delta 33 16 Historical Inundations In the Delta 35 17 Present Crop Patterns By Island-Group k2 18 Crop Patterns By Island-Group, Projected To the Year 199O 43 19 Farm Income Per Acre By Crops kk vii - Table No. Page 20 Crop Damage Per Acre (One Inxindation) 46 21 Crop Damage By Is land -Group (One Inundation) i+7 22 Reclamation Costs Per Acre 1^8 23 Flood Damage By Is land -Group Due To One Inundation Under Nonproject Conditions I78 2k Flood Damage By Island-Group Due To One Inundation Under Project Conditions 5I 25 Average Annual Benefit Due To Reduced Inundation 53 26 Benefit Due To Reduced Inundation ^k 27 Annual Benefits Due To Redviced Flood Maintenance Costs 5-7 28 Present Worth, Benefit Due To Reduced Flood Maintenance Costs 58 29 Estimated Annual Costs of Seepage Control In the Delta * . . . 60 30 Benefits Due To Reduced Cost of Seepage Control 62 31 Svumnary of Flood and Seepage Control Benefits Ito 32 Annual Reduction In County Expenditures For Road and Ferry Operation and Maintenance 68 33 Annual Transportation Benefits Due To Improved Recreational Access 70 3^ Annual Benefit To Improved Agricultural Transportation 7I 35 Sunanary of Transportation Benefits 72 36 Projected Population and Delta Recreation Demand 71*- 37 Commercial Navigation Tonnages, Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 84 38 Commercial Traffic on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 86 39 Projection of Commercial Navigation Tonnages, Sacramento and Sem Joaquin Rivers 86 _viii - Table No. Page 1|0 Projected Annual Detriment Due To the Chipps Island Barrier Project 87 kl Projected Annual Navigation Detriment, Ryde Control Stioictvire 90 il2 Estimated Annual Navigation Detriment, Holland Cut Control Structure 9I k3 Estimated Annual Navigation Detriment, Mokelumne River Closures 9I kk Estimated Annvial Navigation Detriment, Middle River Closure At Bacon Island 92 U5 Sunnjary of Commercial Navigation Detriments 9U k6 Annual California Conmerclal Salmon Catch 96 kj Trends in California Salmon Angling 97 k6 Detriment To Commercial Salmon Fishery 109 ^9 Schedule of Costs — Chipps Island Barrier Project 113 50 Schedule of Costs — Single Purpose Delta Water Project II5 51 Schedule of Costs— Typical Alternative Delta Water Project II7 52 Schedule of Costs — Comprehensive Delta Water Project II9 53 Separable Capital Costs To Transportation, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 122 5U Separable Annual Costs To Transportation, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 123 55 Separable Capital Costs To Transportation, Comprehensive Delta Water Project 124 56 Separable Annual Costs To Transportation, Comprehensive Delta Water Project 125 57 Separable Capital Costs of Flood and Seepage Control, Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects 127 - ix - Table No. Page 58 Separable Annual Costs of Flood and Seepage Control, Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects 128 59 Separable Costs of Water Supply, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 130 60 Separable Costs of Water Supply, Comprehensive Delta Water Project 131 61 Joint Capital Costs, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project I33 62 Joint Annual Costs, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 13k 63 Joint Capital Costs, Comprehensive Delta Water Project . . 135 6k Joint Annual Costs, Comprehensive Delta Water Project I36 65 Summary of I96O Present Worth of Project Costs .... lUl 66 Summary of Costs, Benefits, and Detriments ikk 67 Single Ptirpose Delta Water Project, Prime Allocation 153 68 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, Primary Allocation 155 69 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Water Supply 156 70 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Flood and Seepage Control By Island-Group 157 71 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, Suballocation of Flood and Seepage Control, Federal -Local Obligation 157 72 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Transportation I58 73 Comprehensive Delta Water Project, Primary Allocation l62 - X Table No. Page ^k Comprehensive Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Water Supply I63 75 Comprehensive Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Flood and Seepeige Control By Island-Groups l6k 76 Comprehensive Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Flood and Seepage Control, Federal -Local Obligation I65 77 Comprehensive Delta Water Project, Suballocation To Transportation I66 78 Summary of Cost Allocations 168 79 Allocated Cost of Water Salvage and Increment of Delta Pool Price Necessary For Recovery of Costs •. . . 170 80 Delta Pool Demand and Rex>ayment Revenues For Delta Facilities I70 81 Average Cost of Montezuma Aqueduct Deliveries .... 173 8e Estimated Schedules of Federal Flood Control Contributions I'jk 83 Estimated Cost To Local Beneficiaries of Flood and Seepage Control I75 8k Estimated Cost of Vehicular Transportation 176 85 Repayment Schedule, Chipps Island Barrier Project I80 86 Repayment Schedule, Single Piirpose Delta Water Project I81 87 Repayment Schedule, Typical Alternative Delta Water Project l82 88 Repayment Schedule, Comprehensive Delta Water Project I83 - xi - PLATES Plate No. 1 Areas of Investigation Sacraoento-San Joaquin Delta 2 Chipps Island Barrier Project 3 Single Purpose Delta Water Project k Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 5 Comprehensive Delta Water Project 6 Historic Salinity Incursion, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 7 Agricultural Water Quality Zones, Western Delta 8 Economic Effects of Reduced Crop Yield On Farm Operator's Net Income, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 9 Net Agricultural Income Under Project and Nonproject Conditions 10 Subsidence and Its Relation To Levee Stability 11 Location of Island-Groups 12 Projected Average Ann\xal Inundations 13 Areas of Peat and Related Organic Sediments ik Methods of Cost Allocation xii - FOREWORD This appendix to Bulletin No.- 76, "Delta Water Facilities", discusses the economic aspects of the various plans which have been proposed as solutions to the water problems of the Delta area of California. Correlative and subsidiary information is included in order to convey a well-rounded pictiore to the reader. Methods of analysis generally follow those of standard works on the subject. Data and analyses contained in this appendix were gathered prior to the publication of Bulletin No. 76, and were used as a partial basis for the recommendations therein. While the Single Purpose Delta Water Project is the minimum project which would pro- vide for successful operation of the State Water Facilities, it is not the solution that would develop maximian net benefits. The economic aspects of optional modifications are, therefore, discussed in some detail. It is intended that these will form a factual basis for dis- cussions by local interests. It is important to note that all benefit -cost ratios, evaluations of project accomplishments, and costs of project services, are relative and not absolute. They are intended to provide a method of comparing the relative merits of the projects, without regard to actual dollar values. Necessarily, dollars are used throughout as units of worth, value, and cost. Benefits, which are reduced insofar as possible to dollar units, are based on the best information and projections presently available. Detailed recreation studies, now in - xiii progress J will probably change these estimates to some extent. It is believed, however, that the rank order of the various recreation benefits will not be significantly altered by the completion of the detailed studies. Following local review and public hearings on Bulletin No. 76, a final report will be issued, which will incorporate com- ments and suggestions pertinent to the appendixes as well as the summary report. The final report will describe the essential minimum facilities, and those economically justifiable options requested by local interests. - xiv CHAPTER I. IMTRODUCTION This appendix describes the engineering and economic studies relating to development of pleuis for a system of works in the Sacramento-Sem Joaquin Delta which will form an integral feature of the State Water Resources DevelofHiient System. The economic asi>ects of salinity control, water supply, flood and seepage control, vehic- ular transportation, and recreation relating to a multipvurpose Delta water facility are considered for four alternative plans. The findings presented herein are the result of intensive studies conducted over a five-year period from 1955 to 196O. Previous studies and cooperative investigations hy various public and private agencies and individuals were utilized in the development of the comparisons. Previous Reports and Legislation Salinity incursion, flood damage, and related problems have long been a problem in the Delta. Early investigators were quick to recognize the uniqueness of the area and the complexity of the problems. The findings of these early studies and the history of the legislation pertaining to the Delta area define the basic policy under which this investigation has been conducted. Salinity incursion into the Delta, which was recorded in l84l and 187I, was recognized by early settlers as a potential prob- lem of water supply, and a salt-water bai*rier was proposed in the l860's. state Engineer Wm. Ham Hall subsequently stxidied a barrier to provide for flood control, and concluded that while a physical barrier could be constructed, the costs would exceed the benefits. A series of subnormal water supply years began in 191-7> which led to various proposals for barriers, advanced during the early 1920' s. In cooperation with the State of California, the Sacramento Valley Development Association, and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, under the direction of Walker Young, extensively inves- tigated four alternative barrier sites and concluded that it was "... physically feasible to constinict a salt water barrier at any of the sites investigated." It was recognized that without a barrier, "... salinity conditions will beccxae more acute unless mountain storage is provided to be released during periods of low river discharge." Economic analyses of proposed barriers were not made by Mr. Young. Following investigation of the physical feasibility of barriers the State Division of Water Resources studied the problem of salinity incursion and the economics of barriers. Bulletin No. 27, "Variation and Control of Salinity in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Upper San Francisco Bay" , conclvtied that "... invasion of salinity as far as the lower end of the . . . Delta is a natural phenomenon which, in varying degree, has occurred each year as far back as historical record reveals." It was also concluded that the Delta could be pro- tected from saline invasion and be assured of aoiple and dependable water supplies if mountain storage was utilized to provide a controlled rate of outflow from the Delta. - 2 Bulletin No. 28, "Economic Aspects of a Salt Water Barrier", concluded that it was not economically justifiable to construct a barrier. With conditions of upstream use at that time, it was concluded that the most economical solution to salinity incursion and provision of adequate water supplies in the Delta could be achieved by constructing upstream storage and providing controlled rates of outflow when the natural outflow was insvifficient. Abshire -Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1953 Shasta Reservoir, on the Sacramento River, was constructed and began operation in l^kk for salinity control of the Delta and other purposes. Exi)anding water requirements in the Central Valley and Sam Francisco Bay area stimulated reconsideration of barrier plans for water conservation and. related purposes. Seven alternative plans for barriers in the Bay and Delta system were investigated by a Board of Consultants, and the State Division of Water Reso\irces for the California Water Proj- ect Authority. The Board of Consultants concluded that barriers in the San Francisco Bay system would not be engineeringly feasible due to the uncertainty of the quality of water in a barrier pool. It was recommended by the Division of Water Resources that "... further consideration be given only to . . . barriers ... at or upstream f rem the Chipps Island site" at the outlet of the Delta. Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 195$ The Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955, incorporated as Chapter IU3U of the California Water Code, called for a study of a system of works in the Delta, referred to as the Junction Point Barrier Plan, and the Chipps Island Barrier Plan. Principal purposes of these studies included development of complete plans for water supply in the San Francisco Bay area which would provide salinity control and urgently needed flood protection in the Delta. A four-year investigation was contemplated and an interim report. Bulletin No. 60, "Salinity Control Barrier Investigation", was published in March 1957 ^y the Department of Water Resovirces. This report outlined a water plan for the San Francisco Bay area and recom- mended that the North Bay Aqueduct be authorized. The North Bay Aque- duct was authorized by the Legislature in 1957- The report also compared the Biemond Plan (a system of works in the Delta) with the Chipps Island Barrier Plan, and recommended that further study be limited to the Biemond Plan. Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1957 The Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1957 was incoiT)orated in the California Water Code as Chapter 2092. The chapter limited fxirther Delta study to the Biemond Plan and stressed the need for improving the quality of water in the Delta, and making the most beneficial use of the water resources of the State. A report on these fxurther studies was scheduled for release by March 30, 1959« Legislation of 1959 The potential expansion of water requirements of the urban and industrial complex in the western Delta area, and the greater up- stream water use with resultant depletion of outflow from the Delta, indicated need for more concentrated study of the water requirements and supplies of the Delta. Legislation was enacted in 19^9 to undertake stvtdies of the type and extent of future water requirements of lands which can be served from present channels in the western Delta, effects of upstream water uses on Delta supplies, plans for water service and costs thereof, and economic auid financial feasibility of the plans. This legislation was incorporated as Chapter I765 in the California Water Code to authorize studies of the most economical and efficient procedures of constructing levees for flood control. Intensive studies were made of the future economic growth of lands which could be seirved from channels in the western Delta. Partic- ular attention was given to the future municipal and industrial water needs in the area and the future water supplies available in the Delta. The stxjdies were published as Bulletin No. ^6, dated December 196O. The unique character of the water supply problems of the Delta was recognized by the State Legislature in 1959> when it amended the California Water Code, by inclusion of Chapter I766, to include "special general" policy regarding the Delta. This legislation calls for pro- vision of salinity control and adequate water supplies in the Delta, and states that water should not be diverted from the Delta to which the users within the Delta are entitled. The policy in this act is basic to the planning and operation of all works in the Delta or diver- sions therefrom. This legislation also described the area of the Delta to which the general policy applies. The boundary of the Delta, as described in Section 12220 of the Water Code, is indicated on Plate 1. The area considered in the intensive studies of water requirements and supplies is described as the western Delta study area. - 5 - Purpose and Scope of Investigation The many studies of all the complex water-associated problems relating to the Delta vere summarized in Bulletin No. 76. Bulletin No. 76 pointed out that there are several physically feasible methods of solving the water supply and related problems in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta emd. the upper San Francisco Bay system. This bulletin was prepared to summarize and evaluate the economic aspects and to pre- sent the methods of formulation of the most economical Delta facilities. Since the policy of providing local benefits at local option, wherever possible, has been ihcorporated in the project designs, this report presents a county -by-county analysis, and where necessary, beneficlary- by-beneficiary, to enable exercise of local option. Comparison of Plans Four plans are analyzed and compared in this appendix report. These plans are the most favorable of the many solutions which have been proposed. Each of the four alternatives presented has been dis- cussed in detail in the summary report of Bulletin No. 76, and the other five office reports are outlined in the Foreword. These plans are: 1. Chipps Island Barrier Project 2. Single Purpose Delta Water Project 3- Typical Alternative Delta Water Project k. Comprehensive Delta Water Project The Chipps Island Barrier Project would incorporate a physical structxire to exclude the ocean waters from the channels of the Delta, as shown on Plate 2, "Chipps Island Barrier Project". This structure would be located across the Sacramento River approximately 1 mile below Pittsburg. Appurtenant features, such as navigation locks, waste dis- posal featxires, Suisun Bay levee works, and an emergency navigation access, would be necessary to make the plan operative. • The plan would provide a water supply of suitable quantity and quality. !Riese benefits would be realized by export users of water from the Delta and local Delta water users. The Single Purpose Delta Water Project, as shown on Plate 3, "Single Purpose Delta Water Project", would incorporate physical barriers and control structures on several Delta channels to control and direct the flow of water within the Delta. Salinity incxu-sion would continue to be repelled by stream flow but the extent of incursion would be allowed to reach points above the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers during periods of minimum controlled outflow from the Delta. The sureas of local land thus deprived of a firm water supply, or those lands which would have their present supply further reduced, would receive a substitute supply via a separate conduit system in which the quality would be independent of the degree of salinity incursion. This project would provide the same beneficial water supply as would the Chipps Island Project. The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project shown on Plate h, "Typical Alternative Delta Water Project", would utilize the same con- cept of operation as the Single Purpose Delta Water Project to provide benefits to the functions of water supply. Master levees would also be incorporated to provide for flood and seepage control, vehicular trans- portation, and recreation. The extent of master levees incorporated in this alternative would depend upon requests for levees and commitment for the repayment of allocated reimbursable costs by the local people. The Comprehensive Delta Water Project as shown on Plate 5> "CoDQprehensive Delta Water Project" , would provide a master levee system for the entire Delta. Water supply benefits would be similar tp the Single Pvirpose Delta Water Project. Evaluation of Benefits and Detriments Tangible primary benefits and detriments (those reducible to monetary values) of each plan have been evaluated. There are also in- tangible effects, which are not amenable to monetary evaliiation, that have been analyzed as to possible effects and are discussed in this re- port. Benefits considered were restricted to net values which would accrue to the primary or initial recipient of project services — these are termed primary benefits. The project would undoubtedly have extensive secondary effects which would extend beyond the initial user of project services. These secondary benefits and detriments have not been con- sidered in the economic evaluation of the Delta facilities. Summary of Project Costs Cost estimates for each of the alternative plans have been made on the basis of costs prevailing in Jantiary I96O. These cost es- timates include: (l) a schedule of capital expenditures, (?) operation and maintenance costs; and (3) schedules of depreciation and obsolescence. Staging of the project features to accommodate local and exporv require- ments is included in each of these estimates. Detailed cost estimates are included in the appendix to Bulletin No. 76, "Plans, Designs, and Cost Estimates". - 8 - Development of Benefit-Cost Ratios and Project Formulation Benefit-cost ratios for each alternative plan have been com- puted. In addition, incremental benefit-cost ratios for each purpose of any one plan have been developed to formulate a plan which maximizes the net benefits. All benefits, detriments, and costs were scheduled as they would occur in time and then reduced to present worth, (1960). It should be noted that these benefit-cost ratios are comparative measvires of the alternative projects and are inappropriate when con- sidered independently because the projects are an integral segment of the overall State Water Resources DevelojEanent System. Allocation of Project Costs A schedule of capital and annual costs has been allocated to each prime function for each alternative. Suballocations have been made to each beneficiary. The separable costs -remaining benefit method of allocation has been incorporated, in keeping with contracting principles established by the Department of Water Resources. Suballocations have been made in keeping with precedents. In the absence of an applicable precedent, the logic and assumptions basic to the allocations are included in this report. Repayment Analysis Schedules of repayment of each of the reimbursable costs have been itemized by beneficisuTr. Investment requirements for capital costs and annual operating costs have been compared for each of the alter- natives. Detailed analyses of fund sources and bonding requirements have not been made for this unit of the State Water Facilities since this is more properly handled as an integral portion of the overall system. For this reason, the final price of project services may differ frcxn the - 9 - costs shown herein. However, the costs represent the uniform annual equivalent cost which must be obtained to repay reimbursable costs. 10 CHAPTER II. EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND DETRIMEI\ITS Studies of the various Delta water facilities that were considered disclosed that both beneficial and detrimental effects would accrue. All four plans would provide water supply benefits pertaining to: (l) salvage of water otherwise required for salinity repulsion, (2) improvement of water quality to the western Delta through water service independent of channel quality, and (3) provision of supplemental supply to the western Delta area. Two of the plans would provide: (l) flood and seepage control benefits, (2) vehicular transportation benefits, and (3) recreation. All four of the plans would be detrimental to: (l) fish and game (2) navigation, (3) recre- ation, and (4) water quality. Benefits and detriments from most of the above items would increase with the passage of time and at different rates. The variable benefits and detriments during the study period 1960-2020 were converted to equal annual equivalent values using an interest rate of 4 percent per anniom. Water Salvage One of the principle objectives of the State Water Resources Development System is to conserve water in areas of surplus in Northern California for subsequent transport to areas of deficiency. The Delta plays an important part in achieving this objective since it receives all of the surplus flows of Central Valley rivers which drain to the ocean during winter and spring months and is the last location where water not needed in the areas of surplus can conveniently be controlled and diverted to beneficial use. Surplus water from the northern portion of the Central Valley and north coastal rivers will be conveyed by the natural river system to the - 11 - Delta where it must be transferred through Delta channels to export pumping plants without undue loss or deterioration in quality. Aqueducts will convey the water from the Delta to off -stream storage and use in areas of deficiency to the south and west. Full demands on the State Water Facilities can be met until about 1981 from surplus water in the Delta with regulation by the proposed Oroville and San Luis Reservoirs. However, upstream depletions will reduce the avail- able surplus supplies and water will have to be imported from north coastal sources after that year. It is anticipated that coordinated operation of the State Water Facilities and the Federal Central Valley Project will afford a limited increase in usable surplus Delta supplies beginning in 1981. Upstream depletions will continue to decrease the available surplus supplies of the Central Valley throughout the analysis period. The coordinated use of surplus water in the Delta and of regulated or imported supplements to this supply, as required, is referred to as the Delta Pooling Concept. Under this concept of operation, the State will insure a continued supply of water adequate in quantity and quality to meet the needs of both the Delta service areas of the State Water Facilities and the export water users. Advantage will be taken of surplus water available in the Delta; and as the demand for water increases and the available surplus supply is reduced by further upstream uses, the State will assume the responsibility of guaranteeing a firm supply of water which will be accomplished by the construc- tion of additional storage facilities and import works. Summary of Project Effects During winter months of most years flood flows exceed Delta uses and the excess waters flush ocean salts from the channel system. Surplus water can be diverted from the Delta under these conditions. During summer - 12 - and early fall months the inflow to the Delta is, for the most part, limited to regulated flow of the Sacramento River. This supply must meet all uses in the Delta, and export therefrom, euid prevent SEj.inity incur- sion into the complex channel system. The amount of outflow firom the Delta necessary to maintain a given water quality at the export pumping plants increases as the rates of export increase. Water in the Sacramento River follows two basic routes to the export pimping plants: (l) from the vicinity of Walnut Grove through several generally parallel channels in a southerly direction across the central portion of the Delta, and (2) through channels in the western portion aroimd Sherman Island, and then xrpstream into the central area. The quantities transferred by the first route are not sufficient to supply both the export pun5)S and the Delta users during summer months. Water transferred around Sherman Island by the second route is mixed with and carries ocean salts into the Delta. Therefore, greater quantities of water will be necessary to reduce the salinity concentrations in the west- em' Delta, unless either a physical barrier is constructed or more water can be diverted directly across the central portion of the Delta. The four plans would ssG-veige water by reducing the outflow requirements for water transfer and Delta use. Table 1 presents a svmmiary of the outflow requirements during periods of low flow with each of the plans and with the present channel system. Since this period of low flow would exist only during relatively short periods of time (initially) and increase with the passage of time, and increased upstream depletion and export requirements, operation studies were necessary to evaluate the salvage of usable or stored water with each plan. Table 2 presents a summary of these studies. 13 - TABLE 1 Summary of Outflow Requirements During Periods of Low Flow in Second-feet With . With Chipps Island : Delta Water Barrier Project; FVo.ject Export & Evapo-trans. Salinity diversion fishway release repulsion from quality and lockage Cross Delta Outflow Criteria protection losses canal Operation I960 1640 550 1000 1980 4780 985 1000 2000 5870 1420 1000 2020 5940 1850 1000 Uncontrolled '. Delta Outflow I960 680 290 525 1980 1520 360 370 2000 1230 360 260 R^/^m v*^i/^ 2020 830 370 210 n.equirea Supplemental Release I960 960 260 475 1980 3260 625 630 2000 4640 1060 740 2020 5110 1480 790 14 TABLE 2 Summary of Outflow Requirements (Thousands of Acre Feet Per Year) With With With Delta No Chipps Island Water Year Pro.iect Barrier Pro.iect Pro.iect Export & Evapo-Trans. Salinity diversion fishway release repulsion quality- and lockage from Cross Outflow Criteria protection losses Delta Canal Operational Releases I960 1200 400 750 1980 3450 700 750 2000 4250 1050 750 2020 4300 1350 750 Uncontrolled Delta Outflow I960 500 200 400 1980 1100 250 300 2000 900 250 200 2020 600 250 150 Required Supplemental Release I960 700 200 350 1980 2350 450 450 2000 3350 800 550 2020 3700 1100 600 Water Salvaged I960 500 350 1980 1900 1900 2000 2550 2800 2020 2600 3100 15 Evalviatlon of Benefit A basis of evaliiation of the benefit of water salvage was selected which woiild reflect the incremental cost of water in the Delta to the export user. This method was selected in keeping with the Delta Pooling Concept and the established pricing auid allocation procedvures of the Department of Water Resovirces. Both the staging of future projects and the unit price for water in the Delta would vary with alternative Delta water facilities. This variation is due to the effective loss of yield because of different outflow requirements with alternative plans. Table 3 presents the estimated stsig- ing dates for facilities which would be reqiiired to meet the projected demand for water from the Delta with the alternative plans. TABLE 3 STAGING OF THE UNITS OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM WITH ALTERNATIVE DELTA WATER FACILITIES Water Development : Project : Existing Channel System : Chipps Island : Barrier Project • • - Delta Water Project Alternatives San Luis Reservoir 1968 1968 1968 Oroville Reservoir 1968 1968 1968 Delta Water Facility 1968 1968 Middle Fork of the Eel River 1976 1981 1981 First Stage, Trinity 1981 1988 1988 Second Stage, Trinity 1983 1990 1990 Mad-Van Duzen 1987 199^ 1995 First Stage, Klamath 1989 1996 1997 Additional Projects 1995 2012 2020 Since the net salable yield of eeich project would vary, depending upon outflow requirements for Delta transfer, the Delta Pool Price would also - 16 - vary. The reduction of the Delta Pool price made possible by each alternative, exclusive of Delta facility costs, is shovm in Table 4. TABLE 4 Reductions in the Delta V/ater Charge Resulting from Alternative Delta Water Facilities 1/ Equal Annual Equivalent Values 1960-2020 (Dollars per acre-foot) 1.25 1.25 2.04 2.08 2.66 2.77 3.89 4.02 3.11 3.35 2.52 2.91 Delta Water Chipps Island Project Water Development Project Barrier Project Alternatives Oroville Reservoir, San Luis, and Delta Water Facility Middle Fork, Eel First Stage, Trinity Second Stage, Trinity Mad- Van Duzen First Stage, Klamath l/ By comparison with cost with existing channel conditions and exclusive of Delta facility cost. The I960 present worth value of the Delta water charges between i960 and 2020 for each of the alternatives would be: (l) existing channel system, $522,011,000; (2) Chipps. Island Barrier Project, $333,391,000; and (3) Delta Water Project (all variations), $319,222,000. The i960 present worth value of the water salvage benefit of the Delta Water Project (all variations) is $202,789,000, and the Chipps Island Barrier Project has a benefit of $188,620,000. 17 - Water Quality in the Western Delta Historically, salinity incursion in the Delta has created water supply problems. However with the construction and operation of Shasta Reservoir as a unit of the Federal Central Valley Project, this problem has been restricted to the western portion of the Delta, Plate 6, "Historical Salinity Incursion, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", illustrates the extent of historic incursion between 1920 and I960. It may be noted that incursion of 1,000 parts per million chlorides to areas upstream from Chipps Island has taken place nearly every year. The relatively poor water quality conditions which have prevailed historically, which have been even more pronounced in recent years within the western Delta channels, have resulted in severe water supply problems to municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users. Industries have suffered considerable expenses for water treatment equipment and chemicals. In addition, poor water quality has periodically caused production slowdowns, and in one instance, caused the shutdown of one plant for nearly a month. Municipal water supplies have frequently fallen below United States health standards in both chloride and total hardness concentrations. Agriculturists have suffered excessive leaching costs, lower incomes from reduced crop yields, and restric- tion to salt-tolerant crops which are in general lower income producers, and in some cases even physical loss of crops due to excessive salinity. The causes of these poor water quality conditions include salinity incursion, agricultural drainage water from within the Delta itself, .and the low quality of the seasonal runoff of the San Joaquin and adjacent rivers. These factors are particularly in evidence during periods of negligible precipitation. In the future, the water quality conditions in the western Delta will continue to deteriorate without the construction of the State Water Facilities. This deterioration would be caused by increasing upstream con- sumptive use and the projected increases in water transfer across the Delta - 18 - by the Central Valley Project of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. These factors would undoubtedly lead to increases in the intensity and duration of salinity incursion within the western Delta. Lessening of the detrimental effects of agricultural drainage water would occuf since a higher dilution factor would be available with the greater transfer of water across the Delta. On the other hand, continued deterioration by the inflow of San Joaquin River water and San Joaquin Valley drainage, along with increased upstream pollution, might cancel the benefits of increased dilution of agricultural drainage water. Effects of Alternative Delta Water Facilities Each of the alternative Delta water facilities, constructed as an integral unit of the State Water Facilities, would provide water protected from deterioration due to salinity incursion to the Contra Costa County Water District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. In addition, each of the alternatives would provide for improved agricultural drainage environment and routing of San Joaquin River waters. This ■ combined with the high dilution factors associated with the transport of State and Central Valley Project water would lead to improved water quality within Old River. To measure the degree of the water quality improvement which would result from construction of the State Water Facilities, estimates were made by months of the future average water qualities which would exist under project and nonproject conditions. The estimates of water qualities which would exist under nonproject conditions were based upon historical data contained whithin the yearly operation reports of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. These data include recorder charts of total dissolved solids and chloride ions at pumping plant No. 1 of the Contra Costa Canal, and monthly drop sample analyses of bicarbornte, sodiujn, calcium, magnesium, - 19 - f and sulfate ion concentrations. The year 1959 was selected as the base year for assessing future- average monthly conditions. Although the base year probably reflects water quality conditions which were somewhat poorer than average conditions, it was concluded that the base year selected would represen' probable future average conditions. Future water quality conditions under project conditions were based upon salt-routing studies conducted during 195S. These studies were verified during I960 by means of more detailed analyses. Details of the methods used in the salt~routing studies are discussed in the appendix to Bulletin No. 76, "Salinity Incursion and Water Resources", Estimates of average monthly con- centrations of salts under project and nonproject conditions are contained in Table 5. Industrial and Municipal Water "^ Quality Benefits The unit industrial water benefits accruing from improvements in water quality were determined on the basis of savings in chemical costs and capital investment for water softening and demineralization processes. Savings in chemical costs were estimated by comparing the costs of treating water under project and nonproject conditions. Criteria for evaluating these costs were obtained from the published data of several manufacturers of water treat- ment equipment. Chemical costs were based on data obtained from chemical manufacturers and are shown in Table 6. Costs and cost savings are shown in Table 7. The savings in ca,pital investment for water treatment equipment were estimated from the difference in investment necessary for equipment required \inder project and nonproject conditions. For water-softening equip- ment, these savings were based upon data of equipnent manufacturers. Because of the many design considerations connected with demineralization equipment, - 20 - u v > ■^ c *'-*>»l T3 o d rH •H o O -P •H ■H rH •S 73 rH C O •g to O c S-, o -P -p ^ ^H 1 o a c o a m c 2 c <: o •H fH o X! C to ■p a C rH o tti +i •H W o -P 0) cti t»» •i-i ^ iH o -P -p ^ g I-* y p u c a 0) o Tl tj> Q) C s,..,^ ^^r- o cfl u 9> > < to rH to cti l/> sO H rH CO -4- r-{ CNi CNJ H NO 0^ CJN to C\J cv «) to 1>- cv c^ c^ -4- tn -t r^ CM o ?J 0^ -4- rH to r-t -4 H ITN i-A nO sO nO r^ -* -4 u> -4- r^ 0^ -* -4- ~t ir\ vO NO ITN r-i lf\ f^ r^ -4- - C\i cv r-i CN- 4 lA cn r-{ r-i to l> -4- m H r-{ (M H r-\ in r-{ r-{ r-\ H r-i nO to t~- cv CM r^ rH rH > b t-, a e x: rH 3 •H § XI u (h tl) a a ^ &H S < U 0) u ^ u :3 13 (D -3 <£ en 2 u I o 0) Q CO a> 3 H cti > ir\ ON rH • c cr W T3 c^ a> to CJ cti cti PQ rHiCMl TABLE 6 Chemical Costs Used in Evaluating Benefits in Water Treatment Costs Chemical Unit Cost 1/ Salt ton $13.70 Sulfuric acid (66 Be) ton 24.75 Caustic Soda (76 percent solution) ton 56.00 Soda ash ton 31.00 l/ Delivered at Pittsburg, California. 22 m •H r-i •H O cd (-"S fa (h 03 (h -P (U a' -P > ni 12 "C 03 -P e G -p 03 cti O 03 * — ;h E-! »H «) -P «) * 03 03 •H +J •H X: rH -P -H fa 03 c o> •H +J a s CO 03 cS -P cn xi I ITN -^ o-\ MD r^ 1^ c^ O to !> r^ C\J -cf -o o to o f\J NO ON ON -J- NO On to ON to O On nO CO 9 • rH • • ON • • • • • • to • ON to • to • nO ON to ON ON ON ON nO o to LA CN- CN- ON -o r-{ to On o CNi nO r-i to to Cvi nO o ON ON to nO On u> o r^ cv ir\ On lA r-- to -cJ- CA to cn; -o to ^ n6 CA O cv rA cv CM cv CNi O CA C\J nO CA rA • O CA CA nO rJ -J- cv o to • CJN CA nO cn/ ON lA cv lA CNJ to nO to to nO CV CM 3 fa x: o >. ^ W o fe u u g J=l U 03 03 M +J 03 ^ 43 > 03 © XJ B ■< >> S) -p O 03 © rH £3. -P > O 3 3 03 o O 03 ^ < CO o a Q 23 the comparison of capital investment was beyond the scope of these studies. However, review of capital costs of several demineralizing plants indicate that a project savings at least equal to the cost of a softening plant would be realized. Therefore, the savings on demineralizing equipment were computed on this basis. Estimated capital savings are indicated in Table 8. TABLE 8 Capital Investment in V/ater-Softening and Deraineralization Equipment (Dollars per thousand gpm capacity) Without With' State Water Facilities State Water Facilities Savings $104,115 $86,653 $17,642 The annual benefits accruing from savings in chemical costs to industrial water users were estimated by multiplying the averap;e savings per thousand gallons of treated water by the projected annual quantities of treated water. These quantities were determined on the basis of data obtained during a i960 industrial water use survey (Appendix II, Delta Water Requirements, Bulletin 76, Delta Water Facilities) from which the percentages of the total ■water consimiption which were softened or demineralized were determined. These percentages were assumed would remain constant through the 1960-2020 study period. These percentages were then applied to the projected future industrial water requirements of lands served from Old River, including the entire Contra Costa Water District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, To compensate for the fact that several industries located on the north shore of Contra Costa County seasonally divert from the - 2k - main river channels, future diversions were estimated for river quality conditions proposed by operation of the State Water Facilities. Water treatment chemical benefits were not claimed for these diversions. Savings in capital investment were estimated on the basis of all new water treatment capacity added after 1968, the replacement of existing capacity in 1980, and the replacement of capacity added between I960 and 1968 in 2000. These savings were converted to an annual basis by assuming that the annual costs, which include interest, operation and maintenance, taxes, insurance, replacement, and return on investment would amount to 15 percent of the capital investment. Table 9 summarized the annual benefits accruing from savings in chemicals and capital investment. TABLE 9 Annual Benefits Based on Industrial Water Treatment Costs (Dollars per year) Item 1968 1980 2000 2020 Chemicals Capital Investment 288,600 569,400 33,390 1,222,100 86,630 2,007,900 119,770 The I960 present worth of the above benefits amount to $13,877,0008 Municipal benefits were considered intangible since a great deal of the evaluation would depend on the habits of individual consumers. However, it is important to realize that the savings which will result by the halving of water hardness with the population growth foreseen in Contra Costa County could easily amo\int to several h\indred thousand dollars per year. - 25 - Ap;ri cultural VJater Quality Benefits The benefits due to improvement of the quality of agricultural water as a result of the construction and operation of replacement water facilities in the lowland areas of the western Delta were evaluated on the basis of increases in agricultural net incomes. These increases in. income mil depend upon three economic advantages resulting from the guaranteed availability of high-quality water. These are: (l) changes in crop patterns from salt-tolerant-type crops to higher income crops, (2) increases in crop yields, and (3) reduction in leaching costs. The physical factors which lead to each of these advantages are contained in the companion report,- "Delta Water Requirements". The magnitude of net income increases has been evaluated as the improvement in the quality of water available \inder project conditions, compared to the quality of water available for irrigation" within the Delta channels under nonproject conditions. Under nonproject conditions, these water qualities would depend upon the location of the specific diversion point. Therefore, the affected area was subdivided into several zones located by the river mileage along the Sacramento River from Golden Gate. These zones and the respective mileage are defined on Plate 7, "Agricultural Water Quality Zones Within the Western Delta". The area of agricultural lands within each zone is summarized in Table 10, TABLE 10 Area of Agricultural Water Quality Zones within the Western Delta River-Mile Area of Agricultural Zone Lands in Acres 52.5 - 55.0 1,500 55.0 - 57.5 5,000 57.5 - 60.0 5,500 60.0 - 62.5 9,000 62.5 - 65.0 15,500 - 26 - Determination of applied irrigation water for each agricultural ; zone was based on the following criteria: 1. The maximum annual salinity incursion concentration would not exceed toxic limits during the maximum month of diversion at any specific point of diversion. 2. The weighted mean monthly salinity of the diverted water would be based upon the average monthly outflow for the 20-year water supply period (I922-I94I), and derived from the salinity-outflow relationships developed in comparison. Appendix I, "Salinity Incursion and Water Resources", Bulletin No. 76. 3. The salinity of the diverted water would be adjusted to reflect the daily variation in salinity coinciding with variations in tidal stage l/. i 4. The quantity of water diverted each month would be proportional to the irrigation demand schedule. 5. Each point of diversion or area of diversion would be evaluate(^by salinity-zone grouping. ' 6. The future Delta outflow was based upon a minimum release of 1,500 cubic feet per second and continued upstream depletions vdthout state exports. 7. The relationship of salinity concentrations at all locations was assumed to be the same as that which presently exists throughout the Delta. This relationship is discussed in the office report on "Salinity Incursion and Water Supply". The resulting average salinities of applied irrigation water for each agricultural zone are shown in Table 11. 1/ "Variation and Control of Salinity", Bulletin No. 27, Department of Water Resources, 1931. - 27 - TABLE 11 Salinity of Irrigation Water Available from Existing Channel System Under Present and Future Conditions of Upstream Consumptive Use River-Mile Area of Agri- cultural Land (in acres) 2/ Salinity Water (ir Mllion of Available 1 parts peW Chlorides J Zone 1/ i960 1980 2000 2020 52.5 - 55.0 1,500 1,000 1,350 1,540 1,590 55.0 - 57.5 5,000 750 970 1,040 1,090 57.5 - 60.0 5,500 330 450 510 550 60.0 - 62.5 9,000 120 170 200 230 62.5 - 65.0 15,500 60 100 120 130 1/ Miles from Golden Gate. .; 2/ Approximately 3,000 additional acres may be subjected to salinity varying from 100 to 5,000 parts per million chlorides. Portions of these lands may not be actively irrigated, and on others the influence of 100 ppra chlorides on water cannot be clearly defined. , The determination of the economic benefit was based upon computation of the net farm income for the salinity conditions listed in Table 11 and the nonsaline conditions vrtiich will be provided by the project. Incomes for both existing crop patterns and projected future crop patterns were made for non- saline conditions. The estimate of net income was based upon the relationship of yield and salinity of applied water as developed in the companion report "Delta Water Requirements". This relationship was developed into operators' income as shown on Plate 8, "The Economic Effects of Reduced Crop Yields on Fami Operator Income in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta". Data for this plate vras taken from the 195'^-56 average price for farm production costs and crop returns. 28 Leaching costs were also adjusted upon a basis varying with the severity of the salinity of irrigation water. The inaximuin annual leaching cost was set at $7 Der acre per year. The results of the above analysis are indicated on Plate 9j "Net Agricultural Income Under Saline and Nonsaline Conditions in the Western Delta", The area between the curves for income with existing crop patterns under saline conditions, and the income for projected crop pattern under nonsaline conditions was taken as the net benefit. The I960 present-worth value of this benefit is $6,036,700. Annual benefits are shown in Table 12. TABLE 12 Annual Benefits of Salinity Protection to Agricultural Lands in the Western Delta Year Annual Benefit Thousand Dollars per Year i960 278 19 BO 309 2000 320 2020 325 Western Delta Supplemental Water Supply Within the western Delta there is an industrial complex of large magnitude. Projections of future growth indicate extensive future development may be expected. With the establishment of new industry and the expansion of existing facilities there will undoubtedly be large increases in population. As described in the Appendix to Bulletin 76, "Delta Water Requirements", this - 29 - growth and the related need for water have been projected. To the extent (that this water requirement exceeds the ability of existing and presently proposed local water supply facilities, it has been considered economical to provide excess capacity in the project substitute water supply facilities to meet these future supplemental requirements. The areas in which supplemental water supplies were specifically considered in the design of facilities were limited to those areas which would be affected by salinity incursion. The remaining areas, principally that area in Contra Costa County south of Rock Slough, could obtain a supply directly from the Delta channels with or without the Delta water facilities. Table 13 siiinmarizes the water requirements for those areas within the western Delta which could be met with existing facilities or by diversions from Delta channels south of Rock Slough. TABLE 13 Future Water Requirements of the Western Delta IVhith Could be Met from Existing Channels and Facilities (Thousands of acre feet per year) Contra Old Costa River Year Canal Diversions 1970 45,720 4,100 1980 55,900 7,900 1990 79,300 22,100 2000 99,200 46,100 2010 • 114,600 104,000 2020 126,800 172,900 The benefits of these supplemental supplies to the Contra Costa - 30 - County area can be most readily evaluated by comparison vdth the second lowest cost alternative source of supply of water with a quality of equal standards. The lowest cost alternative was used as an alternative cost in the cost allo- cation studies discussed in Chapter V. The potential sources considered were: (1) an expansion of the Contra Costa Canal through the Federal Central Valley Project; (2) purchase of a supply through the East Bay Municipal Utility District; or (3) local purchase of salinity control outflow and independent t supply facilities from the river. Expansion of the Contra Costa Canal potential was found to be the most economical and was utilized as an alternative cost. Purchase of a supply through the East Bay Municifjal Utility District was found to be the second lowest cost alternative and was utilized as the benefit of supplemental water supply. A value of $20 per acre foot was placed upon this water for the purposes of computing the benefit. Alternative supplemental supply to Delta areas in Solano County could be most cheaply accomplished by diversion out of the North Bay Aqueduct or a" similar system. The second lowest cost alternative was assumed to cost the same as that of Contra Costa County, $20 per acre foot of water. This value was used in computation of the benefit of supplemental water supply to Solano Coiinty. Table 14 presents the anticipated delivery schedules by decades for both areas. The I960 present worth of the benefit of supplemental supply to Contra Costa County would be $26,482,000, and the benefit to Solano County would be $3,886,000, - 31- TABLE 14 Schedule of Supplemental Water Deliveries to Portions of Contra Costa and Solano Counties Within the Western Delta Year Deliveries, in thousands of acre- feet per year Contra Costa Solano 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 58.7 102.7 150.4 193.1 232.2 1.5 18,0 55.0 130.1 - 32 Flood and Seepage Control Benefits The fortunate combination of ffertile soils, convenient water supplies, and shallow-draft shipping xo Central California markets led to the development of an intensified agricultural economy in the Delta, Initial reclamation of the marshland begem slowly after passage of the "Arkansas Act" in I850. This activity was accelerated in I861 by pas- sage of the "Swampland Act" by the State Legislature, The reclamation started on the periphery and gradually worked into the heart of the deep peat areas in the center of the Delta area. Table 15 presents the accumulated acreages reclaimed by decade, TABLE 15 PROGRESSIVE RECLAMATION IN THE DELTA"^ : Acreage : Permanent : Accumulated Year ; reclaimed ; inundations ; acreage 15,000 88,000 158,000 216,000 309,000 403,000 419,000 Ul6,000 Ul6,000 i+16,000 "17 The Delta as defined by the lowlands boundary, 2/ Lower Sherman and Big BresJs (Porter Estates). 2/ Franks Tract, 1860-1870 15,000 1870-1880 73,000 1880-1890 70,000 1890-1900 58,000 1900-1910 93,000 1910-1920 94,000 1920-1930 1930-1940 20,000 3,oocr 1940-1950 1950-1960 - 33 The first levees were constructed by coolie labor and by use of Fresno scrapers. The levees were modest in height euad width, and ususilly were intended to give protection from only slightly higher them normal water stages. High stages would cause inundation; however, since reclaaation costs were not great, a fanner could get back into business with a reasonable outlay of cost and effort. As the intensi- fication of agriculture, and correspcaadingly, the required degree of flood protection increased, there was a constant search for more effi- cient methods of levee construction. The Delta has suffered from many floods during the past 100 years. Most of the isleinds and tracts have been inundated at least once since reclamation and seme have been flooded on several occasions. During the period I9OO through I96O, 1+67,000 acres of reclaimed land have been flooded in the Delta, not including intmdation of lands located in the Yolo Bypass. Kie U67,0O0 acres flooded in the past 60 years are equal to the entire land area of the Delta lowlands. A svimmary of historical in- xindations is shown in Table I6. - 3U TABLE 16 HISTORICAL INUNDATIOUS IN THE DELTA"^ Year : Acres inundated : Year : Acres inundated 1900 12,900 1926 3,400 1901 20,800 1927 2,200 1902 14,700 1928 8,900 1901+ 75,900 1932 3,000 1906 63,100 1936 5,100 1907 nit, 700 1937 3,000 1908 12,U00 1938 19,000 1909 1+3,500 1950 20,900 1911 9,200 1955 11,500 1925 11,800 1958 11,200 1/ Inundations occuring in the Yolo Bypass are not included in this table. Reclamation Problems The highly organic soils which make the Delta a rich agri- cultural area also present serious difficulties in the reclamation and operation of the land. Land subsidence, poor foundation conditions, and excessive seeijage are paramount among these problems. Each of these problems was relatively minor at the time of original reclamation, but with the passage of time, they have grown in severity to a point where they are jeopardizing the continued econanical operation of many acres of Delta land. Tliese factors are significeuatly reflected in land values throughout the area, which are only a fraction of the reasonable worth - 35 - of the products grown. Land having a net income potential in excess of $100 per acre per year is valued between $U00 and $600 per acre. The ever-increasing reclamation costs, and. the constant threat of floods are thus evidencing themselves in the economy of the area. Land Subsidence. Early measurements by W. W. Weir and sub- sequent studies by F. E. Broadbent have attributed the principal source of land subsidence in the Delta to the surface layer of organic soils. AdditionsLl evidence of this fact is being borne out by area-wide level nets which have been established and are being periodically resurveyed by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey \ander contract to the Department of Water Resources. Potential deep-seated subsidence caused by the ex- traction of natursJ. gas from the Rio Vista and. River Island gas fields has been investigated and appears to make up only a small portion of the historic subsidence. The deep peat areas of the Delta have been found to subside at an average rate of 1 foot every k years, complicating the problems of flood and seepage control. As the land surface gradually lowers with respect to the water surfaces of the channels surrounding the Delta islands, the rate of seepage into the islands increases. Because of this, the drainage costs in the Delta have steadily increased. Foundation Conditions. Subsidence, coupled with the poor foun- dation conditions provided by the peat soils, has created problems in levee construction and maintenance peculiar to the Delta. The foundation conditions have limited the height of levees in some locations, preventing tinliinited flood protection. Ccaisolidation of the highly compressible organic soils has resulted in frequent and costly levee raising in order to maintain the desired degree of protection. Subsidence has contributed - 36 - to levee instability by increasing the hydrostatic forces acting against the levees and the seepage forces acting beneath the levees. The problems in constructing and maintaining a levee system on organic foundations are numerous. The peat soils of the Delta are un- stable when loaded, both in respect to continuing consolidation over periods of years, and in respect to nonpredictable losses of shear strength under a variety of conditions. The increased stresses in the f otuadations , resulting from continued land subsidence, and the associated increase in levee height are causing a loss in flood protection. This effect on flood frequencies was analyzed with a series of stahility analyses comparing soil stress in levees and. foundations under condi- tions of auaticipated subsidence. Plate 10, "Subsidence and its Relation to Levee Stability", summarizes the findings of this study. f' Experimental levee studies authorized by Chapter I765, California Statutes of 1959> are being conducted at various points within the Delta. These studies will increase present knowledge in the field of organic soil mechanics and will assist in the development of more econcxniced levee standards . Seepage Problems. The seepage problems within the Delta today are much more severe than they were when the islands were first reclaimed and conditions will worsen as subsidence of the organic soils continues. The rate of seepage inflow is dependent upon the permeability of the water- carrying strata and upon the difference in elevation between the channel water surface and the ground water surface within the islsinds. The interiors of most of the Delta islands have areas which are at least 10 feet below sea level, with some areas 15 or more feet below sea level. Ground water sxirfaces are usually held 2 feet below the l£uid - 37 - surface and the mean tidal elevation of channels within the central Delta is approximately 1.5 feet above mean sea level. This results in a seepage- producing differentiaO. head of at least 13*5 feet, as shown on Plate 10. In order to ciiltivate the land and maintain proper conditions for plant growth, the ground water surface must be maintained at least 1.5 feet below the ground surface. To accomplish this, a network of drainage ditches must be dug to collect the seepage water and deliver it to a pumping plant located Just inside the levee. The pump or pxanps lift the drainage water over the levee and discharge it into the adjacent chan- nel. Some of the water removed is runoff from rainfall or excess irriga- tion water, but the major portion of the drainage costs can be attributed to seepage. The hydrologic equation has been utilized to estimate the rates of seepage inflow for various Delta islands. The equation is given below: S = Os + ET-P-Is±AST S = the amount of seepage inflow or outflow Os « the surface outflow ET = evaporation and transpiration losses ~^\ P = precipitation Ig = surface inflow 000 acres, differential head of 20 feet between the channel water surface and the is- land gro\ind water surface, smd a present seepage rate of 0.2 acre-foot per acre per month. The present annual seepage inflow would be given by the following equation: Seepage = 0.2 acre -feet /acre x 5,000 acres x 12 months ^ i2,0OO acre-feet/year, month year Since the soils of this island are organic and subsidence occurs at the rate of 1 foot every k years, the seepage -producing differential head will increase to 25 feet in the next 20 years. The seepage rate would then te 1^ X 0.2 acre-feet/acre ^^ 0.2^ acre -feet/acre ^ g^^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^ „^^^ 20 month month then be 0.25 x 5,000 x 12 = 15,000 acre-feet per year.. ^ The annual seepage into this island would continue to increase by 3,000 acre -feet each 20 years \intil subsidence has removed the organic soils and exposed the underlying mineral soils. Land Use Patterns Since a large portion of the lands within the Delta area is used for agricxoltural purposes, detailed studies of historic and present crop patterns have been made. Present and past crop patterns and informa- tion obtained from interviews with local growers smd county farm advisors were used as the basis foir predicting a representative crop pattern for the period of ancilysis. The Ccxnprehensive and Typical Alternative Delta Water Projects would provide flood protection by enclosing groups of islands within a system - UO - of master levees. In order to evaluate the flood control aspects, it was necessary to determine representative future crop patterns for each of six island-groups. The location of these groups is shown on Plate 11, "Location of Island-Groups". Table IT shows the present crop patterns for each island-grolip . Table l8 presents the projected crop patterns. The crop patterns, as projected to 1990, were assumed to be representa- tive of the analysis period I96O to 2020. The present crop patterns are based on a 1955 land-use survey of the Delta, made by the Division of Water Resotirces. No significant change in crop patterns was noted when the 1955 svirvey was compared with a crop survey of the western Delta made in 1958 and 1959 • Crop incomes were ccanputed for each crop. [Dae analyses are based upon production costs, crop yields, prices received, and cxilttireLL practices data as of I96O as determined from local agriculturalists and ccsnparative conditions elsewhere in the state. Table 19 presents a summary of these studies. Cost Per One Inundation The damages resiilting tram one intindation can be classified into three groups: (l) crop damage due to flooding; (2) reclamation costs; and (3) nonagricultural damage (not evaluated in this study). The magnitude of crop damages caused by flooding is dependent upon the crop being grown, the tine of occurrence of the flood, and the duration of submergence. A study of previous floods in the area revealed that approxi- mately 6h percent of the inxindations occurred during the period of October through February, with the remaining 36 percent occurring after March 1. The average duration of submergence is three months, with three weeks required for drying the land following dewatering. - Ul - 1 +3 tt C 0) 0; (Xi u •-i • • •• $ o m EH a> Vi < 1 +» vt a s g • • •• 0) U) J3 0) CO »H < 1 +> "S V4 C 0) 0) o Ph » • • •• +J a m 0) > PU o • • •• d a OB 1^ < • +> vi a V V Pl, +j »» •• H O (0 R 0} >4 < I +> »4 fl 0) V Oi u •H • • •• ^ 0) h u < ** 1 -p vi a Q V V O Oi u 43 •• •• H a 10 v H »^ < P^ «S C\l o-)ir\ H irsOMfNvo r-i cooo OJ J- J- vo vo 0\»>o O vo O irv o o CO rovo OirvOOr— OcnO Ocvit— t~ <-i o CVJ-* ir\rpu>v^vo ONmiTvcy ONVO rHOJf-OCOt^OCJCVJvOQoSj-jd- HH-:*HOC\jOrHHr4 t- ITvcD ON rH CO 00 H -* ONirs On I m I • I • I ^'-::j'- 1^ CVJ J- m CONO r~ H ^-^ (TNOOH-* CUHCO CVJCOITk • ••••••••••••••• CVIN0-*OHt-CVIN0OJ-OO-*ON0CVJ CVl H H t-ro-* NO o t— CVJ irv< CVl t-ND ( •« •» "S p. fc--* rd 5? "^ O CU (n CVJ CUNO LTNOO UA CU CU CO H m CVl NO C^ NO H CU CU •k "^ •* H CJNOO CU H IfNCO C3N I t^cn I ^- t~-00 I • •••••••I •«! •••! cnt>-0 O O C3Nf-cO I H H I ■-» H H I CU H i-H CO H ITNNO^ O ., . . Khno CU CO O-i CU en coQO -,.._,^_ ^CUH I O K r-l NO CU CO CO CU I copoOn CO coco I ^ ^ •* ^ C^ CV w-i coco CO coco CU I 00 CU^ I 'C- I ^ CU t>- I nTk I t>- c— b- I t-ONH rH ONON CU ITNlTv OCO CO • • • H ifNO H iTkCOvo ON^ CU ITNO ITNH rH • • • O O CU it^CTnh H H CU H ITN CO H O « • • CO J- CO H coco NO -*N0^3 POCO H" NO ITNH • • • H H t- CONO CU -* t-CO J- CO CO •* "k "H CU CU I CU t^ I O H I CU CU I rH t^ ^ •» H CO COCO J- • • • o uA r- NO CO ITi coco ITN CU 00 » CO g, 0) m 03 H >> bO CO ^ n s « H (0 CM O O V § (0 CO OJ o ■p c «] u o oj _ ^2 a a r-i a V a a .. ^ *^P^Umr-\u^^eietr-^ul•r^mai■^^u^A ri^^S^oouusiiriesi'oo-Has 9> 91 n H CO -H 01 U d OJ -P (U (h CO 8 +> CO Eh OJ 8 8 ITN CU •\ 00 CU CU 8 CO C7N ON 81 •\ -4- CU o 8 On O IfN fO IfN 8 H s CU CU 0\ O H CJN CO NO • ON CO CU CU CO H •5 ■P O -P a u Pui 5 o >> 0) u CTN C7\ (0 § CO fen U2 8. OS 00 g H Iz g EH 1 CO M to g ^ 1 -p h a V V 04 O • • •• H 5 (0 u H Vi o < • +> h a c 0} 0) 03 Ph o P •• •• 5 00 9) CO U U < • -P 1 Ol4 u > •• •• ■p a CO t> u a 9) V >) Ch O o • • •• d ^ m 0) u o < 1 -p »4 a 4) 0) P4 U +> •• •• H O (0 » « Vi V < 1 -p t4 a t) 0) Pli u •H • • •• (0 i_^ (U Vl u < 1 -p M fl c 9) 0) o Oi u +> • • •• V H m «a 0) M ti o < P< o u CJ t>-COir» H l/MTv^ O iH J- 03 O t— ^ 03 VO iTvVO H COOvOOOHl/NOaOOvOHOOOOjO H H H t-v^ cot~0-:tirkOcvji>-HQirvO\mro O CTxjtr mM? -* oj t— o Lf>vo oco h o C7\ COJ-OOHOCUOJCVJHOMrNOJCOOlfNOJ 0\ro t- rH CVJ CO 1-4 VO CMOD OJ rH H tr\ OJ ONHVO H OIOI lOOOl lOIOI I I •I •!! •••II 'I 'III fHIHI I0-*0\l IHI-^I I I cn O O O UMTMrx I H H I O O O OJ I • • • • I t~-c0f-0 •* H I O I • I V£) I OJ- I I • • I I O O I O On 0\ I I lA J iTvO J H H I I CO J- roir\ CVI t-t— I I t— t- t— •%•»•* •* •* H coco H r-l I Jt- I OD 0\ I I 00 I POOn I I -:* I J I OOOI lOOOl lOIOl I I •••II •••II •! •Ill OO J- Ol IJ-CUUTNI ICOICVJI I I rOH H CViOQl IQOOI lOlQi I I S-'O Qi ivficDirNi lo-icoi I I OvajOxl ICOHJ-I ICVJIHI I I •* ^ CM H OOO ICVIOOO lOOt-OHO I • ••I ••••! ••••••! J O ITk I O O tr\CO 1 H IfN H CU O ITi I i-i r-\ r^ H i/Nt-O vo O ir\ I ON CO H Id CO „ CO ITN OJ •» •» •^ 0\ J t- I ITN J- 00 0\ a- ^CMOO I QCVJCOQOSCM O ITN C\J I CS " •» •^ IfN UMTvdO •V a^ ^ • J- r-l H -=!■ OOOHC^OHOHHOOJOCVJOlTv • ••••••••••••••• COfcfN-* Oi-IOJ-t-OOVOOt-OCOCM OJ Q OO CVI ON J- HrHOIOi-4-COirNOOOJCO UN SO J UN£- t^ CM OJ LTMrSO O ONO if\ On ir\N-CVJ OOHHVO HHt^rHlTvOJ H C-l>- UN CVI CO CO 00 H H O O O Ol I O O O CO^ O O OJ H OOO OJ H OOO CM iO • ONVO H 00 H ITNOO I t-^- CM CM t— ir\ I On CM -^ I O COO t— O I • • • • • I CM H COH H H H HOO 00 J PO I H c^co^-^- i I CO ir\CO CM CM I I H UNOJ t>-J I •* "fc HVO O rH -v^ CO t~ 0-:t iTkO QJ t— H Q y> On CO CO ir\ CO CM > 0\ t^ COVO -* CM t— O LTNVO O CO H O C7N ir\ CJN f -* O O •k vv «\ OO Lf\ CO H CM OOO H t-CM UNI^I ICJNQUNI lUNIQl • I ITviTvO CJNIONI l-ihCOQl I^ICOI I I CTvv^ 0\ I CO I I On COCO I I O I CO I I I ^ H O J O • • • -It 00 <3\ CM IfNCJN OOO • • • CO ir\C3N H OOO t-lTNH CM J t- o o o • • • coco CM J- 00 NO H coiTv t— CM CO ^ "s •* CM r-o o o ! c8 ON I l/N\0 •\ •* CM irv rOO ITN • • • OvOOO CO UN J CMVO CO H invo •* ^ CM CO ol C (30 •H a aJ H >> tiO n A u a OJ fl fl -H r-i u u ai 9) d ^<«^cjcjoc5oo2iEa.pL.aiK^ 5eh (0 (0 (U fl A O _ _ . (0 0) o -p c6 -P S 0) CO ? -P M O (U 0) H OJ 10 o g o rH 3 ^< +3 4-1 CO oS 0> 8 8 l/N CM •\ 00 CM CM 8 00 C7N J- ON 81 CM 8 C3N H O O 8 CO l/N 8 rH O CM J- CM CJN O <3N CO NO CA CO CM CM CO H ^ '^ c u h3 TABLE 19 FARM INCOME PER ACRE BY CROPS^ Crop AlfsLLfa hay Asparagus Barley^ Com (grain) Corn (silage) 1/ Grain hay : : : : Gross : Variable: Fixed : Net ;Units;Yields; Price; incocie ; costs^icosts^tincome-i/ ton 6.0 25.00 150.00 48.20 79.50 22.30 cwt 23.0 12.00 276.00 119.00 110.10 U6.90 67.50 25.00 cwt 30.0 2.25 ton 2.5 60.00 150.00 60.20 ton 20.0 5.00 100.00 28.70 3.0 2U.OO ton 72.00 26.80 30.25 12.25 65.75 2J+.05 62.90 8.U0 3U.I+5 10.75 Irish potatoes cwt 230.0 2.20 506.OO 290.80 113. Uo 101.80 \^ Irrigated pasturi Milo Pears Sugar Beets Tomatoes (processing) cwt 6.0 20.00 120.00 4U.05 73.80 2.15 ton 2.0 60.00 120.00 1+0.70 ^ 66.80 12.50 ton 15.0 70.00 1,050.00 5^8.50 213.20 288.30 ton 21.0 11.50 2I1I.5O 121.85 85.25 31^.1+0 ton 18.0 22.50 ii05.00 252.75 98.35 53.90 1/ Principal crops; represent 96 percent of the crops grown in the study area. Basic data from crop budget work sheets. Prices and costs based on 1952-1956 base period. 2/ Includes hired labor, operators' wages, equipment and material costs, and a management charge. ^ Includes 5 percent interest on capital, depreciation, taxes, drainage costs, general expenses, and other allowances. kj The residual to management after all costs have been paid. ^ Grown in rotation and often in double-crop arrangements with other crops. Only one-half of the normal fixed costs is charged to these crops in this table. 6/ Pasture value converted into growth of beef cattle. Price refers to cwt beef produced. Fifteen Animal Unit Months, (AUM) carry- ing capacity produces 6 cwt beef. - hU - The per acre flood damages due to one flood were determined for each of the 12 major Delta crops. Damages were computed for floods occurring at various times during the year, and then weighted according to the historical record of occurrence. It was assumed that if an island was inundated prior to March 1, the island could be dewa tared and the land prepared for planting by Jiily 1. A normal crop of com, milo, or tomatoes can be obtained if planted prior to this date. The submergence of perennial crops, such as asparagus and alfalfa, causes the loss of at least a portion of the stand. The percentage loss is dependent upon the duration of the submergence. Consequently, the flood damage to perennial crops is the sxim of the damages incurred at the time of floods plus the losses due to reduced yields in subsequent years while a new stand is developing. Table 20 shows the total per acre crop damage due to a single intmdation for each of the 12 major crops. - )4S - ft. 1 o U (0 U CO o +> H 0) .. f. 0) o U Vi ■P o 0) (t-4 *?: H .. M (0 o H 3 o ^ 0) u > "-5 CO •• •• •• (U O U3 a O M c o •H H V hOH d 0] 1 -H^ ajH 'Baft 0) o •xi u u c 0) o 1 <^ CQ Tl CO ?^ (U -P X CO (A •H O U [Z4 U o H • • •• Oi ft H (0 O ^ -P Vi c8 CO O •H O u u 0) > 0) e^ O o • •••••••••«• ^ aiir\0\H o\r-ovoco osvo oooHirMPiHOiirNHOvooo (M OJ t- H OOOQOOOOO en en en O t~cn onvo oo • •••••••« CO m cn\D '^ cncno m -:t J- -* -d- fn-* ^ ^ J- I mo I cvj ro • • • H CO i/NOOOOOcTNOOcKoo ^ \0 ^ CO H r-i C\JCOHVOJ-J- •••••••••••• H ir\CO UNCQ CO H rH O CX) O 0\ CO J- if\ o CO vo t- 0\vo O fn C-- H CVJ H OJ t^H H I O I I I ^ I I I I I I O I L/^ I I I I I ^ I H I I I I I • I • I CVI Ol OQlAOUMrvOUMTMAlfMA H 0\ ^-M3 H t- COVO VO CO CVI O • ••••••••••• OJ COJ- H l/^^ coco ITNO IfNO COir\HCOHHHH 0-:tt^ H ro OOi I I I iio>Si I •••••III ••II ITNO O CO f-i f-t H CO OOirMTsoirNOOUNOirMrN lAHCVlt--CT\J-^COCDC\IC\irO • ••••••••••- OS O O l/N OJ -* novo r-l CO LPk t- H COM? VO COiH VOVD HCO i-i H CM ^ CO 5 VD -* O O 1^00 O H O O • ••••••••••# -* H coco O^J- UM^CVJJ- H COH HH^ ITNOJH H 88^8888888^8 O vo t~0 H CVJ H CVJ VD O O O H tr\ C^ O CVJ CVJ ITvjit O ITvH rH O CVJ J- 03 H OS (0 a CO u a u) •H b5 C8 H . . H •■-• aJ faO CO A CO o ft. s. 0) 3 CO ■p 9) 0) (0 8 Hfla-Hcoo+J^iajaj ^^^fi^HCfl-HHcocCbPE cviifnt ^^ voit^ ^ k6 The total crop damage by island-group due to one flood Is shown in Table 21. The damage was ccmiputed by sxunmlng the products of the per acre flood damages and the acreage for eeuih crop. TABLE 21 CROP DAMAGE BY ISLAND -GROUP (One Inundation) Is land -group : Acre : Damage Isleton k2,l60 3,775,700 Lodi 51,735 U,299,200 Holt 90,1^70 7,96l,U00 Tracy 9,002 876,800 Brentwood 2i+,792 1,730,506 Sherman 9A98 251,700 TOTALS 228,257 18,876,900 The reclamation cost is the Bxm of the expenditures re- quired to place the island or tract in production following a flood. This includes the costs of closing the levee break, dewatering the island, repairing levee damage caused by wave wash, Isjid leveling to correct soil erosion and deposition, and repairing the irrigation and drainage system. Costs of reclaiming Delta islands flooded in the past were studied in order to determine the average per acre expenditure re- quired to reclaim an invmdated tract. The Delta floods of 1955, in particular, provided m\ich information on reclamation methods and costs. Two hvmdred dollars per acre was determined to be a reasonable estimate of the expenditure required to return an island to agricultural pro- duction following a flood. The breakdown of this cost appears in Table 22. - 1.7 - TABLE 22 RECLAMATION COSTS PER ACRE Item • • Cost Closures $ ko Dewatering 15 Levee wash 55 Soil erosion 12 Land leveling ItO Irrigation and drainage 20 Subtotal $ 182 Contingencies, 10 percent TOTAL 18 $ 200 Flood damages other than crop losses and reclamation costs have not been evalviated in this report. The unevaluated damages are those to utilities, buildings, farm equipment, and rosuis. - kd Comparison of Wonpro.iect ajid Project Flood Damages Project benefits due to reduced inxindations have been evaluated by a coniparison of projected flood damage costs -vrLth and -^d-thout the project. Since each of the two projects have common island groups, this comparison has been compiled by island groups. Monproject Conditions . The present flood frequencies were furnished by the Sacramento District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers. The island flood frequencies are based on the frequency of river stages at three gaging stations within the Delta and on the elevations of the levee crowns. It is recognized that flood damages computed using flood freqtiencies determined by this method, are conservative. Inundation of land within the Delta protected by levees is usimlly due to structural failure of the levees rather than overtopping. Continued subsidence will tend to reduce levee stability in the Delta. The reduced stability will cause an increase in inundation. For the purpose of evaluating future flood damages, the flood frequencies based on overtopping were modified to reflect decreasing levee stability bj' increasing the flood frequencies by the ratio of present to futvire stability factors. Damages, benefits, and costs in this report are presented by island group. For this reason the present and predicted future flood fre- quencies of each island group vrere determined by calculating the weighted averages of the island flood frequencies. The average annual flood damage for each island group was determined for the years I96O, I98O, 2000, and 2020 by multiplying the damage due to one inundation by the island-group flood frequency. The average aiiniial flood damages for nonproject conditions are shown in Table 23. Project Conditions . One hundred three thousand acres, including 95^000 acres of crop land, are afforded flood protection by the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project. The Comprehensive Delta Water Project will protect 252,000 acres, 228,000 of which are crop lands. - 49 - The Typical Alternative or Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would provide flood protection by a master levee system which would divide the Delta islands into groups. A system of channel closures in the master levee system wovild exclude flood waters from the interior channels of the island groups. The master levees wo\ild be constructed to a height well above the anticipated flood stage and would furnish greatly improved protection against structural failures . The improvement in structural staoility would be obtained by the construction of a berm on the landward side of the levee. This berm woiild act as a counterweight, resisting forces tending to produce movement along a circular arc or failure due to spread- ing. Studies of past levee failures have revealed that the circular or spreading failures are the most common type. For the purpose of evaluating flood damages under project conditions, the flood frequency has been assumed to be one iniondation in 1,000 years. Reduced stability due to subsidence has been accounted for by adjusting the flood frequency for future conditions. Plate 12, "Projected Average Annual Inundations", shows the average nixmber of acres flooded per year at present and in the future, with and without the Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects . The average annual dajnage due to inundation after construction of the Comprehensive or Typical Alternative Delta V/ater Projects is shown in Table 2k. 50 - ■^ !>> O V -H fl -P a, o Tij ^ o o QJ -P o^ o fd o CO "^ !>. o Pi +3 rH o o •H cd Q u H CO H J- CO CO t- VD -:t CO ^ • • • • 00 H CO CO CO OJ CO CO 8 CO O CO OJ o 00 8 CO OJ H O O CO 8 • CO • • • H c~ o CO VT) 1^ LP^ H • • • • • • H VD H [>- ON OJ CVJ CO H H 8 J- H 8 o o H H 8 8 ■p 0) H (0 ON ON CO 1-5 i CQ -g CJ oo CO M3 OJ t- H OJ t- • • • • • • ^ H vo VD OJ OJ OJ 8 H 8 H O O H O O o H O O CO t- ON •V VO OJ t- CVJ C7N -cf CO OJ • • • • • • OJ ^ CO 00 ITN LfN H ITN ^ CO vo VD O H VO •s *•: •V •v •\ •\ CM -=^ VD VD CU OJ H r- CVJ O o O O O o CO H CO O U-N J- • • • • • • CO CO CJn 00 VO t- CO CO VD 00 OJ C?\ OJ OJ IfN ON OJ CM CM CM o U~\ CM o CO CM VD CO ON t- ON O t- c- ^- -* O •^ •v •\ •V •\ •^ OJ H -^ o CJN (JN -4- UN OJ ON o c > -p s s a ■p H o t- t- t- ^ ^ •\ •\ •^ •V ^ H J- o ^/^ On On O OJ iH CO o o o t- I^-ON • • • • • • • • o o CO ON OJ CO ^^ H t- OJ UN HVO OJ ^ VO ON '^ CO OJ ON l- VD c— i OJ 1 ITN OJ n •s •* *> ON ^ ON CO OJ OJ CVJ - 5U Annual expenditvires for flood maintenance costs within the Delta are made by the local reclamation and protection districts, the island operators, the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the Sacramento River Flood Control District, and the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control District. The total annvial cost of flood maintenaxice costs in the Delta has been determined to be approximately $4.50 per acre. This figure was developed from information furnished by the Sacramento District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers, from records or reclamation districts, and from interviews with representatives of these districts. Construction of the Comprehensive or the !I^ical Alternative Delta Water Projects ■v>rill materially reduce the local expenditiires for flood control. At present there are 5IO miles of levees within the six island groups which would receive additional flood protection if the Comprehensive Delta Water Project is constructed. Under project conditions, annioal maintenance costs would be reduced on 2'^k miles of levee and the Department of Water Resources would maintain I7I miles of project levees. Due to the increased flood protection, a saving in flood fighting costs would also be realized. The two island groups which are furnished flood protection by the Typical Alternative Delta V/ater Project are presently protected by 233 miles of levees. Construction of the master levee system would reduce maintenance costs on 1^3 miles of interior levees. The State will maintain 71 miles of project levees. The annual benefit due to reduced flood maintenance costs is the s\jm of the reduction in maintenance costs of interior levees and flood fighting. At the present time these costs are borne by local districts with only emergency funds coming from State and Federal sources. - 55 - In order to evaluate the project benefits due to reduced flood control costs it was necessary to determine the present cost and to ascertain the future costs under both project and nonproject conditions. Flood main- tenance expenditures under present conditions, the determination of which has been described earlier, were adjusted for future conditions by evaluating the effect of subsidence on levee maintenance costs. Construction of the master levee system and channel closures by excluding flood flows and high tides from the interior channels, will reduce the required maintenance on these levees. Under nonproject conditions levee maintenance costs have been increased for future subsidence -induced stability problems. It has been assumed that under project conditions the present levee maintenance cost per foot will be sufficient to maintain the interior levees. It has also been assumed that the maintenance cost of the exterior levees, which -vTill continue to be maintained by the Sacramento River and Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Districts, will not be affected by project operation. Table 27 shows the annual costs of flood maintenance with and without the master levee system for each of the six island groups and the resultant annual benefit. The i960 present worth of the flood control benefit due to re- duced maintenance cost is $5,658,000 for the TVpical Alternative Delta Water Project; and $12,937,000 for the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. The average annual per-acre benefit of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project is $1.85 during the construction period, and $3.32 after the project is in full operation. Table 28 shows the benefits to island groups. 56 TABLE 27 ARIWAL EEKEFITS DUE TO REDUCED FLOOD 14AIKTENAWCE COSTS (in thousands of dollars) Island group : i960 : 1980 : 2000 : 2020 Isleton Costs without project 226.9 306.9 37i^.9 i^23.9 Costs with project m.5 190.1 205.0 Benefits 132. i+ 18I1.8 218.9 Lodi Costs id-thout project 255.0 3^4.0 379.0 i|02.0 Costs with project 176.0 176.0 176.0 Benefits 168.0 203.0 226.0 Subtotal Costs vrLthout project i+81.9 650.9 753.9 825.9 Costs with project 350.5 366.1 381.0 Benefits 300.4 387.8 hkk.9 Holt Costs v/ithout project i+i^2.8 3^9 '8 633.8 703.8 Costs -v/lth project 319.0 319.0 319.0 Benefits 230.8 31^.8 384.8 Tracy- Costs without project 45.3 55.7 55.7 55.7 Costs -vrith project 17.7 17.7 17.7 Benefits 38.0 38.0 38.0 Brentwood Costs without project li^8.0 182.0 195.0 203.0 Costs with project 90.2 90.2 90.2 Benefits 91.8 101^.8 112.8 Sherman Costs without projects kQ.O 70.0 92.0 113.0 Costs -vrith project 3^.3 45.1 55.i^ Benefits 35.7 k6.9 57.6 Total Costs without project 1,166.0 l,508.U 1,730. ii 1,901.4 Costs \rit'h project 811.7 838.1 863.3 Benefits 696.7 892.3 1,038.1 57 ^ EH w O U o p § o i B Eh O Eh fM U) -P •H - H H ON H H ONOO ONV£) H OO VO CO H OJ OO ON iH OO OOD- t--ON D-- l/N H-cl- ONON VP CO -5 00 CO ON t^ OJ OJ LP> V£> O VO 3 oo o ON VD ON VO OJ oo LTN oo ON Q) oo ra w H 03 crt oo C) (I) •V u u t-- a o J- oo VO •\ LTN l/N VO 00 ON OJ O H cu VO VO ON VO CO CO •V ON -4- CO OJ OJ oo o LTN o H 00 LTN OJ •\ OJ u\ Oi m 0) !> OJ u o •H U 05 U O •H U •H C O 03 03 O O -P •H I ■S O H tH 03 H ^ 0} 03 •H S» Eh O h1oj17o|-3^ - 58 Comparison of Nonproject and Project Seepage Control Costs The present average anniial cost of seepage control in the Delta has "been calc\ilated to be approximately $3.50 per acre. This figure vas obtained by using data appearing in l6 auditors' reports of the annual expenditures for one or more years of 11 Delta reclamation districts. The BJinvial expenditures of the reclamation districts were divided into the following groups: (l) seepage costs, (2) flood maintenance costs, (3) other operation and maintenance costs, (h) miscellajieous equipment costs, and (5) supervisory and administrative costs. Items (3)^ {^) , and (5)^ were divided between seepage and flood control in proportion to the expenditures for each. Therefore, the seepage control cost includes the annual cost for: cajials and ditches; purchase, operation, and maintenance of pumping plants; and a proportional share of the costs which were not expended specifically for either flood or seepage control. The pumping plant power costs, as determined from the annual reports of the reclamation districts, were verified by using the information obtained from the 195^-55 hydrologic studies conducted on 33 Delta islands and from the hydrologic study presently being conducted on Tv;itchell Island. Future costs of seepage control were computed by evalioating the effect of continued subsidence on each component of the seepage control cost. Pumping costs were increased by the square of the ratio of future seepage rates to present seepage rates. This v;as done becaiise subsidence not only increases the amovint of seepage water to be removed by pxmiping, but also increases the required p\miping life. 59 Ditching and related drainage costs were increased by the same ratio of future seepage rates to present seepaige rates. Increased seepage inflow will require the digging of additional drainage ditches in order to control the ground water table at the desired depth below the land surface. It \Ta.s assumed that supervisory and administrative costs would remain at the present rate of approximately 12 percent of the operation and maintenance costs. The present and future annual costs of seepage control, assum- ing continued subsidence over the Delta lowlands, are sho-vm in Table 29- TABLE 29 ESTIMATED Al^HIUAL COSTS OF. SEEPAGE CONTROL IN THE DELTA (Assuming continued subsidence) Year : Cost per acre i960 $3.50 1980 5.00 2000 6.80 2020 8.90 Subsidence, however, will not continue unabated over the entire area. Each year the surface area of organic soils decreases as mineral soils are exposed. The amount of subsidence which can occur in the futiire is limited by the depth of organic soils . This factor was considered in evalijating future seepage rates in each of the island groups. The present depths of organic soils are sho-vm on Plate I3, "Areas of Peat and Related Organic Sediments". 60 - 1 Construction of either the Typical Alternative or Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would reduce seepage in the Isleton island group (47,300 acres), and in the Lodi island group (55^700 acres). Seepage control costs would be reduced for 241,900 acres of the Delta by construction of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. The island groups benefited would be Isleton, Lodi, and Brentwood (32,300 acres); Holt (96,700 acres), and Tracy (9,900 acres). For the piorpose of calciilating the costs of seepage control, ■sdLth either the Typical Alternative or the Coinprehensive Delta Water Project in operation, it was assumed that the water siirface of the interior channels would be maintained five feet lower than the present mean elevation. This could be done in most channels without seriously affecting either navigation or the operation of irrigation siphons. A five -foot reduction of the hydrostatic head woiild have the same effect as raising the land surface 5 feet. This is equal to 20 years of subsidence at the rate of 1 foot per k years. Seepage control costs under project conditions were calciilated by ass\miing that seepage from the exterior channels would not be affected by the project and seepage from the interior channels would be reduced by the 5 -foot reduction in hydrostatic head. The seepage control benefits for each island group are shovm in Table 30. Summary of Flood and Seepage Control Benefits Construction of the master levee system and channel closures would benefit the area by reducing flood damages, and by decreasing flood and seepage control costs. The total I96O present worth of the flood and seepage control benefit is $11,982,000 for the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, and $23,119,000 for the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. A summary of these benefits is sho^m in Table 31. - 61 - o CO I i o o o EH to O O « CO EH H g ^ OS H H O tJ "in O m -H 05 to § •P H 0) M 3 O u ha H CO H rH O rH • • • H < mo H • • • C\J H O On OJ LTN m oo H t— en vo •\ •V 1^ ir% -* ITv o 00 VD H o\o H OJ I •vH O On •H H o •H -P O ■P 0} I H ■^ moN VD H ONO H OJ I _^o ■riCO O ON •H H U d) •\ Pi Ci P. g m [- I ^^ moN vo H o\o H O] I O ON d) •>. Pi 5 •H P O P CQ C O O •H •P OS ^H 0) & H o •H P O P CO a o o •H P <1> §• H CO moN vo H ONO H OJ •>o\ O ON •H H M (U •> o |^^ o •H p o p to fl o o •H P OS 0) & H ■^ s OJ ^ -* o ^ u\ CO 00 LfN ON vo 00 OJ -It •» ^ •V ^ '^ ON OJ m s o ^ ;^ vo (u (u •H o\ s> > -g H < vo;^ 3^ •^o •H 05 +> , ton 62 - 1^ i Eh o o H ^ ^ CO 3 u cd s H H +> O c fi4 -d o o O •H -P U Q) ■P ■P O o oJ U -P ■^ -^^ 5 fl m 3 o o o o o o o EH CO §• , -P p o O CO -p ■p -p o o o ir\ o LPv -* ITN ON •\ •V •n » CVJ ON 1- -ee- -»> 1 8 O O ON •v •s •\ Q CVJ OJ H o\ s -e©- • ITN OJ OJ •V •* ro CO •«5- •«3- g s O •\ •s •\ t- On t- ir\ vo ■Vi- -t^ o o 8 ON 1 •^ •n •\ M3 ON vo l/N vo -ee- •«e- o o o 8 s •V •s r^ H ■t^ -€«■ O o o -(B- CO ■te- CO •H t^ o U 1 « l^ EH 68 - In order to determine the project benefits to recreational traffic, the reduction in travel times to points within the Delta from population centers outside the Delta was calculated. Since Delta recrea- tion is water oriented, the ass\anption was made that the benefit to recreational traffic would be proportional to the miles of shoreline which would become more accessible, euad to the reduction in travel times to these areas. The eveuLuation of the travel time saved wsis based on a value of $9 for a 6-hour recreation day. The $9 figure was developed from studies of expenditures by fishermen made by the California Department of Fish and Game. Inclioded in the cost of a recreation day are the expendi- tures for eq\iipment, meals, lodging, and automobile expenses. It is recognized that expenditvires by Delta recreationists vary over a wide range, depending upon the activity engaged in; and it is assumed that $9 per day is representative of the average expenditixre . The benefit resiilting from reduced travel distances was based on an automobile operation cost of k cents per mile. Construction of the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would, reduce the travel time from euijacent cities to ^4-1 miles of Delta shoreline by 20 minutes and woiild reduce the travel time to 7 miles of shoreline by kO minutes. The Comprehensive Delta Water Project wo\ild produce a 20-minute saving to 65 miles of shoreline and a UO-minute saving to 15 miles of shoreline. No attempt was made to evaluate benefits due to savings of less than 20 minutes. Table 33 shows the present and projected recreation xise of the Delta, as developed in the office report on recreation, and the 69 benefits to recreation traffic which wotild result from the construction of the Typical Alternative or the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. The i960 present worth of the benefit would be $8,0^5,000 for the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, and $13,897,000 for the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. TABLE 33 AMUAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS DUE TO IMPROVED RECREATIONAL ACCESS (in thousands) Annual benefit Year .Delta recreation , '.vse, in user days! T^ical Alternative : Comprehensive Delta Delta Water Project ; Water Project i960 2,780 1980 5,175 2000 8,908 2020 13,878 558 963 1,500 966 1,662 2,590 The cost of transporting agricultural products to market would also be reduced by the improved accessibility which would restilt from construction of a master levee system. The evaluation of the annual benefit to agriciiltural traffic was based on farm-to-market trucking costs and agric\iltural productivity. Agricultviral productivity is expected to increase in the future, as it has in the past, due to iinprovements in crops, fertilizers, and farming methods. This increased productivity is reflected in the annual benefits to agricultural traffic shown in Table 34. The I960 present worth of the benefit to agricioltural traffic provided by the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project is $31^6,000, and the benefit resiilting from construction of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project is $1,200,000 70 TABLE 3^ ANNUAL BRNEFIT TO IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL TRANSPORTATION (in dollars) : Benefit Year : Typical Alternative : Comprehensive Delta Water Delta Water Project : Project 1980 $33,200 $115,000 2000 iK),500 ll»0,300 2020 M^,200 153,^+00 Summary of Transportation Benefits Construction of either the Typical Alternative or the Compre- hensive Delta Water Project will produce transportation "benefits by in5>roving vehicular access, by reducing co\inty operation and maintenance costs, and by providing additional parking areas on the berms of the master levee system. The benefit due to reduced county expenditures for ferry operation and road maintenance, and the benefits realized by recreational and agricultxiral traffic because of improved vehicxilar access are summarized in Table 35. The Single Purpose Delta Water Project and the Chipps Island Barrier Project woiold be constructed and operated as single-purpose water supply projects and would provide no vehicular transportation benefits. 71 TABLE 35 SlMfARY OF TRANSPORTATION BEaiEFITS (in thoviseuids of dollars) : Typical Alternative Delta Water Project Benefit : Recreation : Agricultxire : Operation and maintenance savings ! Total Anniial benefit 1980 558.0 33.2 67.6 658.8 2000 963.0 140.5 67.6 1,071.1 2020 1,500.0 kk.2 67.6 1,611.8 i960 present worth 8,0^5.0 3U6.3 891^.2 9,285.5 Comprehensive Delta Water Project Benefit ; Recreation j Agriculture : Operation and ! maintenance ! savings ; Total Annual benefit 1980 966.0 115.0 112.0 1,193.0 2000 1,662.0 lltO.3 n?.o 1,911^.3 2020 2,590.0 153. »^ n?.o 2,855. 1+ i960 present worth 13,897.0 1,200.0 1,520.6 16,617.6 72 - Recreation The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a popvilar recreation area because of Its many miles of sheltered waterways and Its prox- imity to population centers in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay area. Recreation In the Delta Is primarily water -oriented. Fish- ing, cruising, water skiing, and hunting are the most pop\ilar recrea- tional activities. In i960 the estimated recreational use of the Delta was 2,780,000 user-days. Sixty-two percent of this use was by residents of the adjoining Counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, and Soleuio. Recreationists from the bay area Counties of Alameda, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo were responsible for an additional 30 percent of the use. As the populatiois of these nearby coxinties increase, the recreation demand on the Delta will also in- crease. The present and projected pop\ilations of these counties and the resultant recreation demand on the Delta are shown in Table 36. Although the perimeter of the Delta is easily accessible frcin nearby population centers, travel within the Delta is time- consuming. The 700 miles of Interconnected channels and the limited number of vehicular crossings often cause the recreatlonist to follow circuitous routes when traveling from point to point within the Delta. Additional time delays are caused by drawbridge and ferry operation. With proper waterway zoning, the Delta channels will be able to handle the projected recreation demand. However, even at present there is a shortage of land available for public recreation use and for parking areas. A recreation survey— ' conducted in I96O 1/ Appendix to Bulletin No. 76, "Recreation". - 73 - CVJ SI 55 o w g fl to 4* trj <3 0) g I V a h ^ B «> U « (0 Oh d a (p o -H >> ■p tJ « (0 (H ^ 8 « U 4) U> 0) •o :3 . § 8 o +> o a a -P O (0 S p a & g 21 a o •H ■P »4 OS 5| 0.^ +> §^ o o U H aa (I4 1^"^ o o CO H CVJ CM cvi >» ■p i g. m 00 so CO o 00 ^ u\ O vo ^ H cy CM On CO 8 CO CM b- vo CM :$ ?^ & &; •^ •% ^ CM CM H »r\ ^ ^ s ^ 1 00 CM H f 1 § 00 CM O O o ■p a i o to CO CO vo s rvj H O 8:£ (0 «) 95 03 UN CM r- vo CM -4- ITN irv CM •p i « cS H O lf\ s 5J & ^ tf\ CO J- CM CM CO 8^2 vo CM CO CO Its 8 "8 CM H O CM CO vo H CO g 3 ^ t- i-i H H CM O •P ■P ^ U o 1^ fl CO CO H VO UN CO CO CM Q if\ t- ^ H UN 8 CO OJ •» •» -pH 00 CM CM s CM 00 CO UN UN ^ t- UN CO as CO tJ H VO H t- CO S •t •V •» H •-I d UN H UN c^ 00 t- +> • • • • • VO UN CM t- i fl V n K I I -p Pi - 7^ by the Department of Water Resources revealed that boaters and water skiers are particiilarly interested in additional picnic areas and beaches. In many portions of the Delta, the only available parking areas for recreationists ' automobiles and boat trailers are along the shoulders of the narrow levee roads which, dviring days of heavy re- creational use, Ijupedes the traffic near boat launching facilities. Project Effects Departmental procedure for the determinaticm of recreation benefits has centered arovmd the "Trice-Wood Method" which requires a determination of recreation use of the study area with and without the project under consideration. The Delta recreation problem is, however, interrelated with alternative projects which make the use of this method nonapplicable for project formulation. For the purpose of this study (i.e., that of conparing alternative Delta projects), comparative evaluations of benefits to the recreationist have been employed. Upon project selection, a method compatible with other features of the State Water Facilities will be employed prior to final cost allocation; and recommendations will then be submitted to the Legislature for nonreim- bursable state allocation. Construction of the Chipps Island Barrier Project or any of the Delta Water Project altenxatives would affect the recreational use of the Delta. The four projects would be detrimental to the Delta fishery in varying degrees, and each project requires channel closures which would impair navigation. The Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would provide improved vehicular transportation net- works within the Delta, and would also provide additional public land for recreational us«. - 75 - Chipps Island Barrier Project. The Chipps Island Barrier Project would not include any physical works in the Delta upstream of the barrier. "Qierefore, the project would not impede boating movement within the Delta. The facilities to be constructed would not include improved vehicular transportation within the area. Pleasxire craft traveling between the Delta and Suisxin Bay would pass through navigation locks at the barrier. The lockage of these craft would cause a time delay of approximately 20 minutes. The worth of time delays is more easily determined for commercial vessels than for pleasure craft; in fact, the experience of passing through a lock may add to the boater's enjoyment. For the purposes of this study, the time delays at the barrier have been considered to be an intangible recreational detriment. The changes in channel regimen caused by the barrier at Chipps Island wovild affect both the migratory and fresh-water fish- eries. The effects of the barrier on each of the more Important species found in the Delta are discussed in the fish and game portion of this appendix. It is expected that the population of migratory fish, such as salmon and striped bass, would be significantly reduced by construction of the Chipps Island barrier. However, the populaticxi of fresh-water species in the barrier pool should increase. Single Purpose Delta Water Project. The Single Purpose Delta Water Project would be constructed and operated as a water sup- ply project as shown on Plate 3. Fovir control structures and six channel closures would be constructed in the Delta to accomplish this purpose. Small craft movement in the Delta would be somewhat restricted by control structures and channel closures . A small craft lock woxild, be included in the Mokelumne River control structure and smaill crecft would - t6 - pass thro\i0i the barge lock at the Ryde control structure. Closures at both ends of Fishermans Cut would exclvide vessels from that channel. The Holland Cut and Steamboat Slough control structures, and the closures on Old and Middle Rivers and Potato Slou^ will make it necessary for boaters to follow more circuitous routes. The existing intake structure at the headworks of the Cross - Delta Carnal near Walnut Grove has an overhejui clearance of only 6 feet when the gates are oi>en. This prevents many craft from using the canal when traveling between the Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers. The addi- tional intake works which would be included in the Single Purpose Delta Water Project would be constructed with an overtiead clearance of l6 feet with the gates open. This woiild enable the majority of small craft to travel between the Sacramento and Mokelumne Rivers via the Cross-Delta Canal. The Single Purpose Delta Water Project would affect the Delta fishery much less than the Chlpps Island Barrier Project. It is expected that the population of anadrcnnous species would be only slightly reduced and the project would have little or no affect on fresh-water species. Diiring construction, small islands in the channels would be I used as spoil areas for material dredged from the chemnels. One thousand nine hundred acres of land suitable for recreational development will be made available in this manner. The development of these areas would be handled by local eigencies. The value of these spoil areas as recreation lands has been assiuted to be $400 per acre, and this figure was used in evaluating the recreation benefit of the project. The benefit, at the time the land is available for development in 1975, wo\ild be $760,000. The 196O pres- ent worth of the benefit would be $431^,000. - 77 - Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects. The Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would be multipurpose projects providing improved vehicular access, flood control, and seepage control to portions of the Delta as shewn on Plates h and 5 respectively. The necessary channel closures would restrict small craft movements. The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would include 20 channel closures and 3 control strvictures, and the Comprehensive Delta Water Project would have 37 channel closures and k control stnictures. Small ciraft locks and portage facilities would be provided so that the interior channels of the island-groups would be accessible. The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would have two small craft locks and five small craft portage facilities. In- clvided in the Comprehensive Delta Water Project would be 5 small craft locks and 17 small craft portages. / The additional intake works at Walnut Grove would be identical for the Single Purpose, Typical Alternative, and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects. The effect of the Increased clearance on small craft movements has been previously discussed. The effects of the Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects on the Delta fishery are discussed in the fish and game chapter of this report. It is expected that the migratory fish popula- tion would be slightly reduced by the Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects. Construction of the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would produce 3,800 acres of new public water front land; 5,900 acres would be made available by the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. These acre- ages would included lands along the master levee right of way and land used as spoil areas. The value of these lands for recreation at the time - 78 - they are available for recreational development in 197^ has been assxmed to be $400. The 196O present worth of the recreational lands benefit would be $8^5,000 for the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, and $1,313,000 for the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. Svamnary of Project Effects on Recreation Each of the four projects discussed in this report would affect the recreational use of the Delta to some degree. The construc- tion of channel closures would generally be detrimental to the Delta fishery and to recreational boating. On the other hand, the channel closures included in the Typical Alternative €«id Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would be couponents of improved vehicular transportation systems which would benefit the Delta recreationists . Additional public lands STiitable for recreational development would be made available by construction of the Single Purpose, the Typical Alternative, or the Comprehensive Delta Water Project. The Chipps Island Barrier Project would have only two effects on Delta recreation: (l) the barrier would be detrimental to the Delta fishery; and (2) small craft traveling between the Delta and Suisvm Bay would be delayed at the barrier locks. The population of migratory fish would be significantly redioced, while the barrier pool would be bene- ficial to some fresh -water species, providing an adequate control of rough fish could be attained. The Single Pvirpose Delta Water Project would slightly reduce the population of migratory fish. The project's six channel closures and four control structures would restrict small craft movements. Through construction of the project, 1,900 acres of land would be made available for recreational development. - 79 - The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would reduce the population of anadromous fish. Small crcuft movements would he restricted by 20 channel closures and 3 control structures. Five small craft portage facilities and two small craft locks would he constructed to provide access to the interior channels. Vehicular transportation would be im- proved by the construction of 80 miles of project roads. The project would provide 3^800 acres of water front lands for recreational develop- ment. The Comprehensive Delta Water Project would reduce the popu- lation of anadrranous fish. Small craft movements would be restricted ty 37 chemnel closures and k control structures. Access to the interior channels would be provided by 17 small crsLft portage facilities and k small craft locks. An improvement in vehicular access would be provided by construction of 179 miles of project roads. The project would also make available 5>900 acres of water front land for recreational develop- ment. 80 Navigation The Delta channels, particularly the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, receive heavy use from commercial, military, and recreational traffic. Commercial and military use of the Delta Waterways and the effects of the Delta water facilities on this use will be discussed in this chapter. Water-borne freight movements, which both originate and terminate within the Delta, account for only a small per- cent of the tonnage transported on the Delta channels. The principal traffic is between ports in the Delta area and ports in the San Francisco Bay area or beyond. The major portion of this external traffic passes through the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento. Commercial traffic on the San Joaquin River consists of both deep- and shallow-draft vessels. Improvement of the navigation channel was originally authorized in 1876, and in 1926 Congress passed a bill authorizing construction of the Stockton Deep .Water Channel. The Port of Stockton has been a regular port of entry for ocean-going vessels since 1933. Prior to completion of the deep-water channel, shallow-draft steamships plied the San Joaquin River carrying both freight and passengers between Stockton and the Bay area. Railroads and highways now carry the passenger traffic, and tug-propelled barges handle the freight movements within the Bay and river system. Military supplies bound for Sharpe's General Depot 8i - Annex and Naval Supply Annex, (both at Stockton), are carried by barges and ocean-going vessels. The Sacramento River is navigable as far upstream as Red Bluff, 2k$ river miles north of its mouth, A channel depth of 10 feet at mean lower low water, and a bottom width of 150 to 200 feet, is maintained from Suisun Bay to Sacra- mento. At present, approximately two million tons of freight are transported by tugboat and barge each year on the Sacra- mento River. The possibility of a deep-water channel from Suisun Bay to Sacramento was first considered early in this century. Subsequent investigations revealed the eneindering and financial feasibility of the project. In 19U5 the U. S, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, recommended construc- tion of a channel 30 feet deep, by widening and deepening the Sacramento River and Cache Slough for the first 18 miles above Suisun Bay, and by excavating a new channel just inside the easterly boundary of the Yolo ;^rpass for the remaining 2$ miles to Washington Lake in Yolo County near the City of Sac- ramento. Construction started in 19U9, was interrupted by the Korean War, and was resumed in 1956. The deep-water chan- nel, the harbor and turning basin, and a barge canal connecting Washington Lake to the Sacramento River are scheduled for com- pletion in 1963. Military shioping on the Sacramento River is restricted primarily to vessels moving to and from the Marine Storage Activity at Rio Vista. - 82 - As mentioned earlier, only a small percent of the commercial traffic on the Delta's waterways is intra-Delta. iiugar beets, which are transported by barge to a processing plant near Tracy, make up the major portion of these internal freight movements. Petroleum and petroleum products constitute the largest single class of commodities transported on the Delta channels. Food products are next to petroleum products in annual water-borne tonnages. The tonnages of each of these commodities transported on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers are shown in Table 37 for the years 19^0 through 19^9. Table 38 shows the number of trips made by steamers, motor vessels, and barges on the tvio rivers during the period 19^0 through 1959. In order to evaluate the effects of the Delta water facilities on Delta navigation it was necessary to estim.ate future water-borne commerce. Consideration was given to the effects of the Sacramento Deep Water Channel, population and industrial growth in the Central Valley, and competition from other for-r.s of transportation. The use of petroleum and petroleum products in. the Central Valley is expected to increase in the future, mainly due to population groirth and the increase in the nurber of automobiles VTithin the service area of the two principal ports, It has been assumed that the percentage of oetroleum products 8: ^ a t>; ^a ;s gs p s c5 O •» •> •> •\ o ■LA o\ CM CO CO vO cr\ CN CM On C-- CO r- r^ CM CO O ■LA CO C>N cc H CO CO CO CM CO H H OO CM CM CA iH CM CM CO •LA c^ \A NO NO CA ON C-- r— CA On VO H •LA CA r- -Ct CJ a vC On •LA H CA f- co ■LA •LA •\ «\ •s •\ •% •X •^ •% •v •V —r ■LA lA CM _U CO CA OO ON ^ vD vO fA On v:) On O -=f -U H CM H OA H CM CM H H CM CM NO NO XA CO vO H CM CM CO NO O CA CA oo o •LA CT) C7n H CTn NO •LA CA CO H CA CA •LA fA fA NO CM OO CM CA CA CM CM H CO CA H CN ON NO H -^ CO c~- ^ r- CO a; H CO t-- C~- CA H CM 1^ _=(■ CO C-- CM co C-- O -^ o H •> •* •\ •* •» •\ •\ •V •\ •» r- o lA -3- On H CJn CO CO OO c— CJn H .=t CA O OA o OA c^ o CM •LA o •> CO On o OO 1>- i>- O OO C^ o r- •LA CA On -d- ON ■LA CA CO -=t _=t CM H O CO XA O CJN ON CA •LTN J- •s •\ •* •\ •\ »v •\ •» •V •\ •LA H CA CJn •LA CA r— NO H On CJn ■LA CC C~- CA H NO C-- J- 0— -3 NO CC On O -:J o On CJN NO CA CA CJn CJn CO OO 8 •LA CM O OO CM CA •LA OA so H H OO O OO CA CM CJn H CO •LA NO CN o- H NO ^ ^ NO CJn CTn OO o O NO o 7? CA CA OO co CM CM O r~- CJN NO C-- \A o CO O O CJn -^ o H O NO -^ CM -^ •LA NO •* •* •s •\ *\ •\ •s •> •\ •k on "LA •LA CM o CM r- O CA NO o CA H CA H H co o O H ■LA ■LA NO NO I>- OO On CJn OA CJn H Q -d- On _cf -^ O O NO H ^ Q OO CJn ON ^ NO On f- -J- H CM •LA ^ o O CA CM oo CJn •V •\ n •\ •\ •I •v •k •\ •\ NO OA C^ H ■LA o CJn CO OO H CM CO O ^ NO CA o -=t Nf) NO NO NO r^ CO On r— H H H O H CO CA -^ XA NO r- CO CJs ir\ ■LA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA On On CN CJn ON CJn On CJn On ON H H H H H H H H H H 84 - transported by water vri.ll continue at the present rate. Popu- lation f^rowth will also increase the economic demand for agri- cultural products vrtiich in turn vrill increase the annual tonnage of farm produce shipped by water. The projection of water-borne commerce (by comr.ioditj/) is shown in Table 39. Project Effects Each of the four alternative plans which are discussed in this report >ri.ll interfere with navigation to some extent because of the construction of channel closures which are either necessary to maintain the quality of export water, or to provide flood protection and seepage control. The projects, listed in order of decreasing detriments to navigation, are the Chipps Island Barrier Project, the Comprehensive Delta VJater Project, the Typical Alternative Delta ¥ater Project, and the Single Purpose Delta ¥ater Project. Chipps Island Barrier Project . The Chipps Island barrier would be located a short distance downstream from the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. All ship- ping between the Bay area and points within the Delta or upstream would experience time delays at the barrier. Two deep-draft navigation locks and one small craft lock would be constructed at the Chipps Island barrier. A tug- boat would also be provided at the barrier to assist vessels through the locks. A barge lock would be constructed at the Montezuma Slough closure to serve both barges and small craft. - 85 TABLE 38 CO^'^-iERCIAL TRAFFIC ON THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS Trips annually on San Joaquinj:/ : Trips annually on Sacramento V : Deep- : Shallow-: : draft : draft : Year ; vessels: vessels: Barges Total Deep- :Shallow- draft : draft ; vessels: vessels: Barges : Total 1950 ii36 Il,i421 2,836 7,693 5,160 3,781 8,9Ul 1951 308 5,25ii 3,213 8,775 5,669 ii,969 10,638 1952 3iili h,ii5U 3,279 8,077 U,8h5 1+,8U8 9,693 1953 235 li,806 3,03U 8,075 5,265 h,933 10,198 19Sh U20 3,831 2,393 6,610; 7,235 5,339 12,57li 1955 757 3,385 2,li23 6,565 6,8U3 5,181 12,02U 1956 1,039 2,991 1,781 5,8Ui U,805 li,l65 ■8,970 1957 1,082 3,U7li 2,965 7,521 6,207 5,278 ll,l;85 1958 1,158 3,091 2,U08 6,657 5,015 U,oUo 9,055 1959 l,liiii 1,U66 1,260 U,l67 2,253 2,377 a,63o 1/ Includes traffic in both directions on the rivers. TABLE 39 PROJECTION OF OOWIERCIAL NAVIGATION TONNAGES SACRAI^iENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS (In thousands) River and product 1980 2000 2020 Sacramento River Petroleiim and petroleum products Farm produce and food products Other commodities TOTAL San Joaquin River Petroleum and petroleum products Farm produce and food products Other commodities U,888 816 655 2,201 1,1U6 1,105 9,520 970 1,018 U,766 1,353 1,681 15,U20 1,0U9 l,li6l 6,359 11,508 17,930 8,U08 1,U73 2,697 TOTAL U,U52 7,800 12,578 86 - The navigation detriment of the Chipps Island Barrier Project would result from the time delays experienced by vessels passing through the locks. Deep-draft vessels vrould be delayed approximately 30 minutes passing through the locks, while tug and barge traffic would be delayed 20 minutes. The monetary value of these time losses has been determined by using operating costs of $135 per hour for deep-draft vessels and $35 per hour for a tug and barge. The cost per lockage would amount to two cents per ton of cargo for steamers and three cents per ton for a tug-pro- pelled barge. Since commercial craft passing the Chipps Island barrier site are usually empty on the return trip, the lockage detriment per ton of cargo delivered would be four cents for deep- draft vessels and six cents for barges. An average value of five cents per ton of cargo has been used in the computation of the navigation detriment to all commercial shipping due to construc- tion of the Chipps Island barrier. The projected annual tonnage which would pass through the locks at Chipps Island, and the resulting navigational detriments, are shown in Table UO. TABLE UO PROJECTED ANNUAL DETRIMENT DUE TO THE CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PROJECT (In thousands) Year : Projected tonnage : Detriment at 5^ per ton U23.8 5U0.6 753.0 965. U 1,215. U 1,525.U - 87 1970 8,ii76 1980 10,811 1990 15,059 2000 19,308 2010 2U,908 2020 30,508 It has been assumed that there will be a steadily increasing detriment to navigation during the construction period 19614.-70. The total I96O present worth of the detriment to com- mercial navigation through 2019 (the end of the analysis period), has been determined to be $13,969,000. The annual tonnage of cargo carried by military ves- sels past the Chipps Island barrier site during recent years has been equal to two to five percent of the commercial tonnage. The detriment to military navigation has not been evaluated due to lack of data on the cost of operating these vessels. An emergency navigation access would be included in the barrier because of national defense considerations. A sec- tion of the barrier would consist of concrete bins ^filled with sand. In the event of an emergency the sand would be pumped out and the bins towed out of the channel. This would eliminate time delays at the locks. During the period that the emergency access is open salt water incursion into the barrier pool would impair the barrier's usefulness as a water supply project. Comprehensive Delta Water Project . Channel closures are necessary in the Comprehensive Delta Water Project to accom- plish the purposes of water transfer, flood control, seepage control, and improved vehicular access. These channel closures will produce navigation detriments, such as time delays at locks and longer travel distances caused by the construction of channel closures without locks. The effects on navigation by the control - 88 structures at Ryde and Holland Cut, and the channel closures on the South Fork of the Mokelumne River at Little Potato Slough on the Mokelumne River at the San Joaquin River and on Kiddle River at Bacon Island, have been evaluated. The Ryde control structure, located on the Sacramento River near Ryde, will direct suirmier flows of the Sacramento River into the Delta Cross Channel near Walnut Grove and will be opened to allow winter flood flows to pass. A barge lock will be constructed at the control structure to handle Sacramento River traffic. The Sacramento River deep-water channel, when completed in 1963 » will reduce barge traffic on the Sacramento River at Ryde. It is expected that the shorter route provided by the deep-water channel will attract all barge traffic except local traffic servicing points south of Freeport on the Sacra- mento River. The evaluation of the, navigation detriment due to the time delays at the Ryde control structure was determined from the operating costs of tugs and barges, the magnitude of the time delay, and projected river traffic. Since commercial river traffic past Ryde will be related primarily to agricul- tural productivity after completion of the deep-water channel, the projected traffic reflects anticipated increases in pro- ductivity. The projected annual commercial navigation detriment due to the Ryde control structure is shown in Table hi* The struct\ire is scheduled for completion in 1970. 89 TABLE hi PROJECTED ANNUAL NAVIGATION DETRIMENT, RYDE CONTROL STRUCTURE i Annual detriment Year : (In dollars) 1970 7,500 1980 9,100 1990 10,000 2000 11,000 2010 11,500 2020 12,000 The Holland Cut control structure would be closed during periods of low outflow to prevent mixing of poor quality water vrith water in the Delta Cross Channel. The structure would be opened when necessary to permit flood flows in the San Joaquin River to pass unobstructed,^ >- At present the barge traffic to Mossdale, and to the sugar factory near Tracy, passes through Holland Cut and follows Old River to the Grant Line Canal. Construction of the Holland Cut control structure would force the barges to follow a less direct route, via Columbia Cut and the Delta Cross Channel. The navigation detriment would be due to the increased travel dis- tance and time. The estimated annual Holland Cut commercial navigation detriment is shown in Table U2. The structure will be completed in 1975. The closure of the South Fork Mokelumne River at Little Potato Slough, and of the Mokel\imne River at its confluence with the San Joaquin River, will eliminate barge traffic on the North 90 - TABLE U2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL NAVIGATION DETRIMENT HOLLAND CUT COOTROL STRUCTURE Year ; Annual detriment 1975 $19,900 1980 21,800 1990 2U,bOO 2000 26,^00 2010 27,600 2020 28,800 Fork of the Mokelumne and on that portion of the South Fork of the Mokelumne vdthin the Isleton island-group. Commercial traf- fic on these channels consist largely of sugar beet barges bound for Tracy. Subsequent to the construction of the above closures sugar beets grown in the vicinity of Staten and Tyler Islands would probably be shipped to Tracy by rail. The navigation detriment resulting from construction of the closures would be due to the increased shipping costs. The estimated annual com- mercial navigation detriment, which would result from the Mo- kelturane River closures, is shown in Table U3. Channel closures will be constructed in the Isleton island-group dviring 19714-. TABLE U3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL NAVIGATION DETRIMENT MOKELUMNE RIVER CLOSURES Year ; Annual detriment 1975 $ 9,800 1980 10,600 1990 11,700 2000 12,800 2010 13,500 2020 li;,000 91 The closure of Middle River at Bacon Island would, ■with the other channel closures in the Holt island-group, pro- vide flood and seepage control and improved vehicTxlar- access. After construction of the closure, farm produce would not be transported on Middle River, and it would be necessary to truck the produce approximately two miles to loading points on Old River. The commercial navigation detriment due to the Middle River closure has been based on the additional tnicking costs. The estimated annual detriment to commercial navagation due to the Middle River closure is shown In Table hh» Channel closures in the Holt island-group would be constructed in 1973. TABLE hh [ ESTI^ATED AmWAL NAVIGATION DETRIMENT MIDDLE RIVER CLOSURE AT BACON ISLAND Year : Annual detriment 1975 $3,600 1980 3,900 1990 U,300 2000 U,800 2010 5,000 2020 5,200 The i960 present worth of the commercial navigation detriments of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project is $608,000. This is equivalent to an average annual detriment of $I|.1,900 during the period 1970 through 2019. Typical Alternative Delta Water Project The commercial navigation detriments of the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would be due to the construction - 92 of the Rjde and Holland Cut control structures, the closure of the South Fork of the Mokelumne River at Little Potato Slough, and the closure of the Mokelumne River at its confluence with the San Joaquin River. Each of these are included in the Com- prehensive Delta Water Project and have been discussed earlier. The closure of Middle River at Bacon Island is not included in the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project. The i960 present worth of the commercial navigation detriments of the Typical Alterna- tive Delta Water Project is $5^8,000. This is equivalent to an equal annual detriment of $38,ij.OO during the period 1970 through 2019. Single Purpose Delta Water Project The Single Purpose Delta V7ater Project would be con- structed as a water supply project and would not provide addi- tional flood control, seepage control, or transportation benefits. For this reason the only obstructions to commercial navigation would be the Ryde and Holland Cut control structures. The navi- gation detriments of these structures are the same for all three variations of the Delta VJater Project. The I960 worth of the commercial navigation detriment of the Single Purpose Delta Water Project is $hl2,000, and the equal annual detriment for the period 1970 through 2019 is $28,1;00. Summary of Navigation Detriments The Chipps Island Barrier Project and each variation of the Delta Water Project would be detrimental to navigation because of delays at locks, loss of access to some channels, or longer travel distances necessitated by the construction of channel closures. Commercial navigation detriments have been evaluated in this chapter and the effects of each project on recreational boating are discussed in the recreation chapter of this report. The navigation detriments to military traffic have not been evaluated because of a lack of information on the operating costs of military vessels. In the past, mili- tary traffic past Chipps Island has been equal to two to five percent of the commercial traffic. Table hS summarizes the commercial navigation detriments of the Chipps Island Barrier and Delta Water Projects. TABLE h^ SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION DETRII-'ENTS (In dollars) Commercial navigation detriment Project : I960 present : Equal annual equivalent worth • • 1970-2020 Chipps Island Barrier Project 13,969,000 962, Uoo Comprehensive Delta Water Project 608,000 Ul,900 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 558,000 38,hOO Single Purpose Delta Water Project 1;12,000 28,1^00 '9^ Fish and Game The fish and wildlife resources of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Eire important recreational and commercial assets. Unfortunately, basic data upon the life cycle, habitat, biology, etc., are not available to make a complete analysis of the effects of the proposed projects upon this important resource, rhe sunmary of the fish and game resovirce and the evaluation of project effects upon this resource, as contained in this report, must be considered valid only as a comparison of project effects and not as a finite determination of damage. These analyses have been developed in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game. A more detailed study of these factors is being initiated and will be conducted diiring the next three to five years. This more detailed study will evaluate the effects of the selected Delta project and recommend methods of damage aJLleviation and, where possible, enhancement features. Anadromous Fisheries Striped bass, salmon, steelhead, and shad are the most important ginadrcanous species. Striped Beiss. The striped bass is not native to the Pacific Cosist but was introduced into California in 1879 when 135 young fish from the Navesink River in New Jersey were placed in the Carquinez Straits at Martinez. In 1882 an additional 300 young stripers were released at Army Point in Suisun Bay. The transplanting of this species was very successful; at present the range of striped bass on the Pacific Coast is from Southern California to Washington. Sport fishing for the striper has long been popiilsir and a commercial fishery existed until it was outlawed in 1935* The greatest concentration of striped bass in the Pacific Coast is in the San Francisco Bay system and the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. In recent years the California striped bass catch has averaged 1,500,000 fish annually. 95 Salmon. The king salmon, which is the principal salmon specie entering the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, is native to the Pacific Coast and vith a range from Southern CaJ-ifornia to Alaska. Some salmon may be found entering the Sacramento -San Joaquin River system at all times of the year. The bulk of the fish, however, enter in two distinct r\ms, the first one in the spring, and a larger one in the fall. Salmon originating in streams tributary to the Delta are important to the commercial salmon fisheries of California, Washington, and Oregon. The annual California salmon catch for the years 19i<-2 through 1959 is shown in Table k6. Over this period, fish originating in streams tributary to the Delta made up approximately 75 percent of the total California catch and about 3>000,OC pounds per year of the Oregon sind Washington catch. TABLE k6 ANNUAL CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL SALMON CATCH Salmon catch in pounds Year ; Total : Delta origin 19W 7>8oo,ooo 5,600,000 1949 6,800,000 5,200,000 1950 7,800,000 6,200,000 1951 7,200,000 5,800,000 1952 7,300,000 5,600,000 1953 8,000,000 6,100,000 1954 9,500,000 7,100,000 1955 12,000,000 9,100,000 1956 ii,ij-oo,ooo 7,900,000 1957 5,300,000 3,000,000 1958 3,700,000 2,700,000 1959 6,800,000 5,^00,000 Salmon fishing is increasing in popularity eis shown in Table kj. The bulk of the catch is in the ocean, but there is also substantial river fishing. It is estimated that approximately 75 percent of the sport catch, - 96 - like the comnercial catch, is of fish originating in streams tributary to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. TABLE kj TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA SALMON ANGLING Year | Total catch ; Successful anglers 191*6 291,000 50,000 19U8 321,000 65,000 1914.9 298,000 67,000 1951 561<-,000 79,000 1953 61*0,000 110,000 195^ 860,000 llf2,000 1956 715,000 11*0,000 1957 700,000 ll*7,'XX) Steelhead. The steelhead rainbow trout is native to the Pacific Coeist with a ran^ from Lower California to Alaska. It is the same species as the inland rainbow trout, differing, mainly, in si)ending a portion of its life in the oceem. Some steelhead may be found entering the Delta all during the year, bxit the major runs occur in the winter and early spring when the fish spawn. It is illegal to take steelhead commercieilly in California, but they are a popvLLar game fish. In recent years the California steelhead catch has been near 500,000 fish ajmually. Shad. The American shad wcis first introduced into California in I87I, when 10,000 fry were released in the Sacramento River. Shad are now found on the Pacific Coast from San Diego to Alaska. Shad are considered an excellent game fish but support only a minor sport fishery in California. A commercial fishery existed in the lower Delta until it was outlawed in 1957* - 97 - Fresh-vater Fisheries Catfish sM black bass are the most important fresh-water fishes found In the Delta. Other species, such as Sacramento smelt, fresh -water smelt, carp, bluegill, and black crappie, sei-ve to some extent as food for striped bass and other game fishes sind provide minor sport and commercial catches. The white catfish is the most Important Delta fresh-water fish and provides 95 percent of the local catfish catch. Sport fishing for catfish is popular and the estimated annual catch In the Delta is 3^500, 000 fish. A commercial fishery existed until 1953* Wildlife Waterfowl. The Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay area are important wintering areas for ducks and geese. The State of California lies on the Pacific Flyway, \rtiich encompasses an area extending frcsn Alaska to Central America. The waterfowl breeding grovuads are in the northern portion of this migratory range while the southern portions provide feeding and resting Eureas dviring the winter months. Two waterfowl areas are maintained in the Delta by the California Department of Fish and Game — the 1,877-acre Stilsim Waterfowl Refuge in Solano Ootinty, and the 8,600-acre Grizzly Island Waterfowl Management Area. Controlled shooting is allowed on Grizzly Island, but the Solano County area is maintained solely as a refv^e. In addition to the governmental eireas, there sire over 6o,000 acres of waterfowl wintering areas in the Delta which are maintained by private duck clubs . The California Department of Fish and Game estimated the I956 water- fowl kill in the Delta and Suisun marshland areas as 54i^,000 ducks and 20,000 geese. - 98 - Miscellaneous Species. Phesisant and other game birds, such as quail and doves, are also found in the Delta. These species are not expected to he seriously affected by the construction of the Chlpps Island barrier or any variation of the Delta Water Project. - 99 Project Effects The Chipps Island Barrier Project or any variation of the Delta Water Project would alter the fish and wildlife habitat of the Delta, These changes would benefit some species, but the majority would be adver- sely affected. Chipps Island Barrier Project Under present conditions, the fresh waters of the rivers entering the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta gradually merge with the saline waters of the San Francisco Bay system, thus creating an extended reach of brackish water. This area of brackish water enables migrating fishes to gradually become accustomed to salinity changes. In addition, the brackish water environment of the lower Delta supports a species of amphipod which is the main food item for the white catfish. Construction of the Chipps Island Barrier Project would create a pool of high quality water behind the barrier and the reduced fresh- water outflow would cause an increase in the salinity of the waters below the barrier. At some times during the yegr the water tempeiatiires on the two sides of the barrier would differ by several degrees. The temperature difference would be largest in the fall when striped bass and steelhead are returning to the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems to spawn. The sudden changes in salinity and water temperature would be extremely detrimental to fishes passing the barrier through fishways or navigation locks, for fishes subjected to a sudden environmental change suffer a physiological shock which may cause death. Striped bass are especially susceptable to shock. Experiments have revealed that the mortality rate of striped bass which are transferred rapidly from salt water to fresh water is about 75 percent. - 100 - The Chipps Island barrier would reduce the available spawning area for striped bass and shad by excluding tidal currents from the Delta channels. The elimination of suitable spawning areas in the Delta would probably cause more fish to spawn in the Sacramento and Feather Rivers. However, it is doubtful that these areas could accommodate the entire populations of striped bass and shad. Anadromous fish migrating to the ocean are guided by river currents. VHth the Chipps Island bander in operation and increased exports of water from the Delta, the prevailing currents during most of the year wo\ild be toward the state and federal pvimping plants in the southern Delta. Fish screens would prevent the majority of the larger fish from being drawn into the pumps, but a considerable number of eggs and fry would be lost. Fishways would be constiructed at the barrier to pass migrating fish, and a number of fish woiild pass through the navigation locks during normal locking operations* During periods of high inflow to the Delta the floodgates would be opened to allow the flood waters to pass. At these times the fish migrating to the ocean could pass through the flood- ways. Under present conditions the pollutants which enter the Delta channels are diluted by tidal action. Industrial, municipal, and agri- cultTiral wastes >diich would enter the quiet waters of the barrier pool would not be as quickly diluted and the fish habitat might be seriouslv [ affected in some portions of the barrier pool. The Chipps Island Barrier Project wovild be detrimental to several species of anadromous and fresh-water fishes, but the striped bass would be the most seriously affected. 101 -, It is expected that the sudden salinity and temperature changes experienced by the migrating stripers as they cross the barrier would be fatal to a large percentage of tiie fish. As mentioned earlier, 75 percent of a group of striped bass vAiich were rapidly transferred from salt water to fresh water died of shock. The reduced spawning area which would result from the exclusion of tidal currents in the Delta would also adversely affect the population of this species. Eggs and fry passing fish screens at the Delta and Tracy piunping plants would be lost, further reducing the striped bass population. There is a possibility that a landlocked form of striped bass may develop in the barrier pool. However, there would probably not be sufficient food behind the bander to sustain a large population. The Chipps Island Bander Project would be less detrimental to salmon than to striped bass, but the population would be significantly reduced. The primary reason for the smaller salmon loss is the species greater tolerance to shock. The fish which successfully pass the barrier may experience difficulty locating upstream spawning areas due to the altei*ed currents within the Delta. There would also be a loss of fiy at the export pumping plants. A landlocked form of salmon would not develop behind the barrier. The Chipps Island barrier would result in a smaller commercial salmon catch, hence a monetary loss. It has been estimated that the popu- lation of Delta origin salmon would be reduced $0 percent by the barrier. During the period 19U8 through 19$6, commercial fishermen received an aver- age of $2,630,000 per year for Delta origin fish caught off the coasts of California, Washington, and Oregon. A 50-percent reduction in catch would 102 produce an annual loss of $1,315,000 to commercial fishermen. The present worth of the detriment during the analysis period ending in 2019 would be $19, 08$, 000. The effect of the project on steelhead trout would be similar to the effect on salmon. However, fewer downstream migrants would be lost. Steelhead remain in fresh water for a year before migrating to the ocean, and therefore the downstream migrants are larger than the downstream migrant salmon. Steelhead, like striped bass, may develop a landlocked form behind the barrier. It is expected that the project effect on shad will be similar to the effect on striped bass. The white catfish is native to coastal streams where its major food item, an amphipod, is foimd in brackish water. The absence of brackish water on the upstream side of the barrier and the resultant reduction in food supply would probably significantly reduce the popu- lation of white catfish. It is expected that a reduction of the white catfish population would be partially offset by increases in the popu- lations of brown bullheads and black bullheads in the fresh water of the barrier pool. Conditions in the barrier pool would be particularly suitable for black bass. This species would probably become one of the most impor- tant game fish in the Delta. The populations of warm water species such as crappie and blue- gill should increase. The waterfowl habitat above the barrier would not be signifi- cantly eiffected. The Suisun and Napa marshlands provide a food supply 103 for winteiring waterfowl. The increase in the salinity of the water flooding these areas, resulting from the construction of a barrier at Chipps Island, coiild reduce the plant yields. However, the detailed studies necessary to evaluate this possibility have not been completed. Single Purpose Delta Water Project The Single Purpose Delta Water Project would have less affect on fish and wildlife than the other pixsjects discussed in this report. Like the Chipps Island Barrier Project, this project would be more detrimental to anadromous fish than to the fresh-water species. Some of the control structures included in the project would be on routes followed by migrant fish. The Steamboat Slough control structure would prevent migrant fish from following this branch of the Sacramento River. During most of the year no water would be released through this control structure and consequently there would be no flow in Steamboat Slough to attract migrant fish. There would be a continual outflow past the Ryde control structure and a fishway would be constructed to permit migrants to reach spawning areas in the upper Sacramento and American Rivers. The Holland Cut control structure would not include a fishway, but Old and Middle Rivers would be accessible via the Delta Cross Canal. Many of the fish migrating downstream wotild follow the flow of water toward the export pumping plants. Proper screening will protect the larger fish, but a large number of eggs and fry will be lost. Construction of the Single Purpose Delta Water Project would cause a small reduction of the fish population. The population reduction would be greater for the migratory fish than for the fresh-water species. 10i+ The commercial salmon catch would be reduced by an estimated 12 perxjent, causing an annual loss of $316,000. The I960 present woiiih of the total detriment during the analysis period would be $U,586,000. The reduced outflow of the Delta Water Project would produce increased salinities in the upper Bay system. As with the Chipps Island Barrier Project, increased salinities in the Napa and Suisun marshlands could reduce the food supply available for waterfowl wintering in these areas. Typical Alternative Delta Water Project Although the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project vrould be more detrimental to migratory fish than the Single Purpose Delta Water Project, some fresh-water species would benefit. The master levee system, by enclosing the Isleton and Lodi island-groups, would isolate 8 percent of the Delta water surface from tidal influence, and therefore reduce the spawning area of certain species. However, fresh-water fish, such as black bass and same species of catfish which now populate the quieter sloughs, should do well in these isolated channels. The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would restrict export water to a single channel north of the San Joaquin River. This channelization would direct a greater number of downstream migrants toward the export piamps. The loss of eggs and fry at the pumps would be higher for the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project than for the Single Purpose Delta Water Project. The population of migratory fish would be reduced by the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project, but the popiilations of some fresh-water species may increase. - 105 - It Is estimated that the population of saJLaxm orlgiiiating in streaios tributary to the Delta vould be reduced 1^ percent. The annual loss to the coBBoerciCLL salmon fishery vould be $39^, OCX). The present worth of the total detriment dviring the analysis period ending in 2019 would be $5,738,000. The project would have the same effect on waterfowl as the Single Purpose Delta Water Project. Cantprehensive Delta Water Project T3ae master levee system would isolate ll)- percent of the Delta's water surface from tidal influence, and would x«strict the export water to a single channel through the Delta. Like the oyplcal Alternative Delta Water Project, the Compre- hensive Delta Water Project would reduce the available spawning area for soBie migratory species, and would provide an Improved habitat for certain fresh-water fish. Xhe ccmplete channelization of the export water would direct large numbers of downstream migrants toward the puarping plants. The loss of eggs and fry at the pumps would be gireater for the Cantprehensive Delta Water Project than for the other variations of the Delta Water Project. Anadronous species would be more adversely affected by this project than by the Single Purpose or the Typical Alternative Delta Water Project. However, the isolated interior channels would provide an improved habitat for black beuss and other fresh- water fish. Tbe coBBnerclal catch of salmon originating in streams tributary to the Delta would be z«duced by an estiioated 17 percent, causing an annual loss of $1<47,000. The I96O present worth of the total loss over the period of analysis would be ^6,k&J,000, - 106 - The saLlrdty of waters In the Napa and Sulstin Baxshl&nds vovild he the sane for each variation of the Delta Water Project. The available food supplies for waterfowl would be reduced by the greater salinity which would exist under project conditions. Coaqparlson of Project Effects on Fish and Game The fish and wildlife habitat of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the upper portions of the San Francisco Bay system would be altered to varying degrees by each of the projects discussed in this report. All of the projects would generally be detriiaental to fish and wildlife. However, it is expected that three of the projects would create conditions which would benefit certain species of fresh-water fish. A suBtmary of the effects of each project on the various species follows. - 107 - Migratory Fish Striped Betss Striped bass would be the species most adversely edTected by each of the four projects. The Chipps Island Barrier Project would be the most detrimental since fish peisslng the barrier would be subjected to sudden temi)erature and salinity changes. Elimination of tidal siirge from the Delta channels and increeused water exports frcm the Delta would also be detrimental to striped bass. Of the four plans, the Single Purpose Delta Water Project would be the least detrimental to strli)ed bass. TSie increased flows toward the export pumps would attract downstream migrants toward the pumps fdiere the smaller fish and eggs would pass through the fish screens and be lost. Striper migration would also be affected by the l^de, Steaoboat Sloughy 8Lnd Holland Cut control structures. A fishway would be provided at the Ryde structure enabling migrants to reach spawirLng areas in the upper Sacramento ajod American Rivers. The Typical Alternative Delta Water Project would create the same type of detrimental effects as the Single Purpose Delta Water Project. However, greater losses of eggs and fry at the puraplDig plants would result from the channeling of export water in the northern half of the Delta. This channeling would be accomplished by enclosing the Isleton and Lodl island-groups with master levees. The resviltlng 8 percent reduction in Delta water surface subject to tidal action would reduce the striped bass spawning area. The detriments of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project would be similar to the detriments of the other variations of the Delta Water Project. Water destined for export would be restricted to a single 108 - channel, causing greater losses of eggs and fry at the pumps, cuad 1^ percent of the Delta vater surface would be Isolated from tidal influence, thereby reducing the striper spawning area. Shad Shad are similar in habit to striped bass and therefore it is expected that they will be similarly affected. Salmon Like striped bass, salmon would be most adversely affected by the Chipps Island Barrier Project. Some fish loss will result from salinity and temperature shock at the barrier. Fish successfully crossing the barrier and entering the quiet waters of the barrier pool may experience difficulty reaching upstream spawning areas due to the altered cvirrents within the Delta. In addition, the salmon population would be reduced by the loss of eggs and fry at the export pumps. The Delta Water Project variations would be detrimental to salmon since the control struct\ires and export pumping would alter the ctirrents which guide salmon to spawning areas, and wottld also caiise a loss of fry at the pumps. The effects of each of the projects on the commercial salmon fishery are shown in Table kQ. TABLE k6 DETRDffiNT TO COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY i/ (In thousands of dollars) : Annual detriment : 196O present 2/ Project ; full operation ; worth of detriment Chipps Island Barrier 1>315 19,085 Single Purpose Delta Water 3l6 ^,586 I^Tpical Alternative Delta Water 395 5,738 Comprehensiye Delta Water Wj 6,487 1/ Delta origin fish caught off coasts of Califomia,Oregon,& Washington. 2/ Analysis period ending in 2019. - 109 - Steelhead Bie effect of each project on steelhead would be almllar to the project's effect on salmon. However^ fever downstream migrants would be lost at the export pumps since steelhead remain m fresh water for a year after hatching and would be large enough to be effectively screened. Fresh-water Fish Catfish The major food item of the vblte catfish Is an amphlpod, which is fovmd in brackish water. The Chipps Island Barrier Flan would eliminate brackish water on the upstream side of the bsirrier redvicing this food suiJpLy, and, euicordingly, the white catfish population. HMs wotjld be partiaklly offset by an increase of the brown and bl8u:k bullheads in the fresh water of the barrier pool. The Single Purpose Delta Water Project would have little or no effect on the catfish population in the Delta. The Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects would not appreciably change the idiite catfish population. However, the isolation of channels frca tidal action by master levees would increase the nuniber of brown and black bullheads within these channels . Black Bass Ibe largemoxxth black bass inhabit the quieter fresh-water sloughs in the Delta. Conditions in the Chix>ps Island barrier pool would be pGu*ticularly suitable for bla^k bass, euid their species could becooae the Delta's primaory game fish. - 110 - Ttie Sliigle Purpose Delta Water Project would have little affect on the black bass population. Tidal flows and flood vaters would be excluded frcm certain channels by the master levee system of the laical Alternative and Ccmprehensive Delta Water Projects, thus improving the black bass habitat. Waterfowl Each of the four projects would Increase the salinity of the water flooding the Sulsun and Napa marshlands. The increeused salinity could reduce the yield of plants which provide food for waterfowl wintering in the area. Ill CHAPTER III. SWIMARY OF COSTS The development of cost estimates of the alternative Delta Water Facilities is presented in the companion office report, "Plans, Designs, and Cost Estimates". Schedules of Costs Schedules of capital, general expense, operation and maintenance, replacement, and energy costs of each of the four projects are presented in Tables h9 through 52. These costs are based upon prices prevailing in the summer of I960.. Since the costs are presented in the form of schedules per year, interest during construction has not been included. 112 TABLE k9 SCHEDULE OF COSTS— CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PROJECT (In thousands of dollars) : Operation and: : maintenance : Year : Capital : costs, and : Replacement : Energy : Total costs costs : general expense: costs : costs : 1963 2,087. 2,087.0 1961i 28,lU8. 28,lli8.0 1965 27,635. 7.9 11.5 27,65U.U 1966 22,552. 25.7 11.5 22,589.2 1967 3U,879. 56.0 58.8 3i;,993.8 1968 39,2i+9. 56.0 58.8 39,363.8 1969 39,327. 56.0 58.8 39,l!Ul.8 1970 I,li2li. l,898.1i 869.8 28.8 U, 221.0 1971 763. 1,900.1; 872.2 30.0 3,565.6 1972 5,908. l,900.ii 872.2 31.2 8,711.8 1973 2,057.0 1,028.7 32.1 3,118.1 197ii 2,057.0 1,028.7 33.6 3,119.3 1975 2,057.0 1,028.7 3U.8 3,120.5 1976 2,057.0 1,028.7 36.0 3,121.7 1977 2,057.0 1,027.7 37.2 3,122.9 1978 2,057.0 1,028.7 38. li 3,12U.l 1979 2,057.0 1,028.7 39.6 3,125.3 1980 2,057.0 1,028.7 iiO.8 3,126.5 198i 2,057.0 1,028.7 li2.0 3,127.7 1982 2,057.0 1,028.7 U3.2 3,128.9 1983 2,057.0 1,028.7 hii.U 3,130.1 198U 2,057.0 1,028.7 I;5.6 3,131.3 1985 2,057.0 1,028.7 U6.8 3,132.5 1986 2,057.0 1,028.7 ii8.0 3,133.7 1987 2,057.0 1,028.7 li9.2 3,13li.9 1988 2,057.0 1,028.7 So.h 3,136.1 1989 2,057.0 1,028.7 51.6 3,137.3 1990 2,057.0 1,028.7 52.8 3,138.5 1991 2,057.0 1,028.7 5Ii.o 3,139.7 1992 2,057.0 1,028.7 55.2 3,11^0.9 1993 2,057.0 1,028.7 56.1i 3,11x2.1 199U 2,057.0 1,028.7 57.6 3,ll;3.3 1995 2,057.0 1,028.7 58.8 3,lUU.5 1996 2,057.0 1,028.7 60.0 3,lli5.7 1997 2,057.0 1,028.7 61.2 3,lli6.9 1998 2,057.0 1,028.7 62.U 3,lli8.1 1999 2,057.0 1,028.7 63.6 3,lli9.3 Year TABLE k9 (continued) '^'smmmM' of costs- jshipI^' tsm^- barrier project (Itt'%housands of dollars)- Operation and : TnoIW^m^- : ' maintenance : Misns.Jj.'vxfin : •, costs, and : Replaceirie'ht' 'ii^Eifergy 'r-"--^ Total coStS' general expense; costs ; costs i-A^?'-i , .L — 2000 2001 2002 2003 2001; 2005 2006 200? 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2011i 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ,-» r> ^s pr ■ p r r ' * - - - '■ ( - ,OS.f ^c re r f * J., ^ .1. ^ I. , o.' 2,057.0 2,057.0 2,057.0 2,057.0 2,057.6^ 2,o57»&'' 2,057.0 2,057.0 2,057.0 0.0 2,057.0^"^ j!s^2,o57lQso,.r d.C 2,057.(550,: 2,057.0 B.ii 2,057.0- .. . O.c 2,057. o^^\^ a.?. 2,057.9'^'^ ^ d,v 2,057.0 2,057.0 5.f 2,057.0 0.?. 2,057.0 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 l,028i.7 1,028»7' 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.?;- 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7" 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 1,028.7 6U.8 66.0 67.2 68.U 69.6 70.8 72.0 73.2 Ih.k 75.6 76.8 78.0 79.2 80.U 81.6 82.8 8U.0 85.2 86. U 87.6 ^1^00.5 3,151.7 3,152.9 3,l5U.l 3,1?5.3 3,156.5 3,157.7' 3,1^8.9 3,160.1 3,161.3 3,162.5 3,163.7 3,16U.9 3,166.1 3,167.3 3,168.5 3,169.7 3,170.9 3,172.1 3,173.3 '■Ml '■■ OK J lYQI d.ci ■.8S0J O.T?r\S ^ : - r ■ o.aa -.820^1 O.Y?OtS 0.8a T.esoti O.TcOt£ S. Y.^CO,.r O.Y^O^S 0^9 ??^: IlU SCHEDULE 0F:C»STS-:wSIM1LE: PURPDSEiJIMr'iaT^fATER EROJIKTr'a (fe-^hbtoarids ■dfudoliair3T)[) : ; ^ :; Operation and rsB noxo'BisqO : : :: maintenance aDnGn^da.L&m Xdasrci: Capcytea^S ::>t costs, and :Repla.cement ■:,^?.:tj costs'^ t general expense r costs,:' '; : costs;-: TotKbY costs <^9(iJ- r ' 2^1) 1.1:. U.cbOii Y.044 2,litl.0 'im^.L 2^29^ 4.^0;! Y.044 2,2S2^ o.F?s,r ^.C04 4i.^0ti V.044 soos iL96^,T 0.4S4 ii.6c3B.3 V.(1iB7.9 Wi^ .1?6& , I 0.544 a. 4.80.] Y.044 ^lOS ■1980 1,781. i'.-U06.2 ^- 39ii.8 98.2 2,680.2 1981,, ^ 612. 4. 406.2 ^. 39li.8 109.2 1,522.2 1982 UU0.7 U05.2 120.3 966.2 1983 UI1O.7 ii05;2 -"131.3 977.2 198U UIiO.7 U05.2 142.4 988.3 1985 UU0.7 U05.2 153.5 999.U 1986 iii;0.7 ii05.2 164.5 1,010.U 1987 UliO.7 U05.2 175.6 1,021.5 1988 UU0.7 it 05. 2 186.6 1,032.5 1989 Ui;0.7 i|05.2 197.7 l,Oli3.6 1990 UiO.7 1;05.2 208.7 1,05U.6 1991 1;U0.7 U05.2 224.8 1,070.7 1992 UiO.7 U05.2 240.9 1,086.8 1993 UU0.7 U05.2 257.1 1,103.0 199U W;0.7 U05.2 273.2 1,119.1 1995 105. 10^0.7 U06.i; 289.3 l,2hl.U 1996 lUiO.7 U06.U 305. U 1,152.5 1997 I1UO.7 li06.1; 321.5 1,168.6 1998 UU0.7 U06.U 337.6 1,18U.7 1999 UliO.7 U06.U 353.7 1,200.8 115 TABLE $0 (continued) SCHEDULE OF COSTS— SINGLE PURPOSE DELTA WATER PROJECT (In thousands of dollars) : Operation and : maintenance Year : Cap ital : costs, and : Re placement: Energy : Total : costs '.general expense : costs : costs : costs 2000 Ul;0.7 U06.i| 369.8 1,216.9 2001 lil40.7 U06.1i 387.9 1,235.0 2002 UUO.7 li06.1| 405.9 1,253.0 2003 liUO.7 . 1;06.U U2U.C 1,271.1 200U UiiO.7 U06.ii 442.0 1,289.1 2005 hho.l ^ U06.U 460.0 1,307.1 2006 Ui40.7 li06.U 478.1 1,325.2 2007 l;li0.7 U06.U 496.1 l,3ii3.2 2008 hho.7 ii06.Ii 514.2 1,361.3 2009 UUo.7 ii06.1i 532.2 1,379.3 2010 179. hhO.l U08.U 550.2 1,578.3 2011 . lil;0.7 1;08.U 566.2 I,l4l5.3 2012 U;0.7 U08.U ■^582.2 l,ii31.3 2013 )i)|0.7 U08.1i 598.2 l,iiii7.3 20lii UliO.7 U08.U 614.3 l,i;63.ii 2015 Uho.l ii08.l4 630.3 l,ii79.ii 2016 UUo.7 U08.ii 646.3 l,i;95.ii 2017 UUO.7 U08.U 662.3 l,5ll.ii 2018 Ul;0.7 ii08.li 678.3 1,527 .ii 2019 iUiO.7 ii08.ii 694.3 i,5ii3.ii 116 TAELE $1 SCIEDULS OF COSTS TYPICAL ALTERNATIVE DELTA VJATER PROJECT (In thousands of dollars) : Operation and : maintenance Year : Capital : costs, and : Replacement: Energy : Total costs : general expense : costs : costs : costs 1963 3,852. 3,852.0 1961 3,101. 3,101.0 1965 827. 37.9 137.3 1,002.0 1966 331. 37.9 137.3 506.2 1967 2,li38. 37.9 137.3 2,613.2 1968 9,878. 37.9 137.3 10,053.2 1969 10,197. 37.9 137.3 10,372.2 1970 5,187. 231.2 223.5 5,6M.7 1971 3,6U6. 3U5.1; 328.9 9.8 U,330.1 1972 1,756. 385.0 376.5 19.6 2,537.1 1973 3,135. 385.0 376.5 29.5 3,926.0 197U 6,U3l. 335.0 376.5 39.3 7,281.8 1975 li,628. U53.8 U31.6 U9.I 5,567.5 1976 U,370. 1;59.2 U3U.5 58.9 5,322.6 1977 3,372. 505.2 UU8.3 68.7 U,39h.2 1978 1,566. 505.2 U72.6 78.6 2,622.U 1979 817. 505.2 li72.6 88.U 1,883.2 1980 1,666. 538.7 590.7 98.2 2,893.6 1981 56U.5 700.3 109.2 1,3714.0 1982 56U.5 700.3 120.3 1,385.1 1983 56U.5 700.3 131.3 1,396.1 1981; 56k.5 700.3 U2.U 1,U07.2 1985 56U.5 700.3 153.5 l,ai8.3 1986 56U.5 700.3 164.5 1,U29.3 1987 561;.5 700.3 175.6 l,hU0.U 1988 56U.5 700.3 186.6 l,l;5l.l 1989 56U.5 700.3 197.7 1,162.5 1990 56U.5 700.3 208.7 1,U73.5 1991 56U.5 700.3 224.8 l,ii89.6 1992 56U.5 700.3 240.9 1,505.7 1993 56U.5 700.3 257.1 1,521.9 1991) 56U.5 700.3 273.2 1,538.0 1995 105. 56U.5 701.5 289.3 1,660.3 1996 56U.5 701.5 305. U l,571.h 1997 56U.5 701.5 321.5 1,587.5 1998 56U.5 701.5 337.6 1,603.6 1999 56U.5 701.5 353.7 1,619.7 117 - TABLE ^1 -'-fcor^i-iiued) SCHEDULE OF COSTS TYF^Aii^'Ali'MjATtV^ DELTA:' 1 'ATER ^3 JECT" • • : : -Operation aiid^'i-' :• noxJ-Biaqi ': • • • : : •■ maintenance P' "jnsnod-iTXB.-fi ; • : Yes&s^-tjpT Capital' '^'^ h ■ -^iS&i^'sf ' SM' ^ : t€flai^ifi€m, : 'Enir^<^.^^ To-B«B^ 3vt3©;i .jiQslg-:^^, iieiisf5£2.2^3CEeige£: SiSsi£S-'"L •■ co§i§^'i> (J05t8 02m.i 56U.5 701.5 3^9^ 8^ l,635i-8 02^\e 56U.5 701.5 387^9^ 1,^53#9 2002 S6h.^ • 701.5 405.9 1,671.9 02iQ|.- e.%ii.5 ?.foi.5 42^.0 1,690.0 5200^ £.561t.5 ^ ?.t6l.5 it^gCo l,708io s.ei^^s - r or- f ^.YC •.8£4tS Vd^.I safid^.o-t £.56a'.5 ^•761.5 «}o'^ i,t§6:o S2ISS.0I ^-•56ii.5 ?.Toi.5 476.1 i,M.i 2007 ^ 56U.^ 701.5 496.1 1,762.1 V2^d8t? 5.^61i.^ s.?6i.5 5i4:e5 1,7S0^2 1296^^ 8.e " -^61^.5 i-' 401.5 5^:e^- 1,798*2 i.\^^^. a. 51 .0.58£ • oclYtl ST^^I 02at@.£ ^^•1^. •5.566.5 o.f6|.5 ^fot^ 1,§^6'.'2 826ii.T t.^t c.561i.5 0.703.5 ^^1?^ l,^3lti2 2012 . 561i.5 ^•5Si5 c 703.5 596.«? 1,850.2 52Sl3t5 1.^4 ^'^m.s 1,866 .'2 ^2^5^.5 ?.8e '^m.s m^l^ 1,^2*3 s.ilpr^a Y.aa S.50S .sYe»e YTQI j^2©i§.5 d.8Y M§il.5 -rdB.5 '^tb,<^ l,^^Bi3 526i8.r ii.86 ^-5Sii.5 s.7©3.5 "^^.3 l,mi3 2017 561t.5 703.5 662.3 1,930.3 ^26i8t" S.89 v.5S{i.5 Y.p.5 ^76.3' 1,%613 °2St^^ S.^OI e.56£.5 5.!im.5 694.3 1,962.3 1,^31^'^ c.CSi f:.oov 5.ad5 £6?! I.c-:;f.ti L.-ttl t,.ou 1 <.UCC t.3vi S.TOlUI 4.S4i e.ooT 5.iie^5 48(^1 £.8i.l^r e.«i e.ooY ^.4d5 580.1 c.^sa^i c:.4di e.ooY 5.465 68QI ii.OjWtl a.^Yi e.oov 5.4a>5 Y8?I a.i^a.r a.asi £.00Y 5.il65 3891 ?..5$;1,.I Y-YQI e.ooY 5.4S5 98^1 5.£Yi\.i: Y.80S e.ooY 5.ilo5 o^ei S.eSiiti 8.4SS e.OOY 5.ilo5 , 1991 Y.^O^.I Q.O+iS e.ooY 5.465 S^QI '^.L^'P.,.1 i.Yes e.ooY 5.465 e^Qi OM'?,^i S.£YS e.ooY 5.465 li^pi c.osa^i e.?8s ^.lOY 5.465 .501 . 5991 a.iT^ti ii.^oe 5.I0Y 5.465 6991 5.V85,l 5. ISC c.IOY 5.465 Y5QI o.eo^ti d.vee 5..I0Y 5.465 8?9I T.^I'^^I Y.^5C 5.I0Y 5.465 Q9QI --V:' 8 - TAgI.gn$?noo) S5 3JSAT SCHEDULE OF COSTS ..jriQ^^jirg COMPREHEN§ip; -DELTA :'^WC't^P.^^M^'ZH.TAOD (In thousands of dollar^ ]),jQj.fj. r^jN Year : Capital Operation and r.iaintenance . costs, and ;Qsts. .iggReral expense; costs iReplacement: Energy jtj,j.j.yotal costs ,COStS -IB9Y 1963 - ■,VTI. §> 1965, rrc 3-, 1966 1967 3, 1968 11, 1969,,,,: 3, 1970 1971- .ojie. I* 1972 %, i97U:.ave,? i97f^:g5;L i976c,j^a$, 1977 *I4, 1978,.o,;a,f^ i969i.a^/^^, 1983 — 198U 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199li 1995 105. 1996 1997 1998 1999 218 ^.edt 38l^.Y8ii 909O.4SU 92li.-, 54+1 031. 638^.0^4 958.i.8Y4 766 ^.jij;^ 305'^. S£^ 533. 251i^.0^5 ^19«S.dde Uii. 7|;0..oeS 8.IY0,I 8.IV0,I hm 37.9 /r 37.9 ' 37??,^I 232.3 3U6.5, 389.9 ■'^ ljj6»l-: r \I 580»^, 626.3 626.3: r 6§M.;i 715.6 'i 736^U-,'i 736.r^ -736^ 736 .li 736.1i 736. ii 736.U 736.ii 736.U 736. U 736.il 736. U 736.U 736.U 736.U 736.U 736 .U 736 .U 736.il - 05 m 563.0.. 576.8 603.1, ?& 1,075*6 1,070.6 - 1,070. -6- • 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,070.6 1,071.8 1,071.8 1,071.8 .1,071.8 '1,071.8 9.8 19.6 29.5 c 39. ?~ U9.1 58.9 68.7 78.6 88.4 98.2 109.2 120.3 -131.3 IU2.4 153.5 164.5 175.6 186.6 197.7 208.7 22U.8 2U0.9 257.1 273.2 289.3 305. li 321.5 337.6 353.7 6,218 3,381 2,03li l,0li9 3,1^6 11,760 12,080 8,176 6,9li5 7,269 ;10,098 ' 8,5iili 6,830 6,585 5,657 li,oli7 2,812 3,U35 1,915 1,927 1,938 l,9li9 .0 .0 :00s soos •1-oos; •^■'.oos •■^-oos •1^002 :jQS .7 .1. .5 •IjIOS •'J-.lIOS SIOS •|iio. •7cI0S •^■;I0S .'105 •5ji0S •9?I02 .0 .1 1,960.2 1,971.2 1,982.3 1,993.3 2,00li.li 2,Ol5.1i 2,031.5 2,Oli7.6 2,063.8 2,079.9 2,202.2 2,113.3 2,129.1l 2,lli5.5 2,161.6 119 TABLE 52 (continued) SCHEDULE OF COSTS COMPREHENSIVE DELTA WATER HIOJBCT (In thousands of dollars) • • : Operation and : : maintenance Year : Capital : costs, and : Replacement: Energy : Total costs : general expense : costs : costs : costs 2000 736.U 1,071.8 369.8 2,177.7 2001 736 .li 1,071.8 387.9 2,195.8 2002 736.1i 1,071.8 ^5.9 2,213.8 2003 736. iiv 1,071.8 424.0 2,231.9 200ii 736.1i ^-^ 1,071.8 442.0 2,2U9.9 2005 736. U 1,071.8 460.0 2,267.9 2006 736 .li 1,071.8 478.1 2,286.0 2007 736.1; 1,071.8 496.1 2,301.0 2008 736.1; 1,071.8 514.2 2,322.1 2009 736.1; 1,071.8 532.2 2,3I;0.1 2010 179. 736.1; 1,073.8 550.2 2,539.1 2011 736.1; 1,073.8 566.2 2,376.1 2012 736.1; 1,073.8 582.2 2,392.1 2013 736.1; 1,073.8 598.2 2,h08.1 2011; 736.1; 1,073.8 614.3 2,i;2i;.2 2015 736.1; 1,073.8 630.3 2,i!li0.2 2016 736.1; 1,073.8 646.3 2,456.2 2017 736.1; 1,073.8 662.3 2,i;72.2 2018 736.1; 1,073.8 678.3 2,i;88.2 2019 736.1; 1,073.8 694.3 2,50l;.2 120 Separable Costs In order to allocate the costs of a multipurpose project using the separable costs-remaining benefits method, it is necessary to determine the separable cost of each project function. The project cost separable to any function is the in- cremental cost of including that function in the project. Those costs which are not seoarable to any of the project functions are termed "joint costs" and will be discussed later in this chapter. Separable Costs to Transportation The master levees, which are features of the Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects, wotild pro- vide flood and seepage control and, in addition, would make pos- sible the construction of an improved vehicular transportation network. The levees would afford a good foundation for road construction, and the channel closures would greatly improve interisland access. Certain expenditures for roads would be incurred even without the inclusion of vehicular transportation as a project function. Since some of the existing roads along the master levee alignment vjould be replaced during construction the annual operation and maintenance of these roads would be the responsi- bility of the State, as the levees included in the master levee system would be purchased by the State. In addition, service roads would be constructed on the master levees for inspection and maintenance purposes. These service roads would not be open to the public. - 121 - The separable cgf|§otQi^g>iJcular transportation would be only„the^,-,eqsts of GOBStFucting,^ ^operating, and maintaining nQads,.-in,-,adcittiQR.-.to,,the, pr&sejat .^^^^^ In Tables 53 through 56, +-t^9^jS,eparable .capital [smd ;£^ia^al:cco,S;t:a fto-sVjehicu]^ jPQrtation f or. rthe,-Typical AlternsLtive -and :;^Qinprehen3ive DeitBCJ:;! ^iftter Pro^^Gt^- a^e ?howp.^as,,,tfte ...difference between master levee cos.ts •^;Wt., iand,oifithou^;!,;road iiBprovements*^9g jon 9'xb riox.riw siaoo pi..^+ ..Thj^,^f^pp5, Jsland Barrier ;and 'Sifigle ,^ua?{?oser-:Delta sr£i Water Projects i-jould be constructed as water supply projectET^erio and therefore none of the costs would be separable to vehicular transportation, lBoxa-\;;T e.'id "ic BSTu.tBsl sis rio rrlw ^aesvol isJ-sbiti 9riT TARTjF ^"^ -oiq bri;o''.r ^ ?,,J03r,0T^ ts.^bV.; ... ; s? ^vrgnerfsTcmnO bn.s STjcoBniSv+IA SEPARABLE CAPITAL COSTS TO TRANSPORTATION -Boq 9>fBiTT nj.!T'lEPipALi.ALTMiNATI»E DELTA VJATER PROJECT -- booLI sb.cv .no id-B.t'ioq3nBT::f T:i5Xi:.r'ilj!j|^c;ow sfasoi 9esr!'.^J»}^22.,„£,n.-5^n.ri;~i b.rLO ||it.^sT9qo 1973 1,755 1,U22 333 ^^Jjir .Ts+sBm s^J^^m bebulnni. essve?'*^?^ as ^'ad&tc arid' ?.?^xd-xlxd 1975 1,565 l,2J+7 318 1976;vi5.B tno^^565 -I .9d-B.J-8 er; ■]_^2ii7 '-^^^™^ ad blu^Qme&'dY^ 1977 1,566 i,2U8 ^ 318 ^ 1978d-c3nanc iq£j5^''-9l isd-ssm grfcf 2.: gltS^^'^^'-'Tt'^^noo scf r^-^-li^ abBoi 1979 817 *791 26 i9lfo I96 li71 25 TOTALS 2U,Oli9 21,358 •o^,^^^'^'^'^ ^-^ Total i960 present worth value of the separable capital cost to transportation = $1,536. - 122 - SEPARABLE AMUAL COSTS vTO TRANSFORTATIONiaS TYPICAL ALTERNATIVE. DELTA WATER PROJECT (Ibrtfebusan'ds idfhdiollars) ) • I Master' lejiree system i /■ • 2 : Separable 3>t30o Ib Jx£«©stsp with toads - i Costs without rAads:'. t'aftmial costs 197Q) 8?^,ii a??,4i eoi;[ 19713-;?! l9.a:'^T,i 19.638^,1 qI^M 1972 107.0 105'.,^ 1.5 1973^^QI 107.0- IV, I 105.^0^:,! 1^1 1971^01 107.as3 103'. 5iS^^ l^i '201 '2S8 isc Yc3PI 1975l^S i9a.ffi3i,i 191.1^'Vii,I 33.^U 1976r8S 1911.8^05,1 191.1-^^V,I »^ 1977 19lu8 •191.1 3.7 197a'ui£ i9ii.ai5s,f 191.l8?^C 3W^ 191 9Xc 19iua53;^,? 191.1J'5S,6 3^:^L ISd sr^t? ecc.o 5TvI 1980^ td 3l43.5!es,V 289.25T8,T 51^6^- r?5 d5c,e YVI.jl iiVQI 1981- 2019iY? 5oi.aiv8,i 37$.^M,S; 12^^1 ev5 5V8,I 84ii,S ^YQI cV? dT8,I V^i,l,5 YY'?I TotaT I960 present woribh, Jvalue of the separable annual cos*t- to ti-ansportation = 'Wt'^l^Q .7. 8.i:i,.[ ^Y'^I 52 IY4 ^^d 0391 bdQ,d . Yae^Btl eiiU45 2JAT0T Isoo Ieii:qE3 sldsisqoB odi \o euLsv rfd-To-j tnsBOTq 0o' - 4-' . I ^-*~ tion of .-gBe Comprehensive Delti-uV/ater Project, ^la^■J^.he Typical T It is physically possible to identify those project .::i bsisai:*' 3~i bI;row Jas^rrrgj^lr ■ macta^'S s^''7qI. features vrhich are necessary to' accomplish the oroject functions of water salvage, local supplemental water, and local water quality; all of vjhich are components of the irater supply function. However, in order to reflect the intent of Chapter 1766 of the 19^9 Statutes ^1,26 - ! CD •H OJ ti) i CO -P C c6 -P o -rriA o -d'OO CC O C3\ NO CO fACC ootS SJ^a NO CN CA CA (D 5? (D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ^^ ^ *r^ M OvO 1X\ T-P, ,-l r^ c— 1A, rA-3' <^ O M CM T^^\A CO -O Q),nJ O CM T-'XM vO CO XJA O-Cf _*-t CM nO H GO CC CO M ?H -P Q-M f^ rH , -5IU\CJn MQ CA CM OncC 'cAcA-cJ 1- CjN On Oi (A CO CM H 00 CC O Q ►i3 Mj3 tM u <• O ;?.§ .,** "' ' c O •H o D o O C^ CXj CO OJ cx i<5J CO OJ CD O ^ iH CD 1-J CD O > o • • • • * • » .f^ . k3 0) t-i CA ^ o • ^ ^ 1--, 1-, I-, .1--, M !-, I—. 1-1 l-i M »-i CO 1^ ^ O 1J3 T3 O c^ •• •• • • H. K^ CD o - E p. Q) W o Oir- 6 >^ ,0 t^ c— c^ c~- r— C-- r~- C^nO NO nO NO NO NO NO "CO CO +^ ^^i 8) 0) lA CK CJs C3N On CJ\ CN CJS CTn CJN CN 0> CN ,, ON 9^ C3N ON ■P ■P x: -?^; ^ -^ M CO C5N (3n CN CK C>- . ^ On t-- r" CA m m -d CO •H CD ,0) J5 .■Li\r^C\ ,On OnCNjOn^', '.C CM O lA \A TA ■LT] kCO CM KH to •^f:} M c frV^ r^ r^ r^ M CA o H CO 1^ 1— ^ t~»':i -p to pq ;i 0) --^ ,-4 r- ; •p o CD ■P CX W CO £0 !— ! C."> 1-3 f,^-' CO l-4J ^-"^ nJ !>> J- xO C— CO CO CJn M tn S (f -. ,cA u >— ;^ c6 ^ /O K; /o .<; /C AD /O •\ to Q ■ -\ *> Ph +3 : o eg 1 o ts H H O ) &* Q.' G^ O C' c^ cv a^ i-i ►4 tr \-*^- o CD •n O oo_cf_^ r- r^ c~--^nO NO CM _cf cv CM a a m5 ■'-' " CM t^l U' ; K^i w . tH • • • • » • • • ♦ • • « • ' « • . • • a-:; Oh : PiH m O •P sO ■LTnXA CV CNJ CM r^ CM CM PA -J t>H c^ r- r- o o H 1 H M :§v8.^. .ss^^^ CO CO C-- O O c. O o H H CM cfe U ; P^ « CO O [^ I>- CA H rH M H -^-J- t^ -P CD ! o p^ 1 cog- m i-i 3^ a-- 'c> CM o M CD -P CD Is ! Eh c: - 10 XX C\ C'l i ''-O •; ^ ... .. « • • CD CO isg-, o > -P •^ i > ~2 \ •H H +3 ' ■si, -I* CM r^ ra vO O O M CM r~ oo CO o CN On-:; -^ f«- CA lA •P CT! c Co -P - 1 O nJ Ph C3\^0 M3 NO r- .!>- nO ri-\ . 'r^ lA lA ^JD CA CA-^ .Ct_T"-^ CA E-i P> M ' -H C • \Q oOCJO.r^NOi— CM M H "lA CM , CM CM A' O XA O ^ CD MM i P- EH ' • NO , ' i0 NO ■>- ' -0 ;--■-; NO -^ CM Q) • > •H _^ i-: p>: •\ (D CD (D c H "• n i^ o o ■' s'. O B U § '^^■- >! •H J-J- o H- ti ,4 C30 • ■ H M H <^ C7' TA -P • : CO M •p •H ic ■ ch C Cm r- P-, CO tJ o o 0_:J EH K. X2 ON x: •% CO ■LA nOnOnOnO NOONDrAcA CO -cf f^m f»^ n^ r^ r^ 0^ • •••« ••••• • -P CD +3 CO • u ^ CD •H • • • • • • • • r-UMAlAM HMH..cJ-cr o U tiO ^ H -P (U XJ -=f r^ en •LA LfN XA lA in C--nOnOnOC7n CNOnCNIATAi CM O CD O , o !-. ^ t> o CM H H CO CO CO cx? CO CAf^fArACM CMCM. CMCMCM J- ? Oh IS 11 S 0) (^ o o GO oo oo CM r~- lAlAil-A ON CA CA CA CAl-A 13 CO H -d- CM CM t. .. CM r^ CA CA CA O rA rn c>^rA M CA o o O CO ^' U -A (i* p:^ T) pq °fe g EH CO O m EH O CO o o O ^ o ^: -p ^« •H 0 NO nO 'LA rA o\ •d CO a) ^ €) • • • • • • • • • • • • c (X ^ ••-- r— i>- n'\ CM O O O O O On NO CM to a> fl) oj o rH MD O -^ CO CO CO oo CM CA CO Q) f-i -P ^ rH CM CM CM CM CM rA-:J J X! CO D.r^ P-. o e a) o -a o Q o o C to c t3 txD O -p. o bJD^ -H o O « W CO CO CO CO OO CO CO CC5 CO CO CO CO 0) H iH flj iL, • • • • • • • * • • • • rH Ch H ^^ Q) t-i r-i r-{ r-i r-i r-\ iH rH rH H rH rH X) to O t:..l U CO -P a> H V (!) H OS ^^^ ^ CN On On CO ,o e e • • • CO 0) Jh CO CO CO to ^ +3 V H H rH -p to CO x: to a. t>. CO o o 0^ f^ PA On On CN ON On CN CN ON CN m (D ^ • • • • • • • • • • • £ o H -p o O O CO CO GO CO CO CO CO CO CO C o c OA CA (■A fA OA rANO nO NO m fn 0) H (D fn -P 2 -p pq o s OQ 0) c CD •r-i c S f>i CO CO OO CO CO OO CO CO O to o • • • • • • • • U nJ CK CN On On CN CN CN On 0^ •p ^ ^C \0 nO NO NO NO NO NO o E-i N Q) •r-3 O U -P NO NO NO NO nO nO CM CM to ?-i H • • • • • ♦ • • ■p CD O OO oo CO CO CO CO On CN rH -P w NO NO NO vO NO nO CM CNJ O to H rH > to •H H H -H * -P o 05 -P • r- On rA CA fA"LA ■LA'LA\Al-f> r~- CA to O o cd Ph • • • • • • • • • • • • c •H C • lA -4 r-H rH H "'J^-. H NO NO NO O 'LAUA'LA'LA l>- -^ ;h 0) P- fH 13 O O O O-Cf On o > !>-. _ tv_ i>- r- r— c— [■- C^ ^ £ -:::t 4^ •H 2 CO CO X H •P •* +5 ■4 • • • • ^_H- J-^ J- • • • • • O • U CM O !h O > O nO NO nO NO NO nO nO nO nO g II ^ -! CO o CM CM Al CM _H- _^ _0- _:J _cf ^ NO 5-. O ^■LA cfl -p • • • • • • • • • • • Q^ O P- ^ (U Cn ON C3n O CN On On On CN XA ■LA ir H CO — >■ J-_^_cr.^ On ON -O M O rH NO O • • M On CO H P- On U rH -p C I o rH (D rH O U O H C^J CA-^J-'LA nO t^oo On O H CM CO CO to o cd c^ r-- c~- [>- t~- >- t~- r^ c~- r— CO CO O ■P -P (U CTn On CJN On CTn CN CA CN CN CN On CN CM O O !>H H H rH r-\ r-^ r-i rH rH r-i t-i rH H Eh EH 128 (Section 12202 of the VJater Code), none of the costs of the component purposes of water supply have been considered to be separable betvreen the beneficiaries of water supply. Section 12202 of the V.ater Code states: "Among the functions to be provided by the State VJater Resources Development System, in coordination with the activities of the United States in providing salinity control for the Dc^ti. through operation of the Federal Central Valley Project, shall be the pro- vision of salinitj"- control and an adequate water supply for the users of water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. If it is determined to be in the public inter- est to orovide a substitute water supply to the users jji said Delta in lieu of that which would be provided as a result of salinity control no added financial burden shall be placed uoon said Delta water users solely by virtue of such substitution. Delivery of said substitute viater supply shall be subject to the provisions of Section IC^O^ and Sections lll;60 to lllt63, inclusive, of this code," In keeping within the limitations imposed by the pre- ceding paragraph, costs of the multipurpose Comprehensive and Typical Alternative Delta VJater Projects necessary to accomplish the functions of water salvage, local supplemental water, and local water supply have been considered to be separable to the function of water supply as a whole. A schedule of capital and annual costs of the Tynical Alternative Delta Water Project separable to water supply appears in Table ^9. Costs of the Comprehensive Delta VJater Project separable to water supply are shoi^ni in Table 60. All costs of the Chipps Island Barrier and Single Purpose Delta Vi'ater Projects have been handled as joint costs in the allocation of costs presented in Chapter V. Separable Costs to Recreation Additional public lands would be made available for recreational use due to the acquisition by the State of lands - 129 - end- In adaoo sri-t "3 TABLE 5S>'''" '^S'+b'^-^ sr'J '^'"'' '^'"'521" noit-''") 9cf oi bo-t".: SEPARABLE COSTS OF WATER SUPPLY sss^Q'iJJ'q inanoqmoo TYPICAL ALTERNATIVE DELTA WATER PROJECT (In thousands of dollars) r' T 'r^^ cnc^' ;■ : Capital : Annual i Capital : Annual Year ; costs ; costs Year ; co sts ■ ^'i'' ''Hosts 1963 'e.lUl.O' '■^^-^■"^^^-^ .."...jxii^^^Y xu ^■s^.oLyxJvn Si!,) uj^w 1966 nii/pEoL njG2-G4vM,iu:,'TOB2 SiiLip; ie.tirr .V; n7-rR'?->fl^3«^:;;t 1967 ~ "'l' &§i|' It^''^'^ TtIz ^''^ o.i^^&nisJ^5*Pjj: iil,Oltl>^,Q 1968 9;32i,:o' f;J§^, '^".*^'';f/^-^^^Y^: ^'^^^'-;^■f'.oi^7¥' • 1970 ^169*^"-^- #1 ^-^ ^^' noS ^^-^"-^^^^^'^^ "^^ ^1^^073-^ . -,07-, lo Y^Mvilsu ,^nfj-i;.j-xct ;;°°^ 'JUS lo 9X/,J-irv 4->iP5-Px': ' gjj ^-rf;^ oJ Jner ;|53^7 xx^rie ^OQQ,. ^^^^^ 9^uJxjl>^^&ti 1973 1,380.?^^-^ 6l3:r^,^"^2?S?';,";■''^"^'^^Tw?° 1971; 1,381.0 683.2 ^2002"'" '" .ovxa^u 1,1^^1 . ^^^a 91^^257 .P33o^^3y^^3^^^^ 2003 nxrfcfxw 3nxo9o:^,175.9 2001; ' 1 193 9 g:^^ . .vl'?^^^q.:,7^7,|,.,,...,.2005, .„ ,^3„ .rfaligli;^ .,nxh9o g^qmoooB o^ xtBB.826,73,33.,. 2006 ,,, ,,XeQ evii. 1,230.0 .,xq^ 1980 l,m,0.; 81;8.9^,, IBO. 2008 3,xbb ...^.w ^1^266;^;,^ e^^ 2009 l,281i.l J^81 . 0^ OldBtBQ^. If^'^^ .....2010 ,,.^,1^§.P ,^x...:i.30l;.,i. TBOOl ^ IsS^a.0 Jo .•882.0 , .3^2011 ,, ^iqnua-^.-l,320.i,i,3m;l 19^^ toecoi^ -xs.-s- 901;. 2 9^x^2013 isoxrryT srfd 'il,352*.i. rBunnsi -io«< . ^°1^ 1*368.2 1986 ,;r^ to e^aoO 91^.2 2015 g ^rqq;;3 ^ad;:l,38lN2 :. ...;,, 1987 926.3 1988 '/XqquB i9.i£w 937.3s.-i^q9E 2016 -I -is.^B^rJ B^Is; l,l;00.2rl9-TqmoC 1989 9i;8.1; 2017 l,ni6.2 1990 ^gj.,^^a }.^ 959.14 irio sr', 2018 ,00 ICA- .oa l,i;32.2 woffe ^ 2019 1,1;1;8.2 Total I960 present worth value of the sep.-=rsble cost to vra+er supply equals S39,l59.8«939'iq a^aoo lo auiaBooIxB 9iW nx e&so-^ T0I sXcfElxsvjb sbBfTf ed. bluoyr sbfiBl oxiduq iBnoxJ-xLbA ebnjsl lo sJ-fiiS sr^ ijcf nc;j X30--B ^r^j■ o.t " '- --•; '--,-- ^-•■-- ~ - esi - 10 svxJ-jsnigJ CA LsoiryT: sn'.t i-TABLE 60 ■t.'outi-2Lv:o ■■t'.-" '"rswdoosn 3c^20o ioaf^cin on SEPAILIBLE COSTS OF VJATER SUPPLY .ir'sifvcor; srLI COMPREHENSIVE DELTA VJATER PROJECT bobirlorri ^ni'sid no c.+i;.3-io'=)'T "to suJ-ixv ■"/d ylelor: i'S'i'vyoit.!; od ul:rn--: (in thousands of dollars) J Capital : Annual i Capital : Annual r.'Tfear''- t^' ; "■ -eosts ' '; costs ' ■ ^- -''Year ; costs : costs "^'^ 1963 l,26ehiD'3C"- isJ-fii-^ B.tlsQ g_^'ru=; el^nxa srii 'lo^-^-^i^'^rBa I96I1 1,393.0 1992 9ii3*0 1965 125.1 ^ ^ ^ 1993 959.2 .1966 _ 125.1 , 1995 . 105:,0 ^„, 992.6 1968 9,381i.O 125.1 . 1996 1,006.7 . 3Jbo-i9^901. 9,387.0 J"^-Ol25^il^^^-~-' 1997-scoTn 93^q'iyqi'o2li.8 '° 19p V68,0 395.5 ^ 1998^ ^ ^, l,0l|0.9 1971' 605.1 2000 ._^^ 1^073 !l ., 1973 1,380.0 62k.*8 2P01 1.091.2 -^■^19?U ■>-"l,381.0^~f'^9^-^(^3fe6^^i^^T edi2,SQ2''^?.oo denial &iU^»^^^ ^ 1975 ^ 1^257.0 , 685,5 _ 20Q3 . , , . , ,4.127;3 . 1976 . 999,0 , 698.6 ,. 2005 „ - ■ 1A63.*3 .1978 778!l aoo6, _ ^ l,l8l.[i • 1980 1,170^0 800,3 r ^2905 - p rl!217*.5 •. ^1983, . , -s , 833.ilp-.. . 2011, , . ^ 1,271.5. r. :fj3^j^inxoI, .So bxu 8^i^;| f^^'^T nc ^'£^3 bib o^oer^ox- 1*287 5 n- TBsqqB +0 3Cct4 T|%Tr BilaQ JSS^i^s'^onToa srij 1*^?^'? 'os ^^ ^ 201U 1,319.6 1986 866.6 2015 ,, 1,335.6 ..,- 1987 877.7 '' ' . 1988 888.7 . . 2016 . , 1,351.6 m^^^aqqxrlO srf^ ic 899.8^^^ ^-^^^ 2017 '" '^^-"' ''''■' 1^367.6 1920 ,^ . ^ ^10,8 , ,, 2018 a ^ ■ 1,383.6 a 2019 1,399.6 Total I960 present v;o"rth Value of the' "separable cost to water , ^ supply equals 779.6 , ., . . , . • . ^ ^ . .^jcfxlBxrp •i°5J-B>f Ix'-oox' bns - 131 - - S£.f - necessary Tor construction of either the Tyoical Alternative or the Co'Tiprehensive Delta Uater Projects. Since no oroject costs vould be incurred solely by virtue of recreation being included as a project function, no separable costs have been assigned to recreation. Recreation is not a fvmction of the Chipps Island Barrier or the Single Purpose Delta VJater Projects. Joint Costs The costs which are not separable to any single function of a multipurpose oroject are defined as joint costs. Joint costs are costs of features which serve two or more but not all func- tions of a multipurpose project. The joint costs of the Typical Alternative and Comore- hensive Delta Water Projects consist of the channel dredging costs and the portion of the master levee system and diversions costs which are not separable to the pxirposes of vehicular transporta- tion, as flood and seepage control or water supply. Schedules of the capital and annual joint costs of the Typical Alternative Delta Hater Project are shown in Tables 6l and 62. Joint cost schedules of the Comprehensive Delta Water Project appear in Tables 63 and 6U. Water supply is the only function of the Chipps Island Barrier and Single P-urpose Delta '"'ater Projects, and therefore to fulfill the requirements of Section 12202 of the Water Code the total project costs are handled as joint costs to be allocated among the component functions of water salvage, local water supply, and local water quality. 132 - TABLE 61 JOINT CAPITAL COSTS TYPICAL ALTERNATIVE DELTA VJATER PROJECT (In thousands of dollars) : Master levee system :Bear Creek: Channel : Total joint Year : Isleton Lodi : diversion: dredging : capital costs 1963 li90.2 361.6 851.8 196U 229.0 181.7 iilO.7 1965 229.0 181.7 UlO.7 1966 91.7 72.7 I6i4.ii 1967 91.7 72.7 102.6 267.0 1968 91.7 72.7 102.6 267.0 1969 259.2 72.7 103.0 U3ii.9 1970 h26,l 72.7 1^98. 8 1971 39U.8 1,173.5 1,568.3 1972 39I1.8 311. U 706.2 1973 39U.8 • 3II.U 706.2 197U 1,230.7 3II.U 1,806.0 3,3148.1 1975 37lu7 2li8.U 1,806.0 2,1429.1 1976 37U.7 2U8.U 1,806.0 2,a29.i 1977 375.2 2l4 8.1i 1,806.0 2,1.129.6 1978 375.2 2I18.U 623.6 1979 169.6 216.7 386.3 1980 216.7 216.7 TOTALS 5,993.1 14,623.2 308.2 7,22l;.0 18,1U8.5 Total i960 present worth value of the joint capital cost equals |10,9l6. 133 TABLE 62 JOINT AI>IKUAL COSTS:. TlEga:^:' ALTERNATIVE DELTA' WATER: PROJJCT::! '(In: thoii£jands: of. dollars ) Anz'^r, :Baster li evee_ system: Bear Gree : Lodi : diversion k : Channel: Total joint .J^&r 1 , Isle ton : dredging: capital: costs 197 Or;:: li.9 o„i.ir i.0'i4i U.9^fM 1971; 10. a V h.9 V.I8I o.^ss 15.^^1 1972: 10. U ^39.^ ii.9 Y.I8I o.^sc 5U.8^'2i 1973 10.il 39.5 U.9 5U.8 197k V. 10. U 39.5 h.9 Y.ST, Y.I? 5U.§6?I 1975- 55.8 39.5 d.soiU.9 Y.SY Y.IP 100.2d?I 6. SOI Y.SY Y.I9 8gPI 1976.: ; 55.8 39.5 -),ro^U.9 Y.SY S.o^s lOO.^^f. 1977: v: 55.8 39.5 U.9 Y.SY I.oSii 1OO.0Y?! 1978 55.8 39.5 U.9 2U.3 12U.5 1979: , 55.8 39.5 U.9 :;.c:?Uj3 8.4icr 12U.$Y?I 1960aof 107.7 39.5 U.9 .i.r2U.3 8.a^F 176.IiY9I ,dov iS.LLZ. S.LlPf, £YQI 198lf^,\c^r O.SOPtI iS.ni Y.OCS,! ilT?I 2020: j'|07.7 0.d0.^5>i2 U.9 u. 821.3 a.8.!S Y.JYc 216.1Y9I v,!!Tf dY^I Total 1^60 Dresent .worth /8an&ls $2,li05.3l// value of theii joint annual cost VV^I 4.84S S.^Vc 8YPI r >, P '■ v,>rQ <^,P(^r 9Y?I 1/ Present worth values are used in the allocation of costs'^ 5.8.i.r,Bi 0.4SSA S.50£ S.eSd,;! I.f- H -H H T3 OJ pq a ; o ! 4*i l-i - 5 -1 CO\AH VOOOCMOH -^CJP-CMCM 1X\ H VN OO OO C-- vO On H rH VO UNVO H CO O r^_:J O H CJ - H CO O f^_a CM CO- c^ c^ Xf> f^^O C\J t^OO In) CVJ O J r-<«»-; • • • « ' '• ' _:t ^ CD r^ vD VfMA On O iH CO CO O vO C\J COCMCMr^CVj CdCOiH o o o o ■vrvxrs -1 O O Q o * 'H-H* H CM* CI VO NO VO NO ' CJn On CN CJn H H •* •^ a Id D- CD c O C' CV Gv • • • • ♦ »t L/) to to l/> l/D CV O O' cv • AD NO NO O • • « CNj CNJ rr> O OO' H t-i H /O /O /O -O 'O /D ^O • • • • • T^ t- t- t- ^^ O CJ OO Crs CJn On Tj-\ (Jn • •• ••••• NO O m NO NO NO [--\A coCNlc^ a^ r^ a~\ er\oo j^f^CM HHHHeo CK CNI On o^ m « • • ■ • lA OlACMtM 00 NO -CO H H CNJ lA CM CNI CNJ •> H m r^ O • • • CJ cNj _=r Hi r-\\r\ OO CM CM >~3 li) I i: 05 C < o iT •-- l!H- OnOno t^c^rONO.^ _::tcONOCOco oo H co co CO O O OnH H NO c^ r- • • • r-i r-\ H NO CO CO CVJ o o • • • O CN On * 0\ CM CM -- _:JCM CM C ■LfMJA-LAVN H lA ■LA \A lA CM c— c^ c~- c^ c~- • • '4 ' • « CM CM CN) CM CM c^ r— r~ t^ c~- H H CO c^ t^ CM CM r-lAlA w=J--^ CM 4 o • • • ro H H HCO C-- H H H^ H r^ f^c^CM r- CO O O I ' lA'lA CM CM 1 ; CM CM i • • • • ' •»' CO CO CO NO NO -J-^-J^ H H CM CM CM CM CM ,c^f^r— CMH cocococ^r~. c^cmcmno r-i r-i r-\ OwO c*^^\r\ic\o f- CO cJn o NOvOvO CnOnOnOnOc^ OnOnCTnL-CNOnCtnOnOn ■r-i r^ H H r-\ i-i ri r^ , CJn CTn O, o^ r^ t«\ r^ o-\ CM m H CM r^_:fiA C-- C-- t^ r- c^ On On On CN CN M iH iH »-4 r-4 _:d-"l-tMA On C^ r— c~-nO f^ r^ ro H nO r— OO CTn O r~- c— c~- c~- CO On CA CTn On On H H H H cH CJN • NO CM CM On CM O •LA CK •\ OO CO ■LA tn 'm % CO XA H i CM • CA CM NO fA CJN CN •\ ■LA &H O Eh O CM ■LA CM ni «fH m. -P ■H ctj C •^^■.' H -P ?-i O -P C m Q. O NO H oi -P O E-i i^5-: - 135 - to ■t^ -t^ C m •H o o o 1/^, CN_:JCO oo CM •1-2 • • • • • • H H r-i H -=i r-{ tr~ H ci) rH CM vO HIA cr\ ct) -p H rH H +3 -H O D &H 03 O •• •• H bO S ^ t>- I^ £^ t-_ [s- [-_ G -H « • • • • • C bC Xi H 'H H TZi <«; ^-^ E-H m ^ • • •• Q •-3 0) H -P m • • •H T) O • • a o -p a> H CO M lA UN U\ ■LTv • • • • C3S CN CA CN _::J.J--3--Cf CO • • • • • O O O O "Lr\ rH rH iH HU\ •• •• U O rH CM r<^_=?^f\ C-- i>- >- f- r- r- v CTn CK On 0\ Cs CN (H rH r-{ r-\ r-\ r-i r-{ C^ CM "LTv CN-Zj- • • • • • t>- f- r^^ CN C7\ CJs CM vO -Cj- rH H CM CM r^ C-- ^- O O O « • • • • rr\ rr> O O O ra m cTj vC vO MD vO MD • • • • * CM CM CM CM CM On C3N CN CN OS « • • • • _:3- -Ct -3" -^ -:J [^ C^ C^ rH rH • • • • « ■ur l/MTN On CK O O O OnO • • • • • C-- r- c~- r— ON cr\ r^ rr\ ft^vO TJM-fNlA'LrN'LfN • • • • « Crs On On On CTn (r\ cr\ C^ cr\ rr\ 0\ CO O NO 0\ CN NO CN NO CM CJn OO CO CO CO c^ • • • * • • IXN "LPv "LA ta C~- 1_A lA 1-A lA O r- s NO C^OO On O C— C»- C^ C— CO ON CN On CN ON r-i H r-\ r^ r^ 1981- 2020 CO • •LA O _=t m H Q) CO -P to o o rH ta c c ns -P C O JC -p u O •p c Q) CO 0) U (X o NO ON (0 o - 136 - ALterpatlve Costs Bie total cost allocated to any function of a aultiparpoBe project by the separable costs-rematnl ng benefits netbod cannot exceed eltber the benefit to that function, or the cost of the Bost ecooosdcal singLe-purpose alternative method of providing the benefit, derefore. It is necessary to investigate alternative BKthods of providing tbe project services and detemlne tbe aiost ecoaanlcal of these alternatives. Alternative Cost of Water Supply Oite Single Purpose Delta Water Project would be the lovest cost single-purpose alternative aethod of accaapQJLstaing tbe vater stxppLy function and, therefore, limits the water supply allocation of the Chlpps Island Barrier Plan, and the Ccnpirebensive and TjrpdLcal Alternative Delta Water Projects. However, in order to suballocate the water si;q?pLy costs aaong the beneficiaries of water salvage, local svqpikLeaental water, and local water quality, it is necessary to detemine the losest cost alternative or single purpose netbod of providing these services. Alternative Cost of Water Salvage . The salvage of water for export can be aost ecomoBically acccHplished by constructing and operating the Single Purpose Delta Water Project. Consequently, the cost of the Single Purpose Delta Water Project allocated to water salvage liaits the allocation to water salvage of the Chlpps Island Barrier, Canprehensive, and Tlyplcal Alternative Delta Water Projects. The i960 present worth of the Single Purpose Delta Water Project cost allocated to water salvage is $38,227,'»00. Alternative Cost of SupplenentaJ. Water . The supplementary water facility of the Single Purpose, O^plol Alternative, and Ccnprehenslve Delta Water Projects is the Montezuma Aqueduct. "Ebia aqueduct would - 137 - extend from the North Bay Aqueduct"^ tBlta Water :Delta Wbter Iten : Project : Project : Project : Project Capital cost 15l^,^H5.0 30,721.0 l*l*,l*5l*.0 61*,399.0 Operation and naizrtenance for life of project 30,886.0 6,279.5 7,760.2 9,802.6 Beplacement 15,369.0 6,368.0 9,263.3 12,922.8 Energy 739.0 2,98l*.3 2,98»*.3 2,98«*.3 Total i960 present vorth cost 201,1*09.0 1»6,3:>2.8 6l*,l»6l.8 90,108.7 Separable cost Water supply 39,159.8 36,779.6 Flood and seepage control 9,286.0 2l*,l*63.1* Vehicular transportation 2,69l*.7 6,207.1* Joint costs 13,321.3 22,658.3 Alternative costs Water supply (total) 1*6,352.8 .-1/ 1*6,352.8 1*6,352.8 Water salvage 38,2'/Y.l* .-1/ 38,2'/7.iv 38,2'/7.1* SuppLenental vater — SdLano 3,303.1 3,303.1 3,303.1 3,303.1 Stipplenental vater — Contra Costa 19,565.1^ 19,565.*^ 19,565.'fr 19,565. 1^ Agricultural vater quality 7,012.0 7,012.0 7,012.0 7,012.0 )6uiiclpal and industrisl vater quality 96,810.0 96,83.0.0 96,810.0 96,810.0 1/ The alternative costs for ' water supply and vater si ilvage are the Single Purpose Delta Water Project Costs. - lUl - Ti:;^0"'' : °'^!H i S±^*' '' «'^ *5Sg^r^^''' ' * ^4g-fcH 9 ^^ "^'^^ Its economlc- _ f efiu5i¥ility,jBM^ be ascert^l^l^^g^ econoBiic analysis is necessary to iiiBUz^ the most efficient vtst rw th e fcinds available for pro^'ectr itruction. ^ \^-iST,0£ ...^,.,. S.S08,P ^ general, there are gever^^g^cally feOiwIe f59g8^1o slil ^b^fiji wotild accooipllsh the desired results. Bie selection of a project r^^vj 103^ construction is dependent upon an analysis of the cost of each project ,^ and operation. A jxroject is termed econonically Justified if th^g^ij|^jg,jj5qgg of the project benefits is equal to, or greater than, the project cost. If economic analyses have shown tvo or more projects to be economically ,-,,5 n^ Justified, the project selected for construction is usually the one idiich vill produce the maximum net benefit, stsoo &aim Bconoaaaic analysis is used not only to determine a W^^^'^xtasrteSU Justification, but is oised also as a guide duriixg project formulation. ,3^jg|^ An analysis of project featiires may reveal some features which are not <^^^yi economically Justified and which should be deleted in order to maximize ^^.j^^g the project's net benefits. «^itroO-.^^d-«w J ^•c Ct't-i ijjjg ecoiwiBic analysis of an engineering project is based on a comparison of benefits, detriments, and costs, and therefore vimnever possible, the dollar value of the benefits and detriments must be deter- mined. Benefits Gmd detriments which are not amenable to a monetary evaluation are tenned intangible and are considered qualitatively, oq^uj^ Money has an eauming capacity and consequently the value of a cost, benefit, or detriment varies according to the tine at vblch it - 142 - occurs. A sua of money received at present has a greater value than the same sum received at sane time In the future. Because of tMV'Tact the project benefits, costs, and detriments are reduced to present vorth or equal eumual egvilvalents for the pui^poses of coanparlson. An annual li;iBcns- 9aoepu/I r. o;.t ^J,^.. ^. Interest rat^:HS(? Jb-P^^i^^^^ ^'^s^ been \2sed in the econaanic evaluation of "the Delta vater facllltlesr""'^" ""' The Chlpps Island Barrier Project and the Delta Water Project O.eSy.SOS 0.98T^202 0.e8T..S0S O. b^^J^b i9iBV variations each have a conraon purpose of conserving vater for local use and for export to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. The Conrprehenslve and Typical Alternative Delta Water Projects would accom-^ ,Ii.- pllsh these cooaon objectives and In addition vould provide flood and n seepage control, transportation, and recreation benefits. aei^t is -Y f re r Econooilc analyses have shewn that the cost of the Chlpps Island Barrier Project vould exceed the benefits, and have guided the formulation of the Delta Water Project variations — \riilch are economical 1 y Justified. Table 66 presents a summary of the costs, benefits, and vod c),v?? t e^tS-I -vail Xai.-3-i detriments of eacli project. p-'^'.'j '"'' Xr-- • ^ ,0-N ; ^ — The i960 present vorth of the cost of the Chlpps Island Barrier Project vould be $201,l«O9,000. The project vould create vater supply .pco.vftc •- V ? .$0?34i5 1,808.68.1 benefits having a I96O present worth of $219,921,700. Hovever, the barrier vould be detrimental to navigation and to SGOie species of fish. No attempt has been made to ascertain the monetary valxie of the detriments to recreational boating and sport fishing, but the 1960 present vorth of ^-b the detriments to ccmmierclal navi^tion and coBwerclal fisheries has >^T been determinedj^to he $33,053,600. A detriment is actually a negative ''^^ benefit, and therefore the I96O present vorth of the Chlpps Island Barrier Project benefits would be $186,868,100. Consequently the Tkai£ 66 SUMABY OF COSTS, BEMEFTTS, AHD HBCBJMBWSS (i960 present vorth In thousands of doLLars) : Chlpps : Single : !5ypical : Coatpx«- Iten : Island : Purpose :Altemative : bensive { : Barrier :Delta Water :I)elta ^ter :Delta Water : Project : Project : Project : Project Benefits Water sal^rage Local vater quality Supplenentary nunlclpal and Industrial water Flood and seepage c- t~- •H OJ Cfl •s •v tH Q) CO CVJ CU (U ? 0} -a -p c (U ■ • •• G n to 0) !Z o •H O 1 o o o o o o -P G OCATIO rs) -P to 0) ;h o oo r-l CT) 1 CO rH CO rH 6 6 CO rH CO •\ rH oo rH CO H * CO r-l PO rH nd tha iffere 1-^ to K CO 'O iJ H • • •• < H G •. OJ o O •H •H rH • S tH § o -P VO 1 vo • • J- • d OJ d VO • CT PR] sands o ft to c to H VO H H o OJ O OJ VO r-i o H 5* o VO rH d the sraent W 3 no h) O ^ 0) OJ t- O ^ • • «• .o to K -p 0) X to W O* M m CO a a PQ OS -H to ft •P rH TA ELTA WATE nt worth 0) (U to C to O ON m CVJ 1 1 1 o ON rH rH CO OJ -J- CO VO » 00 ^ W r-l o o • • : Water suppl • o & en cu 00 CO VD CO CO VO ON t-- VD OO VO ON VD CO CVJ • ro IfN C7\ OJ • CO ITN ON CO oJ CO •\ VO -4- t the alloc emental sou assigned. CO H c -c; ft 3 -p ft 3 to a c to -H o o >l •H to +J +5 W § •H •P (0 o o rH ■P c ft£ o -p H ■P to O o ■P to o ost por at ion -P •H O •H ■p CO o O rH a assxira throug total c 2f r-i o O V H m rH O V > CO o -P CO X> TS •H 0) (U H bO to t3 to C +^ Cm H r-{ rH G O tA EH s (U (U •H to to o CO c G ■P E ft ft E •H (U r-i •H i • • •P iH •H CO r-l •H CD Jh :3 •p CT Cfl p l-l T3 0) c -P ■H C IS 'a a ce rH CO p< •H o •H c ^ • • •" ^ o OJ c -p CO cC H ? o CO rH CD • • -p CO c -p 0) CO E o tt; o rH ft CC p. u ;3 -p CO a o o « • •• (U bO CO > rH ca to S-i (U -p ^ • • •• E (U -p M C\j aj .J- J- !>- u-\ CO a M3 OA 0^ on m ro O .H rH VO iH rH O m cn -P +j • • • •H o f- ON ON s 0) f- rH H •H •ra CO VD VO iH O •\ •\ Jh no cu OJ TD Ph rH 0) ^^ O (U X -P 0) CO ^ -p ^ G G H r-\ CTN ITN CO (U • • * O P t>n oo ro o OJ Oi to (U m VD VD -p to •V to o ro o P^ CJ U £ -J- rH r-t -p (U • • 03 H ITN tv-1 m o bO VD C7N ON O c LTN vo VD rH •H ^ -^ -s rH W ON rH m ro CO W ■P to s ffi •p o -It -d- G cn • • • O Q> D- t-- •H CO t^ t~- -P C-- W o. ft •» ^ CM CO CO p o oo f>0 to __^^ ^,_^^ ■^* — ^^ ■^*— ^ OJ ";?i to CO CO CJ 0} G c f-i O o Ch •H •H a; +J +J +^ u to to -p CO o o +J •H V a o o CO s o o rH o •H ,-t •H r-t o rH r-\ HJ !> CO •p CO 03 •rH OJ bO to O -P tM rH C o f-q O +J to o ,Q •H o <: rH •H C to G 5h r-l Ch u -p ?-i •H 4J g < (U OJ •H CO CO c c ■p E ft E •H (U rH •,— 1 (U (U o ■«»s. rt < •^ U2 K •-3 Hi 163 which must be reimbursed by local interest. Reduced inundation and reduced operation and maintenance costs on interior levees were con- sidered as a basis of nonreimbursable funds. Those benefits accruing from reduced seepage costs and reduced operation and maintenance costs of project levees were considered for repayment by local interests. Table 75 presents the flood and seepage control suballocation by island- groups . TABLE 75 CaiPREBENSIVE DELTA WATER PROJECT SUBALLOCATION TO FLOOD AND SEEPAGE CONTROL BY ISLAND -GROUP (i960 present worth in thousands of dollars) Basis of : Is land -group allocation ilsleton: Lodi : Holt : Tracy: Brentwood: Sherman Reduced inundation cost 3,078.9 2,088.9 756.4 4.5 964.1 736.4 Reduced operation St maintenance cost Interior levees 788.7 835-9 913-2 52.2 299.6 0.0 Project levees 1,839-4 2,193-5 3,568-3 451.2 1,397-3 597-4 Reduced seepage cost 464-1 692.3 996.1 61.5 339-1 0.0 TOTAL REDUCTION IN FLOOD AND SEEPAGE COSTS 6,171.1 5,810.6 6,234.0 569-4 3,000.1 1,333.8 The portion of project costs allocated to federal and local interest is shown in Table 76. It should be emphasized that this sub- allocation is based upon an assumed procedure which results in an apparently low federal allocation. - 164 - TABLE 76 COMPREHENSIVE DELTA WATER PROJECT, SUBALLOCATION TO FLOOD AMD SEEPAGE CONTROL FEDERAL -LOCAL OBLIGATION (i960 present worth In thousands of dollars) I 6 land -group : Federal : Local : Total Isleton 3,867.6 2,303.5 6,171.1 Lodl 2,92U.8 2,885.8 5,810.6 Holt 1,669.6 4,564.4 6,234.0 Tracy 56.7 512.7 569.4 Brentwood 1,263.7 1,736.4 3,000.1 Sherman :■ 736.4 597-4 1,333.8 TOTAL 10,518.8 12,600.2 23,119.0 Suballocation to Vehicular Transportation The portion of the project costs allocated to vehicular transportation was suballocated between transportation beneficiaries ill proportion to the benefits received. Since a large portion of the transportation benefit is realized by the Delta recreationist, nonreim- bursable state funds might be expected for the capital costs allocated to recreation. The reduced costs to the counties for operation and maintenance of roeui systems, and the benefits to local traffic have been considered as a basis for determining local obligation. Table 77 presents the benefits and allocated costs to these aspects. ■(^ 65 - TABLE 77 ^ COMPREHENSIVE DELTA WATER PROJECT \ SUBALLOCATION TO TRANSPORTATION (i960 present worth in thousands of dollars) Benefit breakdown : Benefit ; Allocation Delta recreation 13,897.0 13,897-0 Throiigh traffic (recreational) Delta agricultural traffic 1,200.0 1,200.0 County operation and maintenance 1,520.6 1,520.6 2/ TOTAL 16,617.6 16,617.6 17 Not evaluated due to lack of origin and destination data. 2/ Assume allocation cannot exceed limit. - 166 Sunmiary of Cost Allocations The primary allocation and suballocations of -various project costs between functions and beneficiaries are presented in Table 78 • High magnitudes of unassigned costs of the Chipps Island Barrier and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects remain after all justifiable costs are allocated. In the case of the Chipps Island Barrier Project, about 75 percent of the total costs ceuinot be assigned to any beneficiary because alternative pleuas provide a more economical solution to the water supply problems. In the Comprehensive Delta Water Project approximately 3 per- cent of the toted, cost cannot be assigned. - 167 - TABLE 78 V SUMMARY OF COST ALLOCATIONS (I960 present worth in thousands of dollars) Item : Chipps : Island : Barrier : Project Single Purpose • Delta Water Project Typical Alternative Delta Water Project Compre- hensive Delta Watey Project^ Total cost 2OIA09.O J+6,352.8 6U,i+6i.8 90,108.7 Water s upply allocation U6,352.8 146,352.8 Ui+,690.7 1+6,352.8 . Water salvage 38, 277. i^ 38,277.1+ 36,905.0 38,277.^ Supplemental water. Contra Costa County 3,693.1 3,693.1 3,560.6 ■ 3,693.1 Supplemental water, Solano 623.5 623.5 601.1 623.5 Municipal & industrial quality 2,619.3 2,619.3 2,525. U 2,619.3 Agriculture quality 1,139.5 1,139.5 1,098.6 1,139.5 Flood and seepage control 11,358.8 23,119.0 Federal ___ 6,1+39.3 10,518.8 Local land owners — _ r— t+, 919.5 12,600.2 Vehicular transportation 7,762.6 16,617.6 Recreation access 6,725.6 13,897.0 Local land owners — -: 289.5 1,200.0 County 7I+7.5 1,520.6 Recreation __. 6U9.7 1,313.0 Unassigned costs 155,056.2 — 2,706.3 T/ Limited allocation 168 CHAPTER VI. REPAYMENT OF PROJECT COSTS The manner of repayment of project costs allocated to each of the beneficiary groups will be the subject of contract negotiations. This chapter assumes methods of repayment in order to evaluate the unit prices to individual recipients of project services. The existing contract between the State of California and the Metropolitan Water District has been used as a guide for the repayment structure. While this is probably valid for the basis of repayment of that portion of total cost allocated to water supply it is not necessarily applicable to project costs of a more local nature and should be considered only as a suggested method of pajonent. Water Salvage The export water users are expected to repay the project costs allocated to water salvage through the purchase of water from the Delta Pool. The water will be priced so that over the repayment period all costs of the State Water Facilities allocated to water conservation and delivery will be repayed by the export water users. A portion of the unit cost of export water from the Delta will be for repayment of the costs of the Delta water facilities allocated to water salvage. The average value of the Delta water facilities component of the export water unit cost has been determined from the projected Delta Pool demand during the repayment period ending in 2019, snd the water salvage allocation of each of the four alternative projects. The allocated costs and the resulting unit costs are presented in Table 79 • - 169 - TABLE 79 ALLOCATED COST OF WATER SALVAGE AND INCREMENT OF DELTA POOL PRICE NECESSARY FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS Project sWater Conservations « Allocation (I96O : t present-worth) :Cost Per Acre-foot Chipps Island Barrier Project $38,277,UOO « 0.661 Single Purpose Delta Water Project 38,277,UOO 0.661 Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 36,905,000 0.6>8 Comprehensive Delta Water Project 38,277,^00 0.661 The projected future yearly demands for export water for the years 1969, 1979, 1999, 2009, and 2019, "nd the annual repayment revenues based on the average \init cost figures in Table 79, are presented in Table 80, TABLE 80 ■ DELTA POOL DEMAND AND REPAYMENT REVENUES FOR DELTA FACILITIES Year Delta i Export water repayment revenues, in dollars Pool t Chipps Island Barrier and i Typical demand, t Comprehensive and t Alternative (acre- rSingle Purpose Delta Water Projects s Delta Water Project feet) t s 1969 1482,000 1979 2,275,000 1989 1^,380,000 1999 6,250,000 2009 7,32li,000 2019 7,957,000 319,000 308,000 1,502,000 i,h5o,oco 2,895,000 2,79ii,000 li,i3i,ooo 3,988,000 U,8h0,000 h,672,000 5,260,000 5,077,000 - 170 Lo cal Water Supply The Delta water facilities would, in addition to conserving water for export, Improve the quality of water available to western Delta water users and would make available supplemental water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use. Historically the Delta water users have had access to an adequate quantity of water. However, diiring periods of low flow in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River system the quality of water in the Delta channels has de- teriorated because of the incursion of poorer quality water from the San Francisco Bay system. Increasing upstream diversions and exports of water have decreased the percentage of time that good quality water is available in the western Delta channels. This availability of water supply would be further reduced by continued U. S. depletions and by state exports of water from the Delta. An increased demand for municipsl ^nd industrial water has been fore- cast for the western Delta. Even v/ithout state exports of water from the Delta there will not be sufficient water of good quality available in the western Delta channels to satisfy the increased demand. The Delta water facilities vould provide both replacement and supple- mental water to the western Delta water users. The replacement water would replace the amount of good quality water which could no longer be obtained from the Delta channels due to the st-te exports. The supplemental water supply would be water which would not othervTise be available, even vrithout state exports from the Delta. To the extent that the future water require- ments exceed the deliver ability of existing and presently- proposed water supply facilities, sufficient capacity would be provided in the replacement facilities to meet the future supplemental requirements. 171 The replacement facilities for agricultural water, which are included in the Delta Water Project variations, woiildbe completed in 1965, These facilities would deliver high quality water to ppproximately 3U,000 acres in the western portion of the Delta. The allocated cost of the water quality improvement would be paid by the beneficiaries, probaiiy through a master district. The average annual allocated cost to agricultural water quality during the period 1965 through 2019 would be $1.86 per acre for the Single Purpose and Comprehensiire Delta Water Projects. The Chipps Island Bairier Project would improve the quality of water in the Delta channels and therefore no replacement facilities for agricul*» tural water would be required. The allocated cost to ^ricultural water quality of the Chipps Island Barrier Project is the same as that for the Single Purpose and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects and, therefore, the average annual cost would be $1.86 per acre during the period 1965 through 2019. Municipal and industrial water made available to Contra Costa and Solano Counties would consist of both replacement and supplemental water. The average allocated cost to local water supply of the Montezuma Aqueduct deliveries would consist of a transportation cost and a water quality cost. Since Solano County would not receive a water quality benefit, the Solsno water users would not pay the water quality charge. Users of supplemental water would pay the Delta Pool price, in addition to the above charges. Table 81 shows the average annual allocated cost to local water supply and the Delta Pool cost, with each of the four projects. - 172 TABLE 81 AVERAGE COST OF MONTEZUMA AQUEDUCT DELIVERIES t Chipps: Single i Typical i Compre- t Island: Purpose s Alternatives hensire X Barriers Delta Water: Delta Water: Delta Water Item : Projects Project t Project t Proje ct Average allocated project_/ cost to local water supply. Contra Costa County (dollars/acre- foot) 3.it5 3.it5 3.33 3.1i5 1, Avel'age allocated project_y cost to local water supply, Solano County (dollars/acre-foot) 3.21 3.21 3.09 3.21 Delta Pool cost ( dollars/ acre- foot )£/ 5.61 $.61 5.59 5.61 ±7 Sum of average water quality cost plus average transportation cost. 2/ The Delta pool price plus the allocated project cost to local water supply would be thecost of supplemental water. This cost is based tqjon the eqtial annual equivalent value between 1970 and 2020. Flood and Seepage Control The project costs allocated to flood and seepage control have been sub-allocated between the Federal Government and the local beneficiaries, in keeping with federal policy controlling nonreimbursable flood control allocations. It has been asstiraed for the purpose of repayment analysis, that the federal share would be repayed during the construction period. The annual payment would be proportional to the project capital expenditures for flood control in that year. Table 82 shows the estimated schedules of federal flood control contributions for the Typical Alternative and Ccsnprehensive Delta Water Projects. 173 TABLE 82 ESTIMATED SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL CONTRIBUTIONS Federal contribution Year s Typical Alternative : Comprehensive s Delta Water Project ; Delta Water Project 1963 $ 809,800 t 1,759,800 196U 392,300 535,700 1965 392,300 516,800 1966 157,000 262,iiOO 1967 157,000 262,liOO 1968 157,000 1*68,700 1969 297,000 553,500 1970 136,500 1,151*, 300 1971 1,628,200 1,867,000 1972 671^,500 1,817,000 1973 67li,500 2,797,900 19 7U 1,372,900 1,022,300 1975 588,000 522,700 1976 588,000 553,100 1977 588,1400 553,1*00 1978 588,iiOO 71*0,900 1979 38l,liOO 1*59,300 1980 239,700 11*3,300 TOTALS $10,122,900 $15,990,500 i960 present worth 6,1*39,300 10,518,800 The local share of the flood and seepage control ^locat|:on would probably be repayed thro\igh master districts. The allocated project costs and the average annual cost per acre are presented in Table 83. - I7I* TABLE 83 ESTIMATED COST TO LOCAL BENEFICIARIES OF FLOOD AND SEEPAGE CONTROL Average annual allocated cost s Average annual: : allocated floods s and seepage s Area Project s control costs, tbenefited: per acre s 1965 through : (acres) s 1965-2019 : 2019 ( dollars); ; (dollars) Typical Alternative Delta Water Project 270,800 102,986 2.6? Comprehensive Delta Water Project 693,600 252,258 2.75 Vehicular Transportation The costs of the "typical Alternative snd Comprehensive Delta Water Projects which are allocated to vehicular transportation have been suballocated among the beneficiaries in proportion to the benefits received. Vehicular transportation benefits accrue to local road users, Delta recreationists, and the Counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Contra Costa. It is ejected that in keeping with present legislative policy relating to recreation development, nonreimbursable state fxmds or gas tax funds willbe available for repayment of the capital cost portion of the allocation to recreation and the annual costs would be repayed from gas tax funds. Vehicular transportation costs allocated to locpl beneficiaries would probably be repayed through county taxes. Repayment schedules based on the above assumptions are presented in Table 8ii for the Typical Alternative and Comprehensive Delta Water Projects. These are merely example repayment schedules based on assumed state and local policies and may differ markedly from the actual repayment schedules. No vehicular transportation benefits are provided by the Single Purpose Delta Water or the Chipps Island Barrier Projects, and therefore no costs have been - 175 - allocated. lo 01 •3 0) B O \^ 0) Vi CO o 8 X) C c=^ p 0) +J O •% O +> 01 -H J' 0} CI) O -p rj o O * p O O ^3 8 «» (4 h !>««»«• E -P « _-rt O n) Oa o p Wt^^ a .88 8 O Q Q O Q O S O O S :**><*- CN CM r*^ •» <>•>•«•«•> 3 TJ 4* O \A^-0 CM iH fH r^H e n -H Oco t^ CM CMVO'O t»- 1) 4» O -P t«-_^-=f > at o «f iH O O no h ^1^ 2 H o § s:4 2 M ])*••••• ^'^ tu ' i^ ' « u^ «>! :i c e ch atio ocal iari Q) O ^^ >>CM ^5 c <: 1 Pu o\r\ to 8-^^ ovo § CO Os iH O «H *^i-i E-« H -P « Osv_x 7^ « ^ M: a !•««•••« -3- ^ <»\-3U\ vO r^OQ CN O \0 vO "O ^ C^ OO D nOnOnO O « 0\ On Ov 0\ 0\ Os 0\ On a M . H HfH H H i-i r-i t-i r-i ^ ' ••*(••< ^ > CO 09 Eh Pr^ B U o 4 i S CH 8 8 E^ 1 ■^ o - vO S -5 D Tl C •* -3 0) 4^ O iH O C 3 +> 01 ^ g (^ H « O 4* H p O « O O Eh 1 4 iH U ^ + OH o «» M c d »4 E^ »3 E M <• u @ c 6 'rt 01 + 3 4i 0) r- ^ 'H o .^ 9 (X O 3 at ^ (d g88 o o o o o o o o o o . " o - C^c^c^ CM O O r^ O a D C ^ ^ •* •V »k VV •« (\ «• TJ +> o OXAUN -aroo OO c^c^ •r H 0) « iH OO c^cn lAoO 0O-3 H -t- c > 43 O 43 d cfl o 01 CM H H H CM ^ : U 0) < O »H ^ «» < ■;•«•••* CI n i C 0) c3 o^ ocatio local iciari © H C SO •r <:cvj C O^ 1 1 oxr\ H O «H •»(>s H 43 « o ,Q 4» 8 O O O o o o o OniH CM O r^ •t ffk ^ n •« OO UNvo OO r— CM -3^ P~ 0\ 8° =; ^ o o _ o O o o *k ^ »k 9\ m\ r— r^c^ CM r^ OnCN O NO OO H H CM ^ CJN © H ■ CM I 8 \A0O •>On CM r-i nO^—' O O O O O O O O O O vrvH f — S' r>- ^ •i •* •* •% IACMnO OnO CMIAO H r- o o o o o O O O Q O trvvo vrwA-sj ^- r- onW\ o H H H H rH H r-i r-i CM mv-^U\ On 0\ 0\ 0\ Os r-i H r-i t-t H O O O O O O O O O O CM c>^fn<*> CM •V •i ^ •* •* lA On 0\ OsnO H H iH ^0O OnO t^ c^ t^ r^oo On On 0\ On On rH H H H iH O O O Q O O O O O O CM CM vO NO -CT ^ «h •« ^ ^ «0"0_3-=rxA 00 Ov o I O H O OO •»On O rH OD v-- 88888 H rH CM O H ^ •% «i ^ ^ O CM H CNnO CM CM CM U\P- oo \Avr» a> CVJ CVI S 8 OJ CVJ ^ o\ UN CVJ o or- C3\ f- [- t- ^ J- CVI R o CVi CVJ 00 vo 00 CVI vo CO CO ^ o o ir\ l-J 0\ ^ ^ CJV ori 00 oo H VO 8 ^ S 8 o CVJ H 8 vo CVJ PO tn ^ 8 vo cjv <^ CVJ •\ CO CVI CVJ I a M o o -p a I I 01 CO ^ H +> 01 d) rH 3 6 -P "b _ •HO)!) a! 01 u 01 CO O (U u u a o "i "i ^ VO VO ITirH C3 lArH IP. 11,981.7 321.6 901.8 ONOO -* oJ.* \o -* ro in 3,000.1 101.1 201.0 CO COH CO OsCh CO COON CO H 0\0 <^c6 A rH t— t- CO H CM rH O H coo rH .* CVI rHVO t- IP.O o\ H t-.* 000 rH COCM -* CJ\CT\ vg CO C3\0J ir\ VO Ov UN coco rH g\OJ b- ? ipv t-^ 00 co-d- CO.* 00 VO f-CM cooo •-{ CD r-f CM t- POVD CM.*.* 00 m LTN Lnoo CO rococo rH H ITNVOVO ^.CMCj rH-* cJ VO CO lP.CT\CO CM ^ IPv CO CD .* COCO rH rH LP. ^- d ONt IP. rH J- VO .* t~^ ON q IP. L/NrH J- 0? rH CO LP. rH <>,0 COVO rH J- HCO COO CM rH rH l/N VO CMCO t^ VO t— CO l/N CM CO l/N rH H COON rH.*0O CO rH CM IP. rH CD rH d .* t-.* CM CM VO CO VO CM VO 00 .*.*.* -* ONON 01 01 ri CM en 5 IP. CJ\ CM IPv VD ON .* CO CM .. CM CO IPv .* 00 IP. CM .. CM LP\ r •H •P o a 0) P4 +> T) 0) ^< ID (> 0) •r; 1 +J n 01 u n 3 U< 01 u +J 1 WU)0« UIUWWM UtWMWW Wit5^X3* ~s»f s fsfss 58«?* savsas 8 !^Vwo OBOtVwb a>b\Vn>o b>oo o»b\V-wo aao^V^o cBb "J-JOOIVO MIIO^OOO OOHhP ^^ >-• M t' H P P P P f* P O O O S S S £ «0 >C ^o « O) CD CB -4 O ffiUi lO t-" fm iffm »W3§ HH5 if lis tYsu Yml Wm Yfm Isiis ¥fW^ "i» *r\* ©\ai -J »(B«« oSPPS KaEjwwu wt-jrjr-lr- t!irI-!r!S^ C-!Jr&t!r Jr ^rwMW C^uitoKl GGC^Jp G-jToJ^S KSm 5»3S vfssf Wm '^sYw fill} Wnl §si¥» "ssVp ssgss ihs'^ 2i?h hs ^uiwV b*oiiI-^b« Oi M b *-^ w b (^•• ►-* mOioct-V Cb ►* ooCd m E-'^C»^m Ciib\bVCD uj^^^w OimCaiu^ bibvl^w^ ^Vb ils'i sl'i'i'i sms jmi fefil g3"is"i 11*11 sll'ii "iiiis "ii^es shis «3» !hCnb»CAM'« 9>raCDyib n>u>»-'bb> c^^lf»MCB ^mh'^mCo VOtCnuib ^Oik)Coo> Vo'Oi-^c^ CnOi V *m §»??« sstpf ssssf smt assss Bpp spgss ssse* pa^ws Cd b ^ ra MC'vib'-^ ^oavooM rawV-VCn otwb^V h' oaCn h> ba OiCub-^'- n}^9>Cub nVbo^M vdOihcoV SsD^MI^ ^SSV'O OijflD o v0 ->)0!uim£ -^rS-^H9\ MO^OVO V*-ui«>^ u M ^ ^ M S$55 ^-^SS 3*??? ???PP ??fFp S§2?S SS5£» S«55S SSSas »???>£ » V^ttb '^Cmva^Cd bui^Cora jibanV^ b b ^ b h- r- h' n m w niboB^Oi u>H'CBae9> A-ioHiebD C'VraH'b bo ^^^^ ^^^^^ SS^&^ ^^&^|& ^^^^^ ^^^^^ j^^^l^fS ^t^^f^^ ^^fS^ ^s^^^ ^^^^^ ^ M^-^^ ^^^^^ ^^-^^-^ ^-^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^-^-^^^ ^l44aljl4 ^^^•4^ ^^^^^ ^Z^lj^lj Ij evw^ &&o~)-j -dCT'OtSvn ijivji«-«'«- wuiuiww IfPh'h'O 00^0^ tjoaoa>~i~i -j(tv«\9>v^ v^v/i^-^a- uiutuiuitt m m)i tms WM ¥fWf '^W^ YlY?^ VM'^ WM '^fW w¥^ YfW^ '* woiVb o>ui bsCnM-^w \o\ni^^Cn bo^rao*' bb^boV b-^wNOui m-IjuvdCa w •SSko^Oi vAvX^Jhu) w IS IS rS M H00>0^0 00 CD ce->) ~i c^<^v1^•■ ^wmm6 Pt^oo>A >ea)V-g~4 <^e'^^^J>«- v-wi^utio n Vm 'mit Wm mu u}¥^ ¥M'? psss Yfm 'u\n mm suu u^ wbabv soVvootw boi-^^ Oi»-"bVb wVutbCo ^^wxn^ e^wOibOi w«-«Vu Coa>OiVn> bbCnwB &\n V -.«Ba |J(S£x 5SS8S S*!JH e?^333 S2§SI ?^I^SI §^353S ?232^ 3*8S§ 3S5Ea »i«~ Vm Im^ S5S3S sYsli ms} 'mY? W^f^ ??iP WWf ¥M'^ Wff^ 'M fc»t U 8 bSsr IP f l?l Ir I? - 180 I 4* O hi i V 't 1 i «V r-«» t-t-t-t- 1-1^(^1-1-1- ^-^-•-^ -t-t- ^-^-^-^- i «ati«ii «4i««3 «i«sa ««««a a««sa aaisi aa«« aaaaaa aaasa aaaaa aaaa • O^M-*** «0O--iW-« t««»t^m 1^ r»« OM CM'JM-^r^ r-iOr^o Ok MO»f-"o «n»-if*«orj oo\o« « M&isa ss§s3 SSS2S H6?* SSIaa safS stSgSS SSS«S «iK553 JJS! rso-*9i-* 9i^osfoa> r^^t-et^ ^A9l«i•'^ «0r-tfN^mai o ^<0 b'^' t— a^o^^ •! (n^ wn •h^^« «^^-v sijg-gs «ijr« K«fis§s S|M5 ijsgj jjjs 5«?»^ xirtjg siigj s|jg| jsuRR «£S| 53JH5 ?§aS HSftS 1515 ^ ^irv >«t>-tf\>«^ VS9tMV\t- O'^^M'N-* *^»lt--->^ ©vfn«e«v« O • •-< m H O f*»<«l ^9vei«'^«W m i^ r- K\ n^ «|0-*C-'4 if\if\ift\m ««» s§*3s ss^is ssEis «£8§s ?3lsi 5tJEj ii.is isiiKS sUii iUii mt ^ ^^^^.S r^^ilmm timttt!'^ tAifiint^m «inW V-«^^W VW^V ^ ksknmsmn *r\wNM\r% 0^•v^ ^i^OMt- p— «-«-e«^ r^oth—* UN i-tfr.^irti. ^^m«*D »#*r^ina\ -^ kn^ c « o i->o m 0v^ f>^« #4 M tf\^ «• 5Se «?iS55 ssSSS «S|3« liit^ I8£?? SiSSS gS?P ^g^gss HSaS ssSiS 3*3^ »iQr- w^-***^ irti^-)« MM M MM • 45 §ssKS iitii imi tiiii mii iiiU siiit imi Uiti Uiii iiii MMMM MMMMM MMMMM MMO »H\^t-m 9t*>000 iHr^MS J8R* Msas §8*35 ae^si jiggf jsgsi §fS3| ?HSR iiUS UU • CO-A-^O WOvVvOvOn 0>0tnev9t 9s 9v O sata\ov*>A ^^^^a iJrHatD.^ rJ«Ni«sinu> «M^«\tf\ir\ i*\MM/NW\t- t-r-r-l— t- trtt't't' trt*tt^ i?'^5'^ ?'*C'4'^ ^?!&&:i Il33^ PP^^s ana Am* mn ii&*t s*ssi ani SiSii aJtSa 32 «Ss R SSI S| S3 S « MM «h»>« mVm «* '^ III mil iiiii igfii iifif mil mis mil um mti itiu liii 181 - gggg g8g88 l§ii§ l§§ii §ISSS SSSSs SSSSS S§SS« SSsSS S3SS5 §§««§ SSS S S 0> nVlUtUl CTi.frl--^0\ HHOSC-W tP^-'O IS-jiStdo »Hvfl&v5» -a-jffifflM — JHK n —J *-vji vivjiui — JtofOfOfu M thChihir- ^^ d> d\ C" ^ dSQSflSO^Cn cf\ &^ Q\ cfi Cf\ gS CK d'l OS 5^ esch if\Cf\ ch ds ov d^ d^ (^ OS d'. d'- 17\ ds M-~j-s*^'^ 'lf*«lp>-j ^^~J-^rJ"J 5)&6j& &&&&& o>9siS5\o-]-3ojlo q 9i ** h tr *-\^wi\ji\>i bbbb bbbbb bbbbb bbbbb bbbbb bcDOJCDbs a><»a>Goa> a>CDCDa)t» t-ajmOi-^ Vvnvi>jiu fsSS §£«H swSfS f^fS'^ SaS^S ^33sl pSsS? Ss^pl «sasa fvsas^ h-l-'MI-'t-' h-MMeW MMMNM MMMMM MMMMM WMMMM MWMMW MWWMM ^^^^^ b!s;»f s^as-r ^sssX esass s«k3s saws syscss »8Sks scs*f sn.s'isss sasfes e3 sis I-'- 5ll fc-\jl Ox>c CO \o o M c>-o -J (--^O CTie- ..o.. *-*-^e- c- M\o 4r CSU) t-\ji e-ui 00 C0e-OiH*O <0 CD «g8g igsa? ?£?Ss «s»ll IEkSs S5I5S gsgf« «lflg HsS§ MsS£ Sl^ga tif >JIVI\fl fi- MMU)-J CB ^ H>o\^w UJVO o^ c-os o\ro o^o e- CT^*r-a>M (^ e--J\/1 fr-O) M 1- 1- f M uiU) ro M M h- OSO §113 nsm CDMWHOUl ISSHs BsIS ^€SSI §*|g3 s^^e* 3sSI§ «a3i S "1 ^ a>\o M soc»ff\*-o\ vokoji-'O \ou)-jwo> (-"viioom o^o DJr^--Jfc- OOM-)«ljJ oarot^CTi— 1 a>05»OV0O ovjio^h-m ^o^\^'^ %ji\jiijivioi vniji^*-c *•«-«-*-*- e-Lndju woj Ldwuj^ro foforotuM M'tf^tlt ^'^It^l^- _ rUIWfB fOHKOO ^oSCK-JiW fO O «0 --S b> t-MOoiSui O-Sa-H-CB CTvC-fOOCD -J'*we*>0 -JMO^O*- *OW-JpVJ MCTs^-vJl OVflOSJlO e-ov/iOvn OsflO^J*!-" 0\-J*OI-"fO fCTv 0»VO t- ^0\-j \OH"ui\fl-j o^oe■o^a) ujoj^joi^ MrorofOH* mhi—mh h*^* - t \-',^.'" ...^ t»\J»MMS (Rro^OOM-u O 03-J v» c- MH-'BaD-4 vi6v»io*ji 0">/'*o*-*o cc-uiojM foi-h- CD CK e- M O Oa -J-JCT^(T>\Ji *"*- ^-\0 CDCfy \fl&SsPo OiWtt-J-J -^ 3s(SBmijj(F ©^-*^-lo )ju-joijjct> vcwi-jmCi ^ooj— :Hv^ »o f-'^Lu'i CTiMosi-b CTiw bostu b-^t-b-a ^--^r-'uic* bui ct>vo m Oio\-jooos voooi-'m w *-e-vjt oi o>-j— j m*© »© ?S8S SSSS8 S8SSg gSSSS SS8S8 88888 88888 88888 88888 88888 88888 8 fOUi\/i'-nv vn*)Os<^.CTv C-MMMI-' ijj oa OS a> &) Of— J -J -J ^ u) vQ VJ1 vji >ji \oPSSS rofof*-ro CT»-3-j-j-j ^irir-Vb b'bvnOiM Cnbbbb a:3^3^ :3i3i3:3i3 is:^^^^ :3^^^y lijij^^^ :j:^^!3^ :3^I3:3I3 ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo sss Bo> oDococDa ~i-3 -J-J-J-O—J — J-J-O-J— J ■• M M*!- m*OHCT\0- y*Oh-MO tAiUiftiS*- VJiVJiO KCPOM^^ fc^bwH'h' Oi-uboM U)UJ-J OOOO OOOOO ooooo OOOOO g^ggg BBBBS ffffffSg ggggg ^rr^^ ^^^^y. M bbbbb bbbbb bbbbb bbbbb e-bxciwro ioimijjkm i^ o\ ^MirfHt- h*CM*iiju-j ro ro !-• ^ _ 88f OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO oooob a»w*-** *rP0Mj o\(^ct>ov ovh^-vo^o \o^~]^^ L>wu)i.>) uiu>toforo rorv}U)o>(Ji-J Co c-bsji b "ill e-«OD*- «(^t-o»^o -IVfllO CBC- 0\ff»*-Wl M u) -J rovo i\> ■o.^U^h t--JvO MiJi 10 WW O f ~1\0 l-'l--l 03 H" *• r II 19 15 .a fa II f - 182 ii 0>a m eO 0\*\0 lA f^(»>H(VU (0vO-4O'^ HUM/\>00 0\^CJ Ov*1 crl0h,O-»O rHO%*«CUt- WfOMfi^O tf\\00 nA vA vO NO NO NO 'O no no <0 nO ^ vovOiOnQNO \0 "O NO NO NO \o ^ NO NO NO \0 \0 NO >0 NO no >0 NO NO -•"■^"•i -i'iTSiJ MSSlS »d as: ISI SISiSI!!!S SI!SiSI81!9 SI!S»SISI Si!3SiSI!S »SiH$l!SI SiJ^SIiSSI iilSiSliSI !8i a: ITNCO •-• t-\a^-* O NOOSt-OMS NOnOC»'««> t sss sssse 3S3^S SS5S9 4 ONHOjom mMrunM i^u- IffS^S^ ^So'Be ^^^ft*& ^iS^'s 's.^^A^ ^^«i^^B ^^*'fiyi ^'£!.%'&% ^al%'&^ K».%^ '-^>4MfV ^'^(^^*n fO(^a>eoaD£ 1^ \0 ^ \0 NO NO NO NO SO NO NO NO NO \0 \0 ^ NO NO \0 NO >0 NO NO \0 >0 >0 NO NO nONCONONO NO NO tU NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO VO NO >0 NO ><> SON On On ON On On On (?i On On (>i 6> O* <^ On ONONWONOi ^ ^ O ^ 'O ^NO*^^^ *A sO ^ NO \0 NONO^^^ Qn^Qn^On ^ C^ ^ NO NO ^ nO ^ Q) ' NO NONO NO sss OOOimt- ^ ^ On f 6KS SSSRi; SSSSK RKSS ffuMfN CJCJ^irN-H a)(Ot-Otr> i/NiTnC--" I? Scucuotoicvi nnicucuoj cuoumcum cunuqjn MtuuMN (vmojmcu no 'O'OnOnO'O ^ ^ <0 ^ no 'OnOV'Ono \0 no nO '« NO 'O NO >0 NO NO sonOnOnOn/i NO n£ JCVJ OlMCUftlCNJ CUCVJOJMCNJ O^ NO NO NO NO ^ so ^ NO ^ nO 5 nO so NO'S i' NJ ll 8I« ill A a 2.B 5|, CO OrHCU^NO (OOrHW-* ^"J^'^'^ 'OT'^^'V *V "i *^ 'i 'I '1°'^^° 'T'^'^®"^ ^^'^'7'^ '^^'0*?'^ ^"^^"^ Ms irNsot-t~S SosOOH Km n^-^ J- iAno t— jt<0 OnS O H W (O^ JT 9Lo t-«0 OnQ H W rniANQ t— (OlSOrHM jruNsZt— ^Hr-J Hr^Hr^^rf iH>-(iH3rH .-(WSwN w«fli«l« CmwSiPk^ p^mmPScn (nrri3^-* ^^3rjr iTiOJ ON^ ON-* ONfncO M^ t—Q rr\ >o On OJ McO f- itn^ m W O On<0 (^no t-OOONOiH W tn.* fcft •^J^c: ci,A^.-J 2^8^^ siiSK SSSSJ &3K3S i§|^g ^HS Jr OO iH UN ON I'S'O O-VO} Qfl^ONCU -«t~u(mrs COHiT-tO— I -*r-(j <•>• ir.^ -»mcy -HOOstOr- t-No kfN^ m tu iH O 9s ^MOsirsi-t cO.*Ht~'^ sOtOOWl/N F-OnCU'^'nO ONmsOONf^ \O0Ni»1'OOn Hi^u^r-Os W m.* vOfO OnOiHWCN ■Vu-n'O^ J^rH.^ i-ir-icjcvin WftjScNJW SmwNirim SSp^pp-i3-» ^.*.*^-* j-irstr\irNtfN ^rNl/Nl/NlrNl/^ ■5\0'0>0 .* ITNUN sOf-lTssO-* so On CNJ UN t~ O M ITN ITs J- f*% Ol f- H ITS ON "ICO tNJ SO (D O H fO W OITnOsWNO ONCUlfNeOW CS ITs t— 1/N m C\J O ^ C— r-< l/NlTNg^NO ««» s§sa§ g32ii ssp^i iiiii iitii WsM: K^M, tP.^A 4t4P. iiits jsii O CO t~ ^ t~ PINO ON nOCNJ-OOniH (DOtOftW -* OnCO CIO OT iTnOD t— 05 0.*<0so flsoWuNCM iTNf^irsirNO NOtUrHONt— ITS OsCO CM «> SO CN) i/N (n,* mfOOONPO Ht— d i/NO t-Of—i/NiH mNO^--*'*S fOirsfOtOfn On NO i-t ON 31 UMi iii^-. i¥Ai ii¥A ^MM i¥Ai wM pip. ^wi ¥ii^ ^^^^ ^ H'^-^fHH orwwww MNoToTn ftTwcyoTw woTwcjcnj woioiww w w ai cy cnj w cy m rH ^ ,j ^ r-i h (OnoiTnOW ONt— no.»W CU Or'l.* (A u.nO NO(~-t~ (DONHOfd ^irsNO t--a> ONOnOOO iHHCNtCVOJ CylltMfSf^ mfodro -2BRi s,sss« ssrtSR |P^5| ^sggf g^gR^ ^f||| fHSg MS^I an ^ r4 H H iH C~ »»>0NNOi-lft flrHHO"^ f-t— r-f~-t~ p-t— p-t— t— t— t~C— P-On OsOnOnONON OnOsOnONOn CTsOnOnOnOn OnOnOnOnOn OsOnOnOn s sssss Uiil smi iiiii iiiii iiiAi isiii imi isiii ism iiii w^S onOno S^* ^ it. 5?.* no s^rSc— 3 sS h -n N«fnr^ "^d'j'" NONOCht^UN kA^ClTHp-T Sx| IIIII iliss IIIII llflf IIIII IIIII IIIII iilM lllli iiiii lilt - 183 PLATE I BOUNDARY OF THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA (SECTJON 12220 OF THE WATER CODE) BOUNDARY OF THE WESTERN DELTA STUDY AREA , (AREA OF INTENSIVE STUDY OF WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1765, STATUTES OF 1959) TSA ■'',3Q PLATE i MASTER LEVEE WASTE CONDUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES CHIPPS ISLAND BARRIER PROJECT DECEMBER 1961 SCALE OF MILES / i \i ''■ / i ""I / »■ *V I ' j\ t / 7 7/'— I **. y '^'^K', V ■fiaiiWT «s**» * 14 i,-*-" J'' x« y^„ Xv" l.__^.* — .1 ( . .i SL y f% •' *'; ^iir-i f . PLATE / /^^ / ^ ■* -■■ / -—T^ K> () > J yrA.:w "iiFl- K\K X ^^ X ■>* a •S'.-T»JI3A'^ »3TA* ATJ30 sS«i B3eM.303C rS.^i» HI i>^>* %'...' lll .llli l Mi' iM^.' ll iaUU!.i l W.. W.:. PLATE 7 «•' •I' NOTE: The zones designate the approx- imate distance in river miles along the Sewramento River from the Golden Gate. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY ZONES WITHIN TSS WESTERN DELIA DECEMBER 1961 J^'Jj i ^OCST) /£S^ .-fe' > , ifj^V s.M s v.. ■v3TAW ATJ3C asm'S YTIJAUp SaTAW ,IA: AX^- ^( i »• V, 4i J ■ . 'VT i, .i Ai sua- sKnt let ' !! irtft! ;),.(,»■„ PLATE 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES THE ECONCWIC EFFECTS OF REWJCED CROP YIELDS ON FAHM OPERATOR'S NET INCOME SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN QEUEA OCCCMKR IMt NOTE: Operator's net incone con- sists of the returns per acre for any specific crop based upop the costs, prices, and average yields prevailing during the base period 1932-36. It Includes the opera- tor's vage» 3 percent interest on the operator's equity, and a resi- dual to nanagenent. Crop Yield In Percent of Normal a ri'rA,M jy. I ........ .....Vw .■ . .-,...: ^'Q i t:.ia4.iAj^ r;-};:; ,i i"fc ,' mJU -.&inou ac ::;;v.tris^i ,ai jDJ.aj.j ^L*TE 9 1600 < O 1500 o v> a z M 1400 z> o X S 1300 o o z UJ , z V) 1200 "(T O I ^- i < I a: I ^ 0- ' o 1100 000 INCDME FOR PROJECTED CROP PATTERN /-INCOME FOR I960 CROP WTTERN. PROJECT CONDI , PROJECT qONDITIONS INCOME FOR I960 PATTERN, NON-PROJECT COND TIONS IONS I960 1970 1980 1990 YEARS 2000 2010 2020 NOTE. WESTERN DELTA STUDY AREA INCLUDES 38,400 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ~~" STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES [' DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER PROJECT AND NON-PROJECT CONDITIONS DECEMBER 1961 * ST'" ■ v ^~n oc osos _J -4 tuwio laacOHq-non ,n«3 ,-.; i OTei l-^'^^WHH 1 i ^3r>^ QUA 733'. AT >^3Tfl.W ATJBQ :)MI ^^i- v^o;- PLATE 10 CHANNEL 1900 + 2.0 U.S.G.S. V 1930 - 5.5 U. S.G.S. VT I960 (PRESENT) -13.0 U.S.G.S. V 1990 ■20.5 U.S.G.S. V 2020 -28.0 U.S.G.S. V PROJECTED SUBSIDENCE OF A TYPICAL DELTA LOWLAND AREA (NOT TO SCALE) o iij a. a. I- z UJ bJ q: o o UJ l- o q: Q. o o o _l Ll. I960 100 90 1970 1980 YEARS 1990 2000 2010 2020 80 70 60 50 40 30 ^ \ \^ ^^ \. \^^ ^^ 2 •JACKSLOPF ^ \^ / "\ ^ ^ f^^4o„ V4;0^ 10 15 SUBSIDENCE IN FEET STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES SUBSIDENCE AND ITS RELATION TO LEVEE STABILITY DECEMBER 1961 0) iiA ;'-J ---•i*™---. 'V .3x).?.U 0.8'? - A3«A G^IAJ" o:>os -H L.^ osos I --i [ -i— - x>^ ^.-^ y j:aO JADiqYT A ^0 3' ' 13.JAD2 OT TO!") --f- V:iJ ^"^ Q3tD3w01RM ..«»• io- ■ fl? TATa 23JTiJfDA^ qi-'AV.' 4T l-sn YTIji8ATa 33V3J OT HOirAJJH 8Tf PLATE II STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES OCLTA IIIANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES PCATION OF ISLAND GROUPS SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA DECEMBER 1961 SCALE OF MILES 2 « 1 I I i j 31iik,l^- r :v.- k 4-": % "^s vioTSjai LJOflS 0V1AJ3I ■ ■»—«■«', iiLiMtjy^Iyi^.. . -wv'imw. -' (J«A. i^.JZ'^-i !^f^ ■-'■"■'• '■^ HUOh^ ISO! n3Bm: iSiitdiismatg^tmaiKsai PLATE 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DELTA BRANCH DELTA WATER FACILITIES PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL INUNDATIONS SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA DECEMBER 1961 r i ! // !—->--. ^^^VlTAl^p^ / / / I ^~l-:3lORq_^.r^^ ^^J^_ OOOi oe^f oYei 23 iii i j PLATE 14 z o 1- < o o -1 -1 < (A O U b. O m s I t- bJ / 7 ©\ ©/ ®y^ ^\ ©/ 0\ ®y ©\ 0/ <« o o -1 (T) Calculated by Separable Costs Remaining Method (y Calculated by Separable Costs Remaining Method within purview of Section 12202 of California Water Code (3) Allocation Procedure as defined by U.S. Corps of Engineers (4!) Allocation based on benefits (^ Allocation based on recommended DWR policy of nonreimbursable recreation costs z o < UJ 1 IT h- UJ <0 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS (I960 WORTH AT 4.0%) LOCAL FLOOD AND SEEPAGE CONTROL _1 O v° O UJ o o -J < u. a. LJ UJ « g UJ u So ■^ § -1 u. / 4 1- m -1 a. UJ bj o (n K a. UJ UJ MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER QUALITY \ © (E UJ 1-