LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS wrY 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING Bulletin No. 58^^ NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION ^m---^ . jT.^' EDMUND G. BROWN Governor UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS FEB L^O 19S8 GOV'T- DOCS. - LIBRARY HARVEY O. BANKS Director of Water Resources /' UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS N ti i>! w X ^, r 1' VfpiJ^l MlA.*^ sSii''*:' ^y^^^i^ -V A S S E N. m ">i Li .*!' A. 'il/' \ ■-^_ .1 f Uj ^ iy». ^ 1— ,6 L E N N J B U T T E X' S 'ERR Ak; <^ Lake Tohoe 7j V \ M San Francisco Bay f CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES ■3 ' V ,--^ 2 fi M U ■' y \ M A H d .; -^ \ /a V ■f "■ u sy <: o / J 1 A ■t STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING Bulletin No. 58 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION EDA4UND G. BROWN ift'C^^^s) HARVEY O. BANKS Go.vernor vVv --J^e^^^l I Director of Water Resources JUNE, 1960 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 7 RESOLUTION 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 10 ORGANIZATION, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 11 ORGANIZATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 12 BOARD OP ADVISORS 14 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 15 Authorization for Investigation 15 Related Investigations and Reports 16 Objective and Scope of Investigation 16 Area Under Investigation 18 Drainage Basins 18 Climate 20 Geology 20 Soils - - 21 Hydrographic Units 22 Present Economy and Development 23 Biitte County 23 Colusa County 25 Glenn County 27 Lake County 29 Lassen County 31 Modoc County 32 Plumas County 34 Shasta County 36 Sierra County 38 Siskiyou County 39 Sutter County 41 Tehama County 42 Trinity County 45 Yolo County 47 Yuba Coiinty 48 CHAPTER 11. NATURAL RESOURCES 51 Water Resources 51 Precipitation 52 Precipitation Stations and Records 52 Precipitation Characteristics 53 Runoff 54 Stream Gaging Stations and Records 55 Runoff Characteristics 55 Quantity of Runoff 59 Ground Water 61 Water Qualit.y 63 Water Quality Criteria 63 Water Quality Conditions 65 Water Quality Planning Considerations 108 Page Land Resources 109 Presently Irrigated Lands 109 Irrigable Lands 111 Standards for Determining Suitability of Lands for Irrigation 114 Laud Classification Survey Procedure 117 Determination of the Amount of Land That Will Ultimately be Irrigated 117 Probable Ultimate Crop Pattern 119 Urban Lands 128 Forest Lands 137 Recreational Resources 139 Fish and Wildlife 142 Recreational Use of Reservoirs 143 Population and Employment 143 CHAPTER III. WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 147 Unit Values of Water Use 149 Irrigation Water Use 149 Urban and Suburban, and Rural Domestic Water Use 153 Forest Products Water Use 155 Use of Water for Recreational Development 156 Consumptive Use of Applied Water 156 Net Reservoir Evaporation 156 Present Use of Applied Water 156 Probable Ultimate Use of Applied Water 162 Probable Ultimate Water Requirements to Meet Consumptive Uses 167 Water Requirements for Irrigated Agriculture 167 Water Requirements for Urban and Suburban, and Rural Domestic Population 169 Water Requirements for the Forest Products Industry 169 Water Requirements for Recreational Development 169 Total Seasonal Water Requirements 171 Limited Seasonal Water Requirements 177 CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 183 Summary 183 Natural Resources 184 Water Utilization and Requirements 185 Consumptive Use of Applied Water 186 Water Requirements 186 Limited Seasonal Water Requirements 187 Recommendations 188 (3) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued TABLES Table Number Page 11. 12. 1. Areas of Ilj-drographic Units Within tlie Northeastern Coiinties 22 2. Areas of the Northeastern Counties 23 3. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Butte County 24 4. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Colusa County 26 5. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Glenn County 27 6. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Shasta County 37 7. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Siskiyou County 40 8. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Tehama County 44 9. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Yolo County 47 10. Principal Irrigation Water Service Agencies in Yuba County 49 Kecorded and Estimated Seasonal Precipita- tion at Selected Stations, North Coastal Drainage Basin 53 Monthly Distribution of Mean Seasonal Pre- cipitation at Selected Stations, North Coastal Drainage Basin 54 13. Recorded Seasonal Precipitation at Selected Stations, Central Valley Drainage Basin 54 14. Monthly Distribution of Mean Seasonal Pre- cipitation at Selected Stations, Central Valley Drainage Basin 55 15. Recorded and Estimated Seasonal Precipita- tion at Selected Stations, Lahontan Drain- age Basin 55 16. Monthly Distribution of Mean Seasonal Pre- cipitation at Selected Stations, Lahontan Drainage Basin 55 17. Estimated Seasonal Natural Runoif at Se- lected Stations, North Coastal Drainage Basin 56 18. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Average Seasonal Natural Runoff at Selected Sta- tions, North Coastal Drainage Basin 56 19. Estimated Seasonal Natural Runoff at Se- lected Stations, Central Valley Drainage Basin 57 20. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Average Seasonal Natural Runoff at Selected Sta- tions, Central Valley Drainage Basin 57 21. Estimated Seasonal Natural Runoff at Se- lected Stations, Lahontan Drainage Basin 59 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Average Seasonal Natural Runoff at Selected Sta- tions, Lahontan Drainage Basin 59 Estimated Seasonal Natui-al Runoff of Major Streams and Principal Minor Streams Within the Northeastern Counties 60 24. Estimated Average Seasonal Natural Runoff from Hydrographie Units, Northeastern Counties 61 Table Number 25. Basins 22 23 26. Characteristics of Ground Water Within the Northeastern Counties Following United States Public Health Service Drink- ing Water Standards, 1946 27. Qualitative Classifications of Irrigation Waters 28. Water Quality Tolerance for Industrial Uses 29. Mineral Analyses of Surface Water Within the Northeastern Counties Mineral Analyses of Ground Water Within the Northeastern Counties Present Water Service Areas (1954-1956) Within Hydrographie Units, Northeastern Counties Present Water Service Areas (1954-1956) Within the Northeastern Counties Land Classification Standards Classification of Irrigable Lands Within Hy- drographie Units, Northeastern Counties _ Classification of Irrigable Lands Within the Northeastern Counties Probable Ultimate Pattern of Irrigated Land Use Within Hydrographie Units, North- eastern Counties Probable Ultimate Pattern of Irrigated Land Use Within the Northeastern Counties Probable Ultimate Pattern of Urban and Suburban, and Recreational Land Use Within Hydrographie Units, Northeastern Counties Probable Ultimate Pattern of Urban and Suburban, and Recreational Land Use Within the Northeastern Counties Estimated Sustained Yield Capacity of Com- mercial Forest Lands of the Northeastern Counties Estimated Annual Production of Major For- est Products at Sustained Yield Within the Northeastern Counties Estimated Present (1956) and Ultimate Pop- ulation Within the Northeastern Counties_ Values of Consumptive Use Coefficient "K" for Use in Formula U=KF Within the Noi-theastern Counties Estimated Mean Seasonal Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Ir- rigated Crops Within the Northeastern Counties Estimated Unit Values of Water Delivery Requirement for Urban and Suburban De- velopments, and for Rural Domestic Uses Within the Northeastern Counties Estimated Unit Values of Water Require- ment and Consumptive Use for the Forest Products Industry Within the Northeast- ern Counties 30. 31 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 42, 43 44. 45. 46. Page 62 63 63 64 66 83 110 112 115 120 122 I 127 129 ! 133 135 139 139 145 150 154 155 155 (4) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued TABLES-Continued Table Number Page 47. Estimated Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Water for Recreational Activities Withiu the Northeastern Counties 156 48. Estimated Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Present Service Areas (1954-1956) Witliin Hydrographic Units, Northeastern Counties 158 49. Estimated Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Present Service Areas (1954-1956) Within the Northeast- ern Counties 160 50. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Con.sump- tive Use of Applied Water Within Hy- drographic Units, Northeastern Counties— 163 51. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consump- tive Use of Applied Water Within the Northeastern Counties 165 52. Probable Ultimate Irrigation Water Service Area EfSciencies Within Hydrographic Units, Northeastern Counties 168 53. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Re- quirements Within Hydrographic Units, Northeastern Counties 172 54. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements Within the Northeastern Counties 174 55. Limited Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements AVithin Hydrographic Units, Northeastern Counties 178 Table Number 56 Page Limited Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements Within the North- eastern Counties __ 180 57. Estimated Pre.sent and Probable Ultimate Population Within the Northeastei'n Coun- ties 183 58. Areas of Presently Irrigated Lands and Esti- mated Ultimate Irrigated Lands Within the Northeastern Counties 184 59. Areas of Commerieal Forest Land and Their Estimated Sustained Yield Capacity Within the Northeastern Counties 184 60. Areas of Probable Ultimate Ilinh lutensitj^ Recreation Use Within the Northeastern Counties 185 61. Estimated Present and Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water Within the Northeastern Counties 186 62. Probable Ultimate ilean Seasonal Water Re- quirements Within the Northeastern Coun- ties 187 63. Estimated Average Seasonal Natural Runoff and Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Re- quirements for Water in Major Drainage Basins, Northeastern Counties 187 64. Summary of Limited Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements With- in the Northeastern Counties 188 65. Estimated Average Seasonal Runoff and Lim- ited Ultimate Mean Seasonal Requirements for Water in Major Drainage Basins, Northeastern Counties 188 (5) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued ILLUSTRATIONS Page CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Frontispiece Indian Valley, a Mountain Valley in the North- eastern Counties 19 Rice Under Irrigation on the Broad Floor of the Sacramento Valley 19 Unique Thermal Belts Permit Orange Culture in Butte and Glenn Counties 28 Yuba Consolidated Dredge Mining Gold From Gravel Deposits Near Hammonton, Yuba County 35 Haying in Plumas County 35 Boat Docking Facilities on Shasta Lake 43 Navigation on the Sacramento River 43 The Feather River, a Steep, Turbulent Stream Near Belden, Plumas County 50 Dry Stream Channel of Cache Creek, Character- istic of Coast Range Streams in the Sacramento VaUey 50 Water Measuring Devices Used by Watermasters to Control Distribution of Irrigation Water 58 Example of Land Classification Delineated on Aerial Photograph 116 Page Livestock Pastured on Cut Hay Land 118 Milo in the Sacramento Valley 118 Young Walnut Orchard in Tehama County 126 Meadow Hay in Modoc County 126 Urban and Suburban Areas 132 Logging Operation in Siskiyou County 138 Sawmill in Plumas County 138 Recreation at Bucks Lake, a Pacific Gas and Elec- tric Company Reservoir 140 Fishing a Large Stream 140 Pacific Migratory Waterfowl Flyway, Showing Principal Fall Migration Routes 143 Agriculture Creates Large Industries to Process and Transport Products 144 Labor is Essential in Processing Agricultural Products 152 Furrow Irrigation in the Sacramento Valley 157 Irrigation by Sprinkler 157 Fort Jones, Siskiyou County, a Northern Califor- nia Town 170 Rural Domestic Development Near Dunsmuir 170 PLATES (Plates are bound at end of report) Plate No. Plate No. 1 Generalized Geologic Map of the Northeastern 3 Geographical Distribution of Precipitation in Counties (3 sheets) 2 Hydrographic Units Within the Northeastern Counties Northern California 4 Classification of Lands for Water Service (17 sheets) 5 Forest Lands in the Northeastern Counties APPENDIXES Page A. Future Population, Economic and Recreation Development of Califor- nia's Northeastern Counties 189 B. Comments of Individuals and Agencies on the Preliminary Edition of Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation" 265 (6) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL EDMUND G. BROWN Governor HARVEY O. BANKS address REPLY TO DIRECTOR P O. BOX 388 SACRAMENTO 2 1I20 N STREET HICKORY S-47II STATE OF CALIFORNIA Hrpartmrnt at Wntn ISrsnurr^a SACRAMENTO June 6, 1960 Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor, and Members of the Legislature of the State of California, and California Water Commission Gentlemen: I have the honor to transmit herewith the revised and final edi- tion of Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation," preparation of which was initiated from funds provided by Item 249 of the Budget Act of 1954. The preliminary edition of this bulletin, dated December 1957, was pub- lished and distributed early in 1958. In September and November of 1958, the Department of Water Resources and the California Water Commission jointly held four hearings to receive comments from interested individuals and agen- cies. After consideration of these comments, a number of revisions were made in this bulletin. In addition, pertinent comments received at the hearings have been included as an appendix to the bulletin. This bulletin presents results of a comprehensive analysis of present and probable ultimate water needs of the fifteen Northeastern Counties of Cali- fornia : Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba. The estimates of future water requirements are predicated upon the full development of all natural resources, and include the requirements for irriga- tion and domestic and industrial uses of Avater, as well as for the maintenance of fish and game and for development of the recreational potential of these northern areas. The bulletin also contains estimates of limited ultimate mean seasonal water requirements for areas within the northeastern counties where the available water supply is inadequate to completely meet the ultimate water requirements. Very truly yours. Habvey 0. Banks Director (7) CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION JAMES K. CARR. CHAIRMAN SACRAMENTO WILLIAM H. JENNINGS, VICE CHAIRMAN LA MESA JOHN W. BRYANT, RIVERSIDE JOHN P. BUNKER, GUSTINE IRA J. CHRISMAN. VISALIA GEORGE C FLEHARTY. REDDING JOHN J. KING. PETALUMA KENNETH Q. VOLK. LOS ANGELES MARION R- WALKER, VENTURA EDMUND G. BROWN GOVERNOR HARVEY O. BANKS Director of WATER Resources address all communications to the chairman of the commission P, O. BOX 388 SACRAMENTO 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 80 REPORT ON "NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION", BULLETIN NO. 58 Whereas, The State Department of Water Resources has published a pre- liminary edition of Bulletin No. 58, entitled "Northeastern Counties Investiga- tion", in December, 1957, and Whereas, Bulletin No. 58 presents the results of a comprehensive anaylsis of present and probable ultimate water requirements of the fifteen northeasteru counties of California: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskij'ou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, aud Yuba, and Whereas, These future water requirements are predicated upon full de- velopment of all the natural resources, and include the requirements for irri- gation, domestic, and industrial uses of water, as well as for the maintenance of fish aud game and for the development of the recreational potential of these nortliern counties, aud Whereas, The California Water Commission and the State Department of Water Resources held joint hearings on September 3, 1958, in Yreka; September 4, 1958, in Redding; September 5, 1958, in Susanville ; and November 6, 1958, in Sacramento, to secure comments on the preliminary edition of Bvilletin No. 58, and Whereas, The State Department of Water Resources, after consideration of comments received, has revised the preliminary edition of the bulletin; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the California Water Commission recommend that the report be approved for printing in final form as Bulletin No. 58, and that it is further recommended that the estimates of probable future water requirements of the fifteen northern California counties contained in the report be periodically re- viewed in the light of changing conditions and technology. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the California Water Commission, State of California, at Sacramento, on June 3, 1960. Hi.^Ww.'^VmYVN'^^ William H. Jennings Vice Chairman -^^^^^ ^^^Z^^t^t^ William M. Carah Executive Secretary (9) ACKNOWLEDGMENT Valuable assistance and data used in this investigation were contributed by agencies of the Federal Government and of the State of California, by cities, counties, public districts, and by private companies and individuals. The Boards of Supervisors of each of the Northeastern Counties, and the offices under their direction, were most helpful at all times. This cooperation is gratefully acknowl- edged. Special mention is made of the cooperation of the following : Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of Interior Geological Survey, United States Department of Interior California Department of Finance California Department of Fish and Game California Division of Forestry California Division of Beaches and Parks California Public Utilities Commission University of California at Davis ( 10 ) ORGANIZATION CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION JAMES K. CARR, Chairman, Sacramento WILLIAM H. JENNINGS, Vice Chairman, La Mesa JOHN W. BRYANT, Riverside GEORGE C. FLEHARTY, Redding JOHN P. BUNKER, Gustine JOHN J. KING, Petaluma IRA J. CHRISMAN, Visalia KENNETH Q. VOLK, Los Angeles MARION R. WALKER, Ventura WILLIAM M. CARAH, Executive Secretary GEORGE B. GLEASON, Chief Engineer ( n ) ORGANIZATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING HARVEY O. BANKS Director of Water Resources JAMES F. WRIGHT Deputy Director of Water Resources RALPH M. BRODY .— Deputy Director of Water Resources WILLIAM L. BERRY Chief, Division of Resources Planning JOHN M. HALEY Chief, Project Development Branch This report was prepared under fhe supervision of WILLIAM L. HORN Chief, Local Projeci Section by JOHN R. TEERINK -. __ Principal Hydraulic Engineer STUART T. PYLE Senior Hydraulic Engineer JOHN W. SHANNON Supervisor, Land and Water Use Section and M. GUY FAIRCHILD Supervising Hydraulic Engineer WILLIAM B. SHAW. Senior Hydraulic Engineer ROY N. HALEY Senior Land and Water Use Analyst DAVID M. HILI Senior Engineering Geologist Assisted by BEVERLY H. HOFFMASTER Senior Hydraulic Engineer RUSSELL E. FRANSON Assistant Hydraulic Engineer NED R. PETERSON Assistant Hydraulic Engineer PHILLIP A. SHEDD, JR Assistant Hydraulic Engineer THEODORE P. VANDE SANDE Assistant Civil Engineer CHARLES A. FULLER ._ Assistant Land and Water Use Analyst REGINALD E. MERRILL Assistant Land and Water Use Analyst ROBERT R. McGILL, JR Assistant Land and Water Use Analyst GLENN B. SAWYER Assistant Land and Water Use Analyst CHARLES D. RIPPLE Assistant Land and Water Use Analyst BETTY GUTT .._. Junior Drafting Aid (12) Wafer qualify sfudies were prepared under the direction of MEYER KRAMSKY -- Principal Hydraulic Engineer WILLARD R. SLATER „ - Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Assisted by CARLETON E. PLUMB- — Supervising Hydraulic Engineer ROBERT F. MIDDLETON Assistant Civil Engineer MATHIAS V. HILLING Assistant Civil Engineer Maps and plates were prepared under the direction of JOHN L. JAMES Supervisor of Drafting Services ADMINISTRATION PAUL L. BARNES Chief, Division of Administration FRANK T. BRAGG Public Information Officer L. CLAY DUDLEY -.. Photographer ISABEL C. NESSLER Coordinator of Reports Fish and wildlife studies were conducted in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game WALTER T. SHANNON Director JACK C. ERASER Water Projects Coordinator ED V. DWYER Fisheries Biologist III (13) BOARD OF ADVISORS The Department of Water Resources engaged a board of advisors to review the v/ork accomplished during the Northeastern Counties Investigation and to appraise the conclusions that were reached prior to publication of this bulletin. Many of the sugges- tions proposed by the Board of Advisors have been incorporated in the bulletin. The review board consisted of the following members: DR. DANIEL G. ALDRICH, JR. Chairman, Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition, University of California, Davis DR. STERLING A. TAYLOR Professor, Agronomy Department, Utah State University Logan, Utah S. T. HARDING Consulting Civil Engineer Berkeley CONSULTANTS FOR POPULATION, ECONOMIC AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC PLANNING AND RESEARCH Consultants in planning, natural resource development, and economics Sacramento, California (14) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growth of California in the years since "World War II has created problems of many types and vary- ing degrees of magnitude and complexity. The tre- mendous population increase and expansion in agriculture and industry have depleted local water supplies in extensive areas of the central and southern portions of the State. The State's economy is firmly linljed to those problems of existing deficiencies, and to the problem of satisfj-ing a rapidly growing de- mand for additional water. An increasing statewide interest in the waters of northern California has resulted from the necessity to develop plans for importing supplemental supplies from regions of general surplus to the areas of de- ficienc.y. The plan receiving the major attention at the present time is the Feather Kiver Project. This project, adojited by the Legislature in 1951, as a fea- ture of The California Water Plan, will involve the construction of a large dam on the Feather River, about 6 miles above the City of Oroville in Butte County, for conservation, flood control, and hydro- electric power generation. Extensive systems of pump- ing plants and conduits will convey surplus waters in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta made firm by operation of Oroville Eeservoir, to areas of need in the San Joaquin Valley, the Santa Clara Valley, and southern California. The Legislature has recognized the importance of developing the State's water resources to satisfy this growing demand for water in order that a healthy economy may be maintained. Realizing the need for development, yet recognizing that the present and future interests of areas of water origin must be safeguarded, the Legislature has from time to time provided funds for planning of coordinated, statewide developments of water resources in the best interests of all sections and for all people. To insure that some areas of the State do not expand to the detriment of other areas, in connection with the Central Valley Project, the Legislature has stated the policy that the watersheds wherein water originates and areas con- tiguous thereto which may be reasonably served therefrom, shall not be deprived of any water needed for their future development. Under the County of Origin Act, now codified as Section 10505 of the State Water Code, no assignment can be made which would deprive the counties wherein the water originates of any water which may be required for future develop- ment therein. The effect of this policy has been incor- ported in all subsequent state planning for water resource development. The policy applies to the Feather River Project, to which the authorizing leg- i.slation specifically made applicable all relevant pro- visions of the Water Code relating to the Central Valley Project. In light of the foregoing policy, and in connection with current planning for major water resource de- velopment in California, the need for thorough eval- uation of the probable ultimate water requirements of northern areas of water surplus, based upon the full development of all their natural resources, is ap- parent. AUTHORIZATION FOR INVESTIGATION The Legislature, by the Budget Act of 1954, pro- vided : "Item 249. For necessary investigations, sur- veys, studies, and preparation of plans and specifi- cations for the purpose enumerated in the following schedule, the Division of Water Resources, Depart- ment of Public Works, to be paid from the funds specified in said schedule. * * * TV" "3^ ^ 4t "ir "(b) The determination of the ultimate water needs of the Countj^ of Plumas and those portions of the Counties of Butte, Lassen, and Sierra in the Feather River Drainage Area, predicated upon the full development of all natural resources in those counties, payable from funds appropriated by Item 428.5 of the Budget Act of 1952. * * * "(e) The determination of the ultimate water needs of the Counties of SLskiyou, Shasta, Modoc, Trinity, Yuba, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Lake, Yolo and Sutter, and those portions of the Counties of Butte, Lassen, and Siei'ra not in the Feather River Drainage Area, predicated upon the full develop- ment of all natural resources in those counties, payable from the funds appropriated by Item 428.5 of the Budget Act of 1952. * * * " * * *■ and provided, that the money appro- priated bj' subdivision (c) of the above schedule shall remain available for expenditure until De- cember 31, 1956." The Budget Act of 1954 provided funds to meet the costs of the investigation in the amount of $376,895. Of this amount, the expenditure of $90,000 was authorized for Item 249(b) and $286,895 for Item 249(c). (15) 16 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Additional fnnds in the amonnt of $10,000 were made available by the Budget Act of 1957 to complete editorial work and to print the preliminary edition of the bulletin. Further funds were appropriated in Item 262, Chapter 1300 of the Statutes of 1959, for printing the tinal edition. RELATED INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS Tlie following reports of prior investigations, con- taining informatiou pertinent to evaluation of the water requirements and water resources of the North- eastern Counties, were reviewed in connection with the cnrrent investigation : Reports of California State Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. "Sacramento River Basin." Bulletin No. 26, 1931. "Pit River Investigation." Bulletin No. 41, 1933. "Survey of Mountainous Areas." Bulletin No. 56, December, 1955. "Northeastern Counties Investigation, Report on Up- per Feather River Service Area." April, 1955. Reports of California State Water Resources Board. "Water Resources of California." Bulletin No. 1, 1951. ' ' Water Utilization and Requirements of California. ' ' Bulletin No. 2, October, 1954. "The California Water Plan." Bulletin No. 3, May, 1957. "Sutter- Yuba Counties Investigation." Bulletin No. 6, September, 1952. "Lake County Investigation." Bulletin No. 14, (pre- liminary report) October, 1955. "Interim Report on Klamath River Basin Investiga- tion, Water Utilization and Requirements. ' ' March, 1954. The Department of Water Resources is presently conducting a cooperative investigation in Shasta County. This investigation has as its objective the formulation of plans for conservation and utilization of the county's water resources to meet present and future needs. The Department also is investigating the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the principal valley fill areas of the Northeastern Counties of Modoc, Las- sen, Plumas, and Sierra, as a possible source of an economic and dependable water supply for these mountain valleys. Pursuant to Chapter 61, Statutes of 1956, now con- tained in Section 232 of the California Water Code, the Department of Water Resources is conducting an investigation to determine in detail: the amount of water resources available in the separate watersheds in the State; the amounts of present and ultimate water required for beneficial uses in those water- sheds ; and, from the foregoing, the quantities of water, if any, available for export from the water- slieds of origin. This investigation, wliich will con- tinue over a period of years, will be accomplished in greater detail than has heretofore been undertaken and will serve as a basis for assuring reservation of adequate water resources for the areas of origin. Numerous studies which relate to the problem of evaluating water resources and water requirements have been conducted by such federal agencies as the j Bureau of Reclamation, Geological Survey, and Soil Conservation Service, in the area of investigation. This information, as well as data supplied by many of the individual counties and other entities, has been utilized to the maximum possible extent. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The general objective of this investigation was to estimate the ultimate water needs of the designated counties in northeastern California, predicated upon full development of all natural resources. In attain- ing this objective, it was necessary that the scope of the investigation include evaluation of the j^otential development of the basic natural resources of the counties under consideration. Included were the wa- ter, land, and recreational resources, and population and employniput. Of major importance in forecasting ultimate water requirements was consideration of the present uses of water, and a detailed evaluation of unit values of consumptive water use under present, as well as ultimate, conditions for various types of development. A brief and generalized description of the methods employed in estimating the present use of water and forecasting the ultimate water requirement will serve to illustrate the scope of this investigation. In general, the estimates and forecasts wei'e made on an areal basis ; that is, determinations were made of the vari- ous types of development requiring the beneficial con- sumptive use of water. Appropriate factors of unit water use for different types of development were then applied to these areas in order to estimate their total water consumption and requirement. Exceptions to this general method were made in estimating the ultimate water requirements for urban communities, and in estimating the quantit.y of water needed for the manufacture of forest products. In the case of the M'ater needed for urban connnunities, require- ments were based on population estimates; for the forest products industry, they were based on the sus- tained timber yield of the forest lands. In the case of present water requirements, areas of irrigated agricultural types of development were de- termined from a land use survey conducted in 1954 through 1956. Unit values of consumptive use of irri- gation water were estimated on the basis of an as- IXTRODTTCTIOX 17 siimcd full available water supply, but reduced where applicable to express the preseut deficiency in actual water supply development. Estimates of urban and rural domestic populations were extended from cen- sus data. Estimates of unit values of per capita requirement for urban and rural uses were based on data obtained from records furnislied by water serv- ice agencies and on records maintained by tlie Public Utilities Commission. Included in these estimates was water use by commercial areas and industries. In the case of ultimate water requirements, methods similar to those used in estimating present water requirements were applied. The inherent capacity of the land to support the various types of forecast development was determined by the following pro- cedures. The extent of irrigable lands that might ultimately be irrigated was determined on the basis of the physical capabilit.y of the lands to utilize water, with consideration given to the reasonableness of the physical and economic possibilities of developing and conveying water to the places of possible demand. As a result, estimates of total ultimate water require- ment for certain areas of inherent water deficiency are somewhat less than had they been estimated on the basis of land capability only. Irrigated crop patterns were projected in part on the basis of the land classification survey data. Em- phasis was placed upon the determination of futiire irrigation water use, since irrigated agriculture is, and probably will continue as, the major consumer of water supplies. Future urban, suburban, and rural domestic popu- lation and the probable future pattern of economic development was projected on the basis of indicated trends of population growth, communications, natural resources, and other factors pertinent to a balanced economy. The forecasts of future recreational areas were established on the basis of broad classification, utiliz- ing recognized standards of suitability for this type of development. The recreational areas were further subdivided into lands suitable for homes, commercial recreational uses, camp grounds and picnic areas, and organizational camps. Estimates of the extent of forest lands under ulti- mate development were based on recent surveys and appraisals of the forest area and timber volume made by the United States Forest Service. Utilizing these data, estimates were made of the ultimate sustained yield capacity of the commercial forest lands and the ultimate annual production of major forest products for each of the fifteen counties concerned. The ultimate extent of other water-using areas, such as swamp and marsh lands, was determined on the assumption that lands presently classified as swamp and marsh would be maintained in tliat state rather than be drained and reclaimed, and that certain lands of the lower Klamatli Lake area would l)e converted to controlled marsh for waterfowl habitat. The esti- mates of use of water resulting from evaporation from water surfaces of reservoirs were based on studies of existing works and those propo.sed under Tlie Cali- fornia Water Plan. Considerable emphasis was placed upon the deter- mination of unit values of consumptive use of water by irrigated crops. This phase included a review of all available data on the subject. In addition, it was found necessary to initiate a program of additional field work to gather new data. Field work started in 19r)4, and included measurement and study of soil moisture depiction from field plots, and installation and maintenance of atmometer stations, evaporation pans, and other instruments. The field program which was commenced and continued for the three years of the investigation is still in progress, and is presently being financed by appropriations made for the Cali- fornia Water Development Program. While the unit values of consumptive use of water presented herein are based on the best data presently available, it should be noted that the program of additional data collection is in an early stage. Only after a number of years of basic experimental work to collect new information, and of compilation and analysis of the data, can fully reliable estimates be made available for use. Since the basic premise for the estimates of ultimate water needs of the Northeastern Counties was the full development of all natural resources, special consid- eration was given to urban and industrial growth potentials and to recreational development under ulti- mate development. Lacking qualified experts in these fields, the Department of Water Resources employed the firm of Pacific Planning and Research, consultants in urban economic planning. The consultants assisted in the analysis of the expanding water needs that would inevitably result from future population in- crease, and from anticipated growth of industry, com- merce, and recreation. This firm conducted field surveys, held discussions with representatives of con- cerned county, state, and federal agencies, and pre- pared estimates of ultimate population, iirban areas, and recreational areas and uses. The data compiled by the consultants, and their conclusions relating to ultimate population and economic development, are contained in Appendix A, "Future Population, Eco- nomic and Recreation Development of California's Northeastern Counties. ' ' A substantial portion of the water served to irri- gated agriculture, iirbau areas, industries, and other water-using areas is consumed or lost to further bene- ficial use. However, there are uses of water that are not necessarily consumptive in nature, such as those 18 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION for the generation of hydroeleetrie energy, for the propagation and preservation of fish life, and for the general aesthetic aspects of recreational develop- ment. Certain factors of demand may be imposed upon the water by the nature of its beneficial use, such as those pertaining to specific rates, places, and times of delivery; losses of water; and quality of the water. In general, non-consnmptive use demand factors can only be evaluated on the basis of the specific plan of water resources development. Because of its close relationship to water utiliza- tion, estimates of the available water supply were in- cluded within the scope of the investigation. For each hydrographic unit, estimates were made of the aver- age seasonal natural runoff. The physical character- istics of ground water basins were also investigated, and the results summarized. Water quality problems were located and discussed, and a tabulation pertain- ing to the quality of all waters available for develop- ment and use was prepared. Since a principal purpose of this investigation was to provide all available information on water use and requirements within the Northeastern Coiinties, the data were analyzed and studied on the basis of both hydrographic units and counties. All data were there- fore tabulated by hydrographic units, and by the portions of each hydrographic unit within counties. Since the sum of seasonal water requirements for a number of smaller subdivisions does not represent the over-all area water requirement, it was necessary to determine the amounts of return flow that could be utilized within a given hydrographic unit, or would flow to and be made available in a lower unit. As a final step in the investigation au estimate was made of the ultimate depletion to the total water supply that would result from full development of all natural resources within the fifteen counties. AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION The area under investigation, which lies in north- eastern California generally north of the City of Sacramento and east of the Coast Range, includes the 15 counties which comprise State Assembly Districts 2, 3, and 4. These counties referred to in this report as the "Northeastern Counties," are Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba. This group of counties comprises 23 per cent of the total area of the State, contains 3 per cent of the pres- ent population of the State, and is the source for almost 40 per cent of California's water resources. The area is one of bountiful land and water resources. Significant among tliese are the extensive agricultural lands of the Sacramento Valley and upland valleys which are ringed by the Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Range, and the Sierra Nevada. These moxmtains give rise to the stream systems of 1 the Klamath, Trinity, Pit, Feather, and Sacramento ■ Rivers, which supply the agricultural lands with their necessary irrigation waters. Drainage Basins The Northeastern Counties area extends into three of the major hydrographic divisions of the State. Por- tions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Lake Counties lie within the North Coastal Drainage Basin, which includes the Klamath, Trinity, Mad, and Eel Rivers draining westward directly into the Pacific Ocean. Portions of Modoc, Lassen, and Sierra Counties lie within the Lahontan Drainage Basin, which includes minor streams draining eastward into closed basins. The Susan River is the largest stream of the Lahontan Drainage Basin included in this investigation. The greatest portion of the area covered by the North- eastern Counties lies within the Central Valley Drain- age Basin, contiguous to the Sacramento River. In- cluded in this area are parts of the counties named above, except Trinity Countj', and all of the remain- ing counties. The area under investigation within the North Coastal Drainage Basin is primarily mountainous, but has several valleys at elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Ui-ban, industrial, and agricultural develop- ments are located primarily in these valleys. Tulelake area, Butte Valle.y, Shasta Valley, Scott Valley, and Ha.yfork Valley are such areas located within sub- basins of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. The Lahontan Drainage Basin, located east of the ridge of the Sierra Nevada, contains several valley areas suitable for development, but is handicapped by light precipitation. Honey Lake Basin and Surprise Vallej', at elevations of 4,000 feet and 5,000 feet respectively, contain most of the agricultural develop- ment in this area. Madeline Plains contains a large area of land classified as irrigable but has no natural source of water suitable for development. The Central Valley Drainage Basin contains large upstream valley areas ranging in elevation from 2,500 feet to 5,000 feet, as well as the extensive Sacramento Valley area which varies in elevation from near sea level to about 500 feet. Principal upstream areas in- clude Fall River Valley, Big Valley, and South Fork of Pit River Valley along the Pit River; Sierra Val- ley, Mohawk Valley, and Indian Valley on the Feather River ; and Upper Lake Valley, Scotts Valley and Kel- seyville Vallej^ adjacent to Clear Lake. The Sacra- mento River, after being joined by the Pit and McCloud Rivers above Shasta Reservoir, enters the Sacramento Valley below Redding and follows a mean- dering course through the valley to the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. It is joined by numerous inter- mittent and perennial streams from the Coast Range Indian Valley, a Mounfain Valley in ihe Norfbeasfern Counfies Department of Water Resources Photograph Rice Under Irrigafion on ihe Broad Floor of fhe Sacramenfo Valley United States Bureau of Reclamation Photograph 20 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION on tlie west and the Sierra Nevada on the east. Chief among the tributaries is the Feather River, which eon- tributes about 20 per cent of the flow of the Sacra- mento River at the Delta. Climafe In tlie area under investigation, which has a range in latitude of 3.5 degrees, or about 260 miles, the climatic conditions are influenced to a great extent by the Pacific Ocean and the orientation and loca- tion of topographic features. The situation of the Pacific high-pressure area known as tlie "Hawaiian High" determines the general effect of Pacific storms on the weather. This pressiire ridge exercises consid- erable control over the landward movement of water- bearing air masses that originate in the central and northern Pacific Ocean. Abrupt changes in topogra- phy, however, cause wide variations in the climate. The topography has a marked effect on the geo- graphical distribution of precipitation. This is evi- denced by the variation of the mean seasonal precipi- tation from in excess of 100 inches in western Siskiyou County to less than 10 inches in eastern Modoc and Lassen Counties. Precipitation on most of the agri- cultural lands is in the range of from 15 to 25 inches per season, occurring mostly during the months from October through March. Much of the precipitation falls in tlie form of snow on the higher mountain ranges, although rain above 8,000 feet sometimes occurs. Heavy snowfall is the usual winter feature of the Sierra Nevada at elevations above 5,000 feet. Snow falls in moderate amounts on the mountains and the plateaus in Lassen, Modoc, and Siskiyou Counties. Precipitation in the form of rain is characteristic in the lower Coast Range and the Sacramento Valley, wliile snow in small amounts falls in the higher ele- vations of the Coast Range. The northerly and west- ward movement of the prevailing Pacific high-pressure ridge during the summer results in a practically rain- less period during these months, except for local showers and thunderstorms which occur in the moun- tainous areas. Temperature, wind movement, and humidity are similarly influenced by the movement of the Pacific Coast air masses and the topograpliy of northern California. Warm, dry summers characterize the Northeastern Counties, but there may be as much as 25 degrees difference between average daily tempera- tures in the Sacramento Valley and tlie higher eleva- tions of the Sierra Nevada. Maximum daily summer temperatures in the Sacramento Valley and in the northern plateaus often exceed 100 degrees as a result of the solar heating of the air trapped in the basins under cloudless skies. In the winter, temperatures range from moderate in the Sacramento Valley to low in mountains and plateaus. The Sacramento Valley generally experiences frost-free temperatures from March to about the middle of November. The moun tain valley and plateau areas are usually frost-frei from June until the latter part of September, but in many locations frosts may occur in any month of the year. Geology The State of California has been divided into eleven geomorphic provinces. Geomoi-phic provinces are major land areas that have similar geologic and geo- graphic features. "Within the Northeastern Counties are found at least parts of seven provinces. These are : the Great Valley of California, the Northern Coast Ranges, tlie Klamath Mountains, the Cascade Range, the Modoc Plateau, the Basin-Ranges, and the Sierra Nevada. The major geologic characteristics of these pi-ovinces have considerable effect on the precipitation pattern, runoff, and ground water storage, as w'cll as oil soil types, main avenues of travel, recreational fea- tures, and the supply, location and accessibility of mineral deposits in the area. A generalized geologic map of the Northeastern Counties is shown on Plate I. The Sacramento Valley, northern pai-t of the Great Valley Province, is a broad alluvial plain about 40 miles wide and 150 miles long. The elevation of most of the valley is near sea level, but the valley rises gently toward the north and towards the foothills on either side. Rising conspicuously above the otherwise almost featureless valley plain are the MarysA-ille Buttes, the remnants of a large volcano. The alluvial sediments in the Sacramento Valley form a huge ground water reservoir. Structural traps in the under- lying, older sedimentary rocks form reservoirs for natural gas. The near-surface clay deposits could sup- ply the ceramics industry for centuries, while alluvial sands and gravels provide an almost limitless supply of aggregate. The western border of the Northeastern Counties area from Yolo to Tehama Counties lies in the north- ern Coast Ranges. These ranges are characterized by longitudinal ridges and intervening valleys which were formed by folding, faulting, and subsequent erosion of Me.sozoie sedimentary rocks. Most of these mountains and valleys trend N. 30° -40° W. Many of the small valleys are alluviated and form small ground water basins flanked and underlain by the older sedimentary rocks. Irregular, knobby, land.slide topography is characteristically developed on the Franciscan formation in the area. Volcanic flows and cones are prominent in the southern part of the area around Clear Lake in Lake County, which is the larg- est landslide-formed lake in California. The Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary sedimentary rocks which are found in the Coast Range dip to the east beneath the Sacramento Valley. The Klamath Mountains are complex formations with rugged topography. Included in the Klamath i IXTRODUCTIOX 21 Mountains are portions of Sliasta and Siskiyou Coun- ties, and almost all of Trinity County. Mudi of the area is inaccessible. The high mountains cool the moisture-laden air of storms blowing in from the ocean, resulting in high precipitation. The area had once been eroded to a landscape of gentle relief, but the Klamath River and its tributaries have cut deep, rugged canyons across the entire mountain mass. Only the gentler slopes and flat crests of the highest ridges reveal the existence of the once gentle plain. Sueeessive terraces veneered with gold-bearing gravels have been left perched along steep canyon walls by the rapidly down-cutting streams. Hard, metamor- phosed Paleozoic and older rocks have been exposed by the deep stream dissection. Highly deformed IMeso- zoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks and intrusives are also exposed in the area. These older rocks contain valuable deposits of both metallic and nonmetallic minerals. A few small structural basins have pre- served remnants of the early Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks which once may have blanketed the entire area. These structural depressions now form small ground water basins. Tlie Cascaile Range, which was formed by a chain of volcanic cones, extends from Washington and Oregon into the northern central part of California. The Cascade Range extends through the middle por- tions of Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, and into smaller areas of Lassen, Plumas, Butte, and Tehama Counties. Lassen Peak, the only active volcano in the United States, forms the southern terminus of the Cascade Range. The Pit River transects the range between Lassen Peak and IMount Shasta. Lavas and fragmental volcanic rocks predominate, but lake sedi- ments are found in several of the structural depres- sions in the area. On the southwest, the volcanic rocks dip beneath the sediments of the Sacramento Valley. On the east, the rocks merge with the lava beds of the Modoc Plateau. On the south, the volcanic rocks blaidvet the northern end of the Sierra Nevada, and on the west the flows extend along the eastern edge of the Klamath Mountains. Some of the lava flows, interbedded gravels, and volcanic debris are extremely permeable. Precipitation, which is high near the peaks, is completely absorbed by the rocks in some areas. The moisture reappears as ground water flow- ing from large springs. Glaciers descending from Mount Shasta deposited moraines to the north. Out- wash from the glaciers extends into Shasta Valley. Several valleys now occupy depressions in the vol- canies of the area and form small ground water basins filled with lacustrine and alluvial sediments. The area drains to the Klamath River on the north and to the Sacramento River on the south. An immense volcanic plateau covers the eastern portion of the State of Oregon and extends to the Cascade Range in northern California. In California it is known as the Modoc Plateau. The plateau area includes portions of Modoc, Lassen, Siskiyou, and Shasta Counties. The rocks consist of a thick accumu- lation of lava flows and tuff beds with an interlayer- ing of lake sediments, soils, and stream deposits. Some of the rocks are extremely permeable, and the scant precipitation usually disappears into the ground and moves as ground water to the big springs in the area. The largest valleys were formed as structural depressions in the volcanic rocks. Many of the valleys have been, and some are now, occupied by lakes such as Eagle Lake. The alluvial deposits in some of the valleys are shallow, providing poor ground water storage. However, this deficiency is compensated in a few valleys by water-bearing volcanic rocks beneath and adjacent to the alluviated areas. The geomorphie province known as the P>asin-Range extends from Nevada into California along the eastern margins of the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau in Lassen and Modoc Counties. This region of fault block mountains is characterized by interior drainage with development of lakes and playas. Goose Lake, Honey Lake, and the lakes in Surjii'lse Valley are examples of these. The Basin-Range structure extends into the Sierra Nevada as far as Meadow Valley in Plumas County and into the Modoc Plateau. The bed- rock reflects the granitics and volcanics found in the ad.jacent provinces. The valleys form ground water basins filled with alluvial and lake sediments. The Sierra Nevada is a huge fault block of granitic and metamorphie rocks overlain l)y remnants of Ter- tiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. A multiple fault scarp forms the eastern boundary of the Sierra Ne- vada Province. In the north, the older rocks of the Sierra Nevada disappear beneath the volcanics of the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau. The block is tilted gently to the west and disappears beneath the sedi- ments of the Sacramento Valley. Plumas and Sierra Counties, and the eastern half of Butte County, are included in the Sierra Nevada. Several belts of min- eralization extend through the area. A number of valleys have been formed as structural depressions in the main Sierra bloi-k. These valleys have been filled with alluvial and lacustrine sediments and form im- portant ground water basins. Soils Soils within the Northeastern Counties vary widely in composition and depth, and in physical and chem- ical properties. The geology, previously discussed ac- counts for differences in parent material, while other variations are influenced by topography, climate, age, and vegetation. In general, the soils may be divided into three broad groups: (L) Residual .soils, which have devel- oped in place by the disintegration and weathering, and the action of soil-forming processes on the under- 22 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION lying: bedrock, wliieh may be of both sedimentary and igneous origin ; (2) Alluvial soils, wliieh have de- veloped from transported sediments of pre-existing soils and other materials; and (.3) Organic soils, which have been derived mainly from the decomposition of organic materials nnder marshy conditions. Residual soils occur mainly on hilly and mountain- ous lands. Soil differences largely are dependent upon variations of parent material and climatic factors. Soil depth varies from very shallow on scab lands or lands having considerable rock present on the surface and throughout the profile, to good depth on lands having little or no rock present. Drainage is usuallj^ good. Suitability of much of these soils for irrigation development is limited because of the complex topo- graphic conditions, shallow soil depth, and excessive amounts of rock. Under favorable conditions, however, certain of these soils are suited for many climatically adapted crops. Alluvial soils vary in their physical and chemical characteristics according to the nature of the deposi- tion, their age, and the degree of development that has taken place since their deposition. This group of soils can be further divided into three broad subdi- visions (1) old valley fillings, (2) basin and lacustrine soils, and (3) recent alluvium. (1) Soils derived from old valley fillings and remnants of former alluvial fans are extensive along both sides of the Sacramento Valley floor and many other mountain valleys throughout the Northeastern Counties. These soils have undergone marked changes in profile characteristics since their deposition. Leach- ing and other soil forming processes have brought about soils varying from those with dense claypan or cemented hardpan subsoils, to those with moderately compact subsoils. Agriculturally, these soils ai-e gen- erally suitable for shallow to medium deep rooted crops. (2) Basin and lacustrine soils have developed from fine sediments deposited in overflow basins or fresh water lakes. These soils are normally fine textured and, due to limited or restricted drainage, an accumu- lation of saline and alkaline salts is often present. Much of the saline soil could be reclaimed by improve- ment of local drainage. Certain of the alkaline lacus- trine soils, because of the greater difficulty in reclama- tion, were not considered as potentially irrigable, particularly in Surprise Valley and Honey Lake Valley and certain areas in the iipper Klamath River drainage basin. Otherwise the basin and lacustrine soils are suitable for many climatically adapted medium and shallow rooted crops. (3) Recent alluvial soils occupy flood plains ad- jacent to the ma.ior and minor stream channels. In general, these soils are deep, friable, and medium textured and have undergone little or no change in their profile characteristics since deposition. Where adequately drained, these soils have wide crop adap- tability and are highly valued as agricultural lands. Organic soils are not found in any great extent within the Northeastern Counties. Small areas do exist in the Tule Lake and Klamath Lake areas, and in West Valley near Likely. In general, these soils are highly productive where reclamation has been brought about by drainage. They are normally me- dium to fine textured and suitable for a wide variety of climatically adapted crops. Hydrographic Unifs In order to facilitate analysis of present and prob- able future water requirements, and for subsequent investigations of water supply problems, the area of the Northeastern Counties lying within the three ma.ior drainage basins was divided into 75 hydro- graphic units. The hj^drographic unit boundaries were determined from consideration of water supply and related water service. Those units in the mountainoiis and upland areas were separated on the natural drain- age lines of the larger tributary streams, and at con- venient stream gaging stations. Boundaries of hydro- graphic units on the valley floor included those water- using i;nits that had similar physical and operational characteristics. Principal factors considered were present and potential sources of water supply, and existing water service agencies. The boundaries of the hydrographic units are .shown on Plate 2, "Hydrographic Units Within the Northeastern Counties". Areas of the hj'drographic units, which were determined by the cutting and weighing method from most recently available maps, are shown in Table 1. Areas of each of the Northeast- ern Counties, similarly determined, are presented in Table 2. TABLE 1 AREAS OF HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES i Hydrographic Unit Reference number 3 4 5 fi 7 8 9 10 11 Name North Coastal Drainage Basin TuWake Butte Valley Klamath Riyer Sliasta Valley--- Scott Valley Salmon River Upper Trinity River Lower Trinity River South Fork Trinity River Southern Trinit.v County Lake Pillsbury SUBTOT.\L .^rea, in acres 1.089.700 387.800 1,190.200 507.400 '423,500 475,200 4(;7,400 r,52.000 509.300 419,900 243,700 6,3r,r,,ioo INTRODUCTION 23 TABLE 1— Continued AREAS OF HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES TABLE 2 AREAS OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Hydrographic Unit Central Valley Drainage Basin Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley McArthur Hat Creek Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunsmuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown Stillwater Plains Cow Creek Bear Creek Battle Creek Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Mill Creek-_ Deer Creek -- Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River East Branch Feather River Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River Challenge Wyandotte Anderson Corning Los Molinos Frnto Orland Durham Colusa Gridley Browns Valley Cortina Arbuckle Sutter Marysville Pleasant Grove West Yolo Capay Woodland East Yolo SUBTOTAL, Lahontin Drainage Basin Surprise Valley Madeline Plains Eagle Lake Willow Creek Secret Valley Susan River Herlong Little Truckee River SUBTOTAL TOTAL, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Area, in acres 234,700 160,300 753,400 795,800 779,200 609,400 234,000 383,500 274,700 244. .WO 147,000 29,900 601,600 51,200 154,000 83,200 222,500 476,700 609,600 132,000 80,500 272,700 103.700 231.600 86,000 130,800 118,300 160,400 222,700 116,300 771,200 653.800 336.800 430.900 101.000 365..500 115,800 86,900 60,600 197,500 182,100 171,700 138,000 110,100 589.000 330.900 42,400 289,300 128,300 82,400 231,600 18,700 63,000 58,200 207,100 182,500 14,445,500 496,400 513,300 278,100 93,000 416,500 371,200 363,100 101,000 2,632,600 23,444,200 County Area, in acres County Area, in acres Butte 1,075,600 741,300 828,000 855,100 3,026,500 2,694,300 1,681.000 2,462,300 609,300 4,054,400 gutter 390,500 1,913.600 2.048.000 Lake Yolo 6.52.700 Yuba 411.000 TOTAL, NORTH- EASTERN COUNTIES Plumas Shasta 23,444,200 PRESENT ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT The present economy of the Northeastern Counties is based upon the utilization of the natural resources for agriculture, timber, and miniug industries and, in recent years, for recreation. The counties are en- dowed with broad areas of good quality farm lands capable of growing numerous crops, and have exten- sive foothill and mountain meadow areas suitable for irrigated pasture and dry range for livestock. The mountains sustain vast stands of fir and pine forests, much of which is still in its virgin state after a cen- tury of logging. Mineral assets are present in varied forms. Gold was responsible for the original settle- ment of the area, but now plays a minor role in the economic pattern. More important at present is the natural gas industry being developed in the Sacra- mento Valley, The land resources, enhanced by the climate, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, make much of the area desirable for recreational and sporting purposes. Services for tourists and sportsmen throughout the area constitute one of the more important factors in the economj-. There follows a brief description of tjie present economy and development within eacli of the 15 coun- ties under consideration. Butte County Butte County was one of the original counties or- ganized in the State by the Act of 1850. At the time of its founding it included portions of several sur- rounding counties, but was later reduced in size to its present 1,680 square miles. The 1956 population was estimated to be about 70.000. The 1950 Census showed the distribution to be about 40 per cent urban and 60 per cent rural. The terrain rises from the Sacramento Valley floor at an elevation of about 60 feet to over 6,000 feet at the summit of the Sierra Nevada, The change in topography is accompanied by seasonal diversity of temperatures and rainfall. Hot dry summers and mild winters are the usual pattern for the valley and foot- hill areas, while the higher lands experience cooler summers and more rigorous winters. Mean seasonal 24 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION prcMjipitatiun varies from a low value of 20 inches near Chieo to over 80 inches at Magalia, only 15 miles east- ward. Heavy snowfall at higher elevations may occur from late in November to early in March. Credit for much of the early development of Butte County goes to General John Bidwell, who made his home near Chieo. Numerous land grants were made by the Mexican Government in the 1840 's following surveys conducted by General Bidwell. The rush of emigrants into Butte County, however, followed the discovery of gold at what is now Bidwell 's Bar on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, a few months after James Marshall's discovery at Coloma. The easy diggings began to wane within a few j^ears making necessary large capital investments to con- tinue extracting gold by underground and hydi'aulic mining. Accompanj'ing the change in mining methods was the development of water necessary in the opera- tions. Diversion works and many miles of ditches and flumes were constructed for this purpose. The timber industry began to develop as the demand for timber arose from the mining and water development enter- prises. An interesting use of water during this pe- riod was the fluming of logs and lumber from the mountainous areas down to the valley floor for ship- ment elsewhere or use locally. Agriculture. As the cost of mining increased, small operators were excluded, and many were forced to turn to agricultural pursuits. General Bid well's horticultural and agricultural experiments had shown that a large variety of erojis could be grown, includ- ing vegetables, fruits, vineyards, and olives, as well as the grains grown by Spanish settlers. An orange seed- ling planted at Bidwell's Bar in 1856 grew and sub- sequent propagation formed the beginning of a prof- itable citrus industr3' around Oi'oville. As Butte County's economy began to change from one of min- ing to agriculture, the water once used for the mines and placer diggings was diverted to the valley farm land. Tlie necessity for irrigation water had long been apparent, and the Miocene, Palermo, and Foi-bes- town mining ditches became the nucleus of the Thermalito, Table Mountain, and Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation Districts' distribution systems. Many enterprises were promoted before the turn of the century to develop large irrigation works, with most ending in failure. Among later notable private developments which proved successful were the Sutter- Butte Canal built in 1905, and the Western Canal completed in 1915 to bring water from the Feather River to lands in the Biggs-Gridley and Nelson areas, respectively. In the years that followed, organized efforts through the formation of ]niblic districts brought much of the foothill and valley lands of Butte County under irrigation. The principal agen- cies now serving water to irrigate lands are shown in Table 3. Water rights for several ai-eas in Butte County have been adjudicated by court proceedings. For adjudicated areas. State Watermasters administer distribution of available water supplies. Butte County is adapted to a wide variety of crops, and contains an extensive agricultural area. The pres- ent irrigated area in the county, determined during the period from 1954 through 1956, is about 176,000 acres. Rice is the most widely grown crop, with 84,800 acres devoted to this purpose. The combined area of pasture and alfalfa amounted to 33,700 acres, while 29,000 acres were in deciduous orchard, including peaches, prunes, cherries, apples, almonds, and wal- nuts. A great variety of vegetables, field crops, and garden products are grown on 20,100 acres of ir- rigated land. The unique thermal belts near Oroville enable 6,200 acres of citrus fruits to be grown in that area. TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE AGENCIES IN BUTTE COUNTY Name Location Irrigated area, in acres* Privately Owned Water Companies Sutter Butte Canal Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Western Canal) Mutual Water Companies Biggs Ditch Davton Mutual Gridley, Biggs Nelson Biggs Cliico Durham Gridley Oro\ille Paradise Richvale Oroville Oroville Gridley Biggs Gridley 16.997 17,. 586 1 ,8f.8 Durham Mutual Water Users Association, Colony, Ditch No. 1 Irrigation Districts Oroville-Wyandotte Gridley 5,800 1,200 4.450 450 Riclivale 13,473 450 Thermalito 1,670 Reclamation Districts Number 833- 10,000 Water Districts Biggs West Gridley.- 11,837 Butte. 17,000 • (luliiimatiim for period frum IfiTiO thioiigh l!iri4.) Timber. Since the construction of the first saw- mill in 1852, lumber has been a substantial contribu- tor to the economy of the County. Heavy precipita- tion on the higher watersheds has been conducive to the growth of substantial stands of timber. Approxi- mately one-third of the county's area is commercial forest land, as reported by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service. The total area of commercial forest land is 356,000 acres, of which 117,000 acres are in ]niblic ownership, and 239,000 acres are privately owned. In addition to the above area, there are ap- proximately 252,000 acres of noncommercial forest INTRODUCTION 25 land, including^ lan31 Ponderosa pine 65,624 True firs 35,822 Sugar pine 28,158 Incense cedar 3,147 Total 169,282 Mining. Mining in Butte County began with the gold rush in 1848, and rose to a peak after the devel- opment of the world's first successful floating bucket- line dredge near Oroville in 1898. Over $71,000,000 in gold was produced in Butte County between 1880 and 1952, several times that amount having been pro- duced before that time. Since 1952, gold production has dwindled to a mere trickle. Construction materials, including miscellaneous stone, sand and gravel, have been produced in sig- nificant amounts since 1910. Annual production rose to a pre-depression peak of $556,301 in 1928, and to a post-war peak of over $1,000,000 in value during 1954. Natural gas has been produced in Butte County since 1917, but production did not become important until after the discovery of the Chico Gas Field. There are now three gas fields and one area under explora- tion in the county. Current annual production of natural gas exceeds $1,000,000 in value. World War II stimulated the production of zinc and copper and their associated minerals, but produc- tion stopped after the war. Chromite production reached a peak during World War I, and production was revived during World War II. Recent production of chromite has been high under stimulus from the Federal strategic minerals buying program. As reported by the California State Division of ]\Iines, the total value of mineral production in Butte County during 1954 was $2,068,460, principally for natural gas and aggregates. Recreation. Diversity of recreational activities and ease of access make this an important resource of Butte County. There are several mountain streams along the northeast county line that are nationally famous for their trout fisheries. The Feather River below the site of Oroville Dam and afterbays is im- portant for salmon, steelhead, and shad fishing. The Sacramento River, which forms the western county boundary, abounds with salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, smallmouth bass, and catfish. Deer hunting is important and very productive in the mountainous eastern section. The foothill area is iitilized as winter range. Upland game such as pheasant, f|uail, and dove are exploited to a considerable extent. There are 13 clubs in Butte County with over 11,000 acres open to pri- vate pheasant hunting. Waterfowl shooting is an in- tensive short season sport. There are a number of hunting clubs in the county, one of which is a 9,000- acre private club. The California Department of Fish and Game maintains the Gray Lodge Waterfowl Management Area in the southern part of the county, partly to provide a public hunting area and partly to reduce depredation of crops by waterfowl. The timbered areas at the higher elevations provide many camping and picnic inducements. The 640-foot high Feather Falls on Fall River is a major scenic attraction. The canyon of the Middle Fork Feather River is one of spectacular beauty which lures the more hardy venturer. The main highways, U. S. 99-East and 40- Alternate, carry large volumes of tourist traffic through the county. Many accommodations are available to trav- elers in the Cities of Cliieo and Oroville and along the highways. Richardson Springs, near Chico, is a pri- vate mineral spring resort. There are two state parks in Butte County: Feather Falls State Park and Curry-Bidwell Bar State Park on the Middle Fork Feather River. The latter park will be inundated by Oroville Reservoir. Colusa County Colusa County was one of the original 27 counties organized by the Legislature in 1850. It originally in- cluded the present County of Glenn and parts of Tehama County. In 1891, the county boundaries were finally established giving the county an area of 1,160 square miles. Tlie 1956 population was estimated to be about 12,000. On the basis of the 1950 Census, the distribution would be about 26 per cent urban and 74 per cent rural. The terrain of Colusa County slopes eastward from the ridge of mountains which separates it from Lake County, to the Sacramento River. The maximum eleva- tion at Snow Mountain in the northwest corner of the county is 7,056 feet, Avith the lowest elevation on the Sacramento Valley floor approximating 30 feet. The climate is typical of the Sacramento Valley, with hot dry summers and mild winters. Average seasonal rain- fail varies from less than 16 inches at the town of Colusa to over 50 inches in the mountains. The grow- ing season on the valley floor extends from early in March to late November, making the county well adapted to growing many agricultural products. Although the first white men in Colusa County were probably immigrants coming from Oregon to California, settlement did not take place until after 26 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION surveys were made iii the 1840 's by General John Bidwell. Early settlers took up land grants from the Mexican Govei'nment. Navigation advantages of the Sacramento River were responsible for the first set- tlements taking place along the river. The production of grain became of major importance in the years that followed. Grain raising received its impetus from the demand created by the large number of freight teams hauling supplies to the mines in the Sierra Nevada. Over half the county was planted to wheat and bai'ley, but near the turn of the century produc- tion of those grains declined as the emphasis turned to irrigated crops. Agriculture. Tlie availability of abundant water from the Sacramento River proved an attraction for the promotion of large scale water development proj- ects for irrigation. One of the earliest schemes was promoted by Will S. Green Of Colusa in 1864, and was to consist of a large irrigation and navigation canal to serve Colusa and Yolo Counties. It was not until after passage of the Wright Act in 1887, how- ever, that progress Avas made towai-d bringing water to the lands from the Sacramento River. The Central Irrigation District was the fourth irrigation district to form in the state, and embraced an area of 156,550 acres in what was then Colusa County (now Colusa and Glenn Counties). A portion of the Central Canal was constructed, but financial difficulties postponed progress for several years. Private capital took over the project in 1903. The canal was completed and a pumping plant installed at the river intake. The years that followed were frought with litigation and finan- cial difficulty, until it appeared advisable for the formation of irrigation districts to take over the sys- tem. Six districts were then formed in the two coun- ties from 1916 to 1920, the largest being the Glenn- Colusa Irrigation District, with a gross area of about 121,600 acres. Irrigation development by public agencies was not confined to irrigation districts. One of the earliest forms of public improvement was the reclamation of swamp and overflow lands by means of levees and drains. Of the several reclamation districts that have entered the field of irrigation service. Reclamation District No. 108 is notable. This district in Colusa and Yolo Counties was formed in 1870 under the reclamation law of 1868, and comprises 74,246 acres in the two counties. Like many other districts, it was plagued with financial setbacks in its early years. The principal agencies now serving water to irrigated lands are listed in Table 4. The vast acreage of wheat and barley, prominent in the early development of Colusa County, gave way to other crops. Rice became the dominant cereal fol- lowing its introduction into the county in 1911. As indicated by the crop survey, made under this inves- tigation in 1955 and 1956, 63,400 acres were cropped TABLE 4 PRINCIPAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE AGENCIES IN COLUSA COUNTY Name Location Irrigated area, in acres* Mutual Water Companies Colusa Irrigation Company Roberts Ditch Irrigation Company Swinford Tract Irrigation Company .. Colusa Colusa Colusa 1.200 1,400 136 Irrigation Districts Compton-Delevan Glenn-Colusa, Maxwell Maxwell Delevan Maxwell Willows Willows 3.022 73,687 1.730 See Glenn Provident County See Glenn Covmty Reclamation Districts Number 108 Number 1004 Grimes Colusa 12,661 11.460 Water Districts Compton Water District Maxwell 3.500 • (liifoTmatioii for period from 1950 through 1954.) to rice out of the total of 108,000 acres of irrigated land in the count.y. Other leading irrigated crops in- eluded 15,200 acres of orchard, 11,400 acres of pas- ture, 8,000 acres of field crops, consisting mainly of beans and silage, 4,600 acres of alfalfa, and 1,800 acres of truck crops. Timber. While the United States Forest Service has classified 276,000 acres of Colusa County as forest land, only 27,000 acres are of commercial importance. All but 1,000 acres of these are in public domain. In 1951 there was only one active mill in the county, and the pi'oduction figures are not available. The Forest Service estimates that practically all of the commer- cial saw timber is old growth with an approximate volume of 564,000,000 board feet. Mining. Colusa County can boast of mineral oc- currences as unusual as any in the State. The early history of mining in the county is obscure, only frag- mentary reports being available prior to 1875. Copper excited some interest about 1861, but only a little ore was shipped to a smelter. In 1865, gold was first pro- duced from the Manzanita Mine. This mine is the one notable quicksilver mine of the world where there has been a sufficient percentage of gold to work the ore at times for that metal alone. Bitumens are also present in the ore. The production of "Colusa Sand- stone" was once a major industry. The massive sandstone was used in construction of several large buildings, including tlie Ferry Building, Monadnock Building, and St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, and the Clunie Building in Sacramento. The sand- stone quarries have been relatively idle since 1915. Important production of mineral water and mercury was registered during the first decade of this century, INTRODUCTION but, after 1916, production dwindled. Seeps of oil and natural gas have long been known iu the county, but production has been negligible. As reported by the California State Division of Mines, the 1954 mineral production of Colusa County amounted to $88,400, primarily for sand and gravel, but including natural gas and chromite. The State Division of Oil and Gas recorded the production of 4,094,000 cubic feet of natural gas during 1954. Pro- duction of sand and gravel was down from the 1953 high of 201,627 tons valued at $111,341. Recreation. Little Stony Creek and the South Fork of Stony Creek in the mountainous area in western Colusa County i^rovide suitable conditions for support of trout populations and are stocked with catchable trout by the Department of Fish and Game. Ea.st Park Reservoir of the Orland Reclamation Proj- ect furnishes good warm water fishing, especially for white crappie. The Sacramento River, which flows through a portion of the county and forms several miles of the eastern boundary, supports an important fishery for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, catfish, and small mouth bass. Deer hunting is restricted to a limited area in west- ern Colusa County. There is one commercial hunting club west of "Williams of about 20,000 acres which affords good deer hunting. There are nine commercial clubs with a total area of over 8,500 acres devoted to pheasant hunting. Water- fowl hunting is a major part of the recreational econ- omy of the county. There are several commercial gun clubs with approximately 45,000 acres devoted to waterfowl shooting. At the higher elevations in the Mendocino National Forest, there are desirable camping and picnic areas. However, these are too far from centers of population to be heavily used on a one-day basis. At Wilbur Springs, south of Bear Valley, there is a commercial health resort using the natural mineral springs. Glenn County Glenn County, originally part of Colusa County, was created by the Legislature of 1891, and was named for Dr. H. J. Glenn, a prominent landowner and early settler. The 1956 population was estimated to be 17,000. Based on the 1950 Census, the distribu- tion of the population is about 20 per cent urban and 80 per cent rural. Glenn County's 1,290 square miles extend westward from the Sacramento River at an elevation of about 70 feet to a maximum of about 7,400 feet at the crest of the Coast Range. The climate is typical of the Sacramento Valley with hot dry summers and mild winters. Seasonal rainfall varies from approximately 17 inches near Willows to over 50 inches in the moun- tains. The growing season extends from l\Iarch until November. The early history of Glenn County is coupled to that of Colusa County, of which it was a part for some 40 years. The promotion of the Central Irriga- tion District by Will S. Green probably had the greatest impact on the agricultural economy of the area. Until the turn of the century, the emphasis was on dry grain farming. Although, the feverish activity of the Sierra Nevada gold mines by-passed Glenn County, it was here that the grain was produced for freight teams hauling supplies to the mines. Agriculture. Tlie early grain farming was pro- ductive but showed the need for irrigation. Attemjits at irrigation were local in nature until the formation of the Central Irrigation District in 1877, comprising some 156,500 acres in what is now Glenn and Colusa Counties. In the meantime irrigation development in the northern portion of the county did not remain static. Shortly after the turn of the century, the United States Reclamation Service was solicited to study the possibilities of development of Stony Creek for ir- rigation in the Orland area. This resulted in the con- struction of East Park Reservoir on Stony Creek in 1910, with Stony Gorge Reservoir added in 1928. The Orland Reclamation Project was among the earliest to be constructed under the Reclamation Act of 1902. The principal agencies serving water to irrigated lands are listed in Table 5. TABLE 5 PRINCIPAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE AGENCIES IN GLENN COUNTY Name Mutual Water Companies Loam Ridge Mutual Users Company Orland Unit Water Users Association- Willow Creek Mutual Water Company Irrigation Districts G lenn-Colusa Jacinto Princeton-Codora-Glenn Provident Reclamation Districts Number 1004 Location Orland Orland Willows Delevan Willows Willows Glenn (See Colusa County) Irrigated area, in acres* 1,000 22,-450 750 (See Colusa County) 9,095 6,848 10,579 * (Iiifniniiitidn for |)eri(iil fnim liiSO tliruiiuh llini.) Agriculture is the leading economic activity in Glenn County. The 1955 County Agricultural Com- missioner's report shows the total values of agricul- tural products to be about $32,000,000. This includes about $19,000,000 for crop production and about $13,- 000,000 for livestock, poultry, and minor agricultural products. The leading crop in Glenn County is rice. The present land use survey, made during this investi- WK^ ^?irr .^.■ ^ ^ ss W^f- ^ :^^W5^"^' ^ |^Q| yi -. ^ « " ^ga^ ■^H jfej^g^^^i l»-v ■^-....■i ^H IH^H Unique Thermal Belfs Permif Orange Culture in BuHe and Glenn Counties U??ited States Bureau of Reclamation Photographs INTRODUCTION 29 gatioii ill 1955 and 1956, showed 62,300 acres in rice oiit of a total irrigated area of 150,500 acres. The sec- ond major crop, irrigated pasture, occupied 58,100 acres. Other important crops included alfalfa with 8,500 acres, deciduous orchards with 8,100 acres, grain 1,500 acres, and subtropical orchards 1,400 acres. Timber. Timber production in Glenn County is a minor contributor to the county's economy. The total area of commercial forest lands amounts to about 11.3,000 acres, of which 87,000 acres are in public ownership and 26,000 acres are privately owned. In addition to the above, there are 250,000 acres of non- commercial forest lands, including chaparral areas. In 1951 there were two active sawmills in the county, but their exact production figures are unknown. How- ever, these two mills, together with the one in Colusa County, produced approximately 14 million board feet of lumber in 1951. Lumber is produced from ponderosa pine, Douglas and true firs, sugar pine and incense cedar. Mining^. The economy of Glenn Comity is not materially affected by its mineral production. How- ever, of historical interest is the salt-seepage in Salt Spring Valley which was a far-famed source of salt for the Indians of California, and was the resort of most of the tribes within a radius of 75 miles. The top crust of the seep was scraped off in summer, stored crude, or refined on the spot by dissolving in water and gathering the salt after evaporation. The salt springs are at present utilized onl_y as salt licks for cattle. With the exception of some manganese and chro- mium ores produced during war years, and the pro- duction of natural gas since 1944, mineral production in Glenn County has consisted almost entirely of sand and gravel. As of December, 1954, the proved acreage, in the four gas fields and one exploratory area in Glenn County was 690 acres. As reported by the Cali- fornia State Division of Mines, the total value of mineral production, mostly sand and gravel, in Glenn County during 1954 was $478,547. The State Division of Oil and Gas reports that 681,734,000 cubic feet of natural gas were produced in Glenn County during 1954. This would account for nearly $190,000 of the total value of mineral production. Recreation. Fishing and hunling provide the major recreation outlet in Glenn County. The Coa.st Range in the western extremity of the county provides streams which support sizable populations of trout. These streams, not easily accessible, are the up])i'r tributaries of the Eel River. The East Fork of Stony Creek is a good trout stream in its upper reaches and is stocked regularly. The Sacramento River forms a portion of the east- ern county boundary and flows through a portion of the southeastern corner. There is good fishing in the river for salmon, steelliead, striped bass, black bass, catfi.sh, shad, and sturgeon. Stony Gorge Reservoir of the Orland Reclamation Project, located on Stony Creek, is a steep-sided reser- voir that is more suitable for surface water sports than it is for fishing for the warm-water fish which sparsely inhabit the lake. Deer hunting is an important big game sport in Glenn County with the mountainous area providing natural habitat. Upland game bagged in important quantities in the county include i)hcasants. (|uail, and doves. Two licensed clubs maintain shooting areas for members. AVaterfowl shooting receives considerable attention with approximately 3,000 acres in four gun clubs devoted to hunting of ducks and geese. The timbered areas in the National Forest lands in the western portion of the county provide attractive camping and picnicking sites. Lake County Lake County was created by the Legislature of 1861 out of territory that was originally part of Napa County. Its outstanding feature is Clear Lake, which is the largest fresh water lake wholly within the State. The 1955 population was estimated to be about 11,000, and the 1950 Census listed the entire population as rural. This included 25 per cent rural farm popula- tion and 75 per cent rural non-farm population. There are about 1,340 square miles of land area in the county. The terrain is characterized by smooth valleys and rolling hills, as well as steep mountainous areas. Elevations vary from about 650 feet to in excess of 5,000 feet on the higher peaks. The elevation of Clear Lake is about 1,320 feet. The summers are warm and dry, and winters are moderate in Lake County. Sea- sonal precipitation varies from 22 inches at Kelsey- ville to in excess of 80 inches on Mt. St. Helena. Pre- cipitation in the form of snow frequently falls in winter months at the higher elevations, but does not form a snow pack. The growing season extends from late in March into October. Before 1840. the only inhabitants of what is now Lake County were numerous tribes of Indians. Settle- ment by white men followed receipt of one of the first land grants in the area by Salvador Vallejo. brother of General Mariano G. Vallejo. The early settlers were principally engaged in stock raising, farming, and fur trapping. Much of the early history revolves around con- troversy over the waters of Clear Lake. For those at- tracted to its shores, conflicts arose with those who would regulate the level of the lake by changing the regimen of its outflow. One of the earliest water supply developments was tliat of the predecessor to the Clear Lake Water Company which purchased an existing flour mill and dam on Cache Creek two miles below the outlet of Clear Lake in 1867. Heavy rains 30 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION the following -winter caused the lake level to rise to unprecedented heights, causing some flooding of sur- rounding owners. After receiving no redress from the courts, a vigilance committee was formed and the mill was burned and the dam destroyed. In the years that followed many fanciful plans were proposed for developing the waters of Clear Lake, including numerous ones for hydroelectric de- velopment on Cache Creek. None of these, however, were to come into realization. In the meantime the Yolo Water and Power Company was formed, and after purchasing the interests of other companies, constructed a dam on Cache Creek about five miles downstream from the rim of the lake in 1914. The erection of this dam only added to the controversy over earlier obstructions to the outlet, with a final settlement in 1920 in the case of "Gopcevic vs. Yolo Water and Power Company", in the Superior Court of Mendocino County. This decree, and the Bemmerly decree, established the criteria under which the com- pany and its sueecssor, the Clear Lake Water Com- pany, must operate the outlet works. Agriculture. The earlier agricultural pursuits in Lake County were centered around the raising of grain, livestock, and truck crops. The area is ideally suited to orchard crops. For years it has been noted for its premium quality pears, but at present, walnuts are the leading commodity. The 1955 County Agricul- tural Commissioner report showed about 10,700 acres in walnuts and 4,400 acres in pears. Out of a total income from agricultural products of slightly over $6,000,000, orchard production accounted for about $4,000,000. and livestock and poultry accounted for about $1,800,000. The total irrigated area during 1955 and 1956, as surveyed during this investigation, was 16,200 acres. This included 6,200 acres of deciduous orchard, 6,000 acres of pasture, and 2,500 acres of alfalfa. There is a present trend toward increasing acreages of irrigated pasture wherever water supplies permit. There are no large organized agencies in Lake County to serve irri- gation water. Timber. Although lumber production in Lake County is not of major significance on a State-wide basis, its nine active sawmills contribute substantially to the economy of the county. Approximately 88 per cent of the 804,000 acres of land area is in forest land. However, only 175,000 acres are of commercial vahie. Of these commercial lands, 105,000 acres are in public ownership and 70,000 acres are private lands. The volume of timber produced in 1951 by the nine mills in Lake County, and by one active mill in Napa County, amounted to approximately 14 million board feet. The cut was predominantly ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, but included nearly two million board feet of redwood. Mining. "Quicksilver" attracted prospectors to Lake County as early as 1850, and development and production from the deposits was recorded in 1862. From the standpoint of total value, mercury produc- tion has been the most important mining industry in Lake County. A total of 18,100 flasks was produced! in 1877. The peak value of $1,045,726 was reached in 1941. Borax and sulphur attracted the California/ Borax Compan.y to Borax Lake at the south en^ of Clear Lake in 1864. Between 1864 and 1868, the com- pany produced 1,881,697 pounds of sulphur valued at $53,500 from the Sulphur Bank ]\Iine. The mine was idle for a period and was later reopened to produce mercury. As reported by the California State Division of Mines, the total value of mineral production in Lake County during 1954 was $770,993. In addition to mercury, chromite, manganese ore, pumice, sand and gravel were produced. Recreation. The recreational resources have been highly developed in Lake Coiinty. As early as 1852, a resort was established at Harbin Spring near Middle- town, and in the years that followed a dozen or more mineral spring resorts were developed. Although in former years the reputed therapeutic value of the mineral waters was the major attraction to the Lake County area, now the ready accessibility of the area and changing customs have made water sports, fishing, and hunting the major attractions. Today numerous resorts and summer homes surround the lake, and there is every indication that the growth of this tj'pe of development will continue. Trout streams are limited to the headwaters of the Eel River, tributary to Lake Pillsbury, and the North Fork of Cache Creek. Cache Creek below Clear Lake is a good warm-water stream supporting a fairly large population of catfish and smallmouth bass. The Eel River above Van Arsdale Dam, made accessible by a fish ladder, is an important steelhead spawning area. Clear Lake has become a major water sports loca- tion, pai'ticularly for swimming, boating, water ski- ing, and fishing. However, it is not fished heavily enough to control the bass and rough fish populations. The lake supports a large population of catfish and has the potential to support a greater fishery than exists at present. Lake Pillsbury, a Pacific Gas and Electric Company storage reservoir, has limited resort development. Deer hunting is an important and productive ac- tivity in Lake County. There are three commercial I hunting clubs in the county, and large areas of the] Mendocino National Fore-st are open to deer hunting. There are several camping and vacation areas in the northern mountainous region maintained by thel United States Forest Service, and the California Di- INTRODUCTION 31 vision of Beaches and Parks opei-ates the Clear Lake State Park. Lassen Counfy Lassen County was organized by an act of the Leg- islatui-e in 1864 from portions of Phimas and Shasta Counties, and was named in honor of Peter J. Lassen, an early explorer and pioneer. The county has an area of 4,550 square miles. The 1956 population was estimated to be about 16,000. On the basis of the 1950 Census, this is nearly equally distributed between urban and rural residents. Lassen County is primarily mountainous, with val- ley areas located in Honey Lake Basin, Madeline Plains, and in Big Vallej'. Warm days and cool nights characterize the summers, while winters are often quite severe. Seasonal precipitation varies from ap- proximately 10 i]iches near the Nevada State line to in excess of 50 inches in the mountains to the west. Local summer showers and thunderstorms are not infrequent, although mo-st of the precipitation comes in the period from early fall to mid-spring with considerable amounts in the mountains occurring as snow. llistoricallj^ most of the activity in Lassen County centered in the Honey Lake Vallej^, as early settlers were attracted to the area as they passed through on their trek to California. Because of its remoteness from the state capitol, there was considerable agita- tion in 1856 to form a new state to be created out of parts of California and Nevada east of the 120tli meridian. A few years later in 1863 when the bound- ary between California and Nevada was surveyed the people in Honey Lake Valley found themselves west of the 120th meridian and excluded from the proposed State of "Nataqua." Agriculture. The low precipitation on the areas suitable for farming makes irrigation mandatory in most localities. The first notice of claim to water was made in 1854 by Isaac Roop, who diverted the waters of Piute Creek to irrigate his land. The years that followed saw many claims filed and ditches constructed for use of water out of the Susan River and tribu- taries to Honey Lake. The period was frauglit with disagreements and litigation, some of which extend down to the present day. The subject of much of the controversy centers around waters of Eagle Lake. The existence of this large body of water, some 1,000 feet above the valley floor, held an attraction for many as a source of irrigation water. One of the earliest of these was C. A. Merrill, operator of a sawmill near Susanville, who saw potential wealth in the dry lands of the valley. Through Merrill's efforts in Washing- ton D. C, Congress passed in 1875 the predecessor to the "Desert Land Act", providing for the sale of desert lands in Lassen County. Work commenced im- mediately on a tunnel through the hills between Eagle Lake and the valley, only to cease shortly due to financial difliculties. Later attempts by other enterprisers met the same fate, until the early 1920 's when promoters of the "Bly" irrigation project succeeded in jjartiall.v com- pleting the physical works and sold out to the Tule and Baxter Irrigation Districts, which bonded their lands to finance the purchase. Years of disappoint- ment and failure that followed were caused by lack of Avater, alkali troubles, and slow development of land. Financial difficulties resulted in dissolution of the Baxter Creek Irrigation District, and bankruptcy for the Tule Irrigation District. The latter district is still in receivei'ship. Tlie Lassen Irrigation Company, a mutual water company, provides water to irrigate 5,000 acres near Standish. The Big Valley Irrigation District, formed in 1925, has been inactive until recently. Most of the present irrigation water supply is developed by indi- vidual diversions. Distribution of the available water under adjudicated water rights is administered by State Watermaster Service. From the beginning of the earlj^ settlement in Las- sen County, the beef industry has been an important segment of the economy, with agriculture devoted al- most entirely to the support of livestock. The availa- bility of large tracts of public land for grazing has made livestock raisixig a generally profitable venture, coupled with the production of forage crops for win- ter feed. The County Agricultural Commissioner's report for 1955 shows that, of the total value of agri- cultural production of nearly $6,900,000, the value of livestock and wool was $3,600,000, and that most of the remainder was from hay and pasture. The area of irri- gated land as determined during the period from 1954 through 1956 was 74,700 acres. The area of irrigated jjasture, which is both grazed and cut for hay, was 60,900 acres, and the area of alfalfa was 7,800 acres. There was also about 5,800 acres of grain and grain hay. Timber. The production of lumber is the leading industry of Lassen County. The vast stands of virgin timber were exploited in the early days but have con- tinued to produce a substantial volume of forest prod- ucts. Lassen County holds fifth place among the state's lumber producing counties. Approximately 28 per cent of the county land area, or 829,000 acres, are forest. Public ownership covers 452,000 acres of the commercial forest land, and 377,000 acres are in pri- vate ownership. Noncommercial forest land adds an- other 468,000 acres to the total forested area. In 1951 there were nine active sawmills in the county which produced 5.3 per cent of the state's harvest. The cut is predominantly ponderosa pine, but also includes Douglas fir and true firs, sugar pine and incense cedar. Out of a total volume of 257,156,000 board feet produced in 1951, 165,000,000 board feet were pon- 32 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION derosa pine. Although the present production ex- ceeds the ultimate possible sustained yield, nuic-h of the stand is in old growth. Harvesting the mature and overripe trees will promote increased young growth and more productive forests. Mining'. Peter Lassen discovered gold in Honey Lake Valley in 1855. Indirect results of this led to the formation of the "State of Nataqua" in 1856 and the Sagebrush or Boundary Line War waged by settlers in the early 1860 's. Prom a geological stand- point, the county is not favorably situated for the development of deep-seated mineral deposits such as those found in the Sierra Nevada. However, several small productive districts have been developed. Care- ful prospecting may reveal other mineralized areas of commercial value. A few uranium prospects appear promising. As reported by the California State Division of Mines, the total value of mineral production in Lassen County during 1954 was $195,200. The value of sand and gravel was $95,000. Other minerals including granite, crushed stone, tungsten concentrates and vol- canic cinders, were valued at $100,200. Recreation. As many of the streams in Lassen County course through higher mountainous regions, they are fairly productive for trout fishing. These include Pine Creek, Susan River, Ash Creek, Red Rock Creek, and Cedar Creek. The Pit River which flows through the northwestern corner of the county is a major stream that is now rela- tively undeveloped as a recreational resource. There is, however, limited fishing for bass, trout, and catfish. Eagle Lake is an outstanding recreational resource of Lassen County although its current development is extremel.y limited. The biology of Eagle Lake has been the subject of much nationally published mis- information. However, it is true that many species of fish have beeen planted in the lake, but are, appar- ently, no longer there. Although large numbers of small native fish such as chub and dace thrive, the black bass which were introduced have disappeared. Y/hy these predatory fish should not survive with such an abundant food supply is somewhat of an enigma. However, the answer more than likely lies in such prosaic reasons as unfavorable lake temperatures for spawning or unsuitable habitat for young bass. The California Department of Fish and Game definitely does not subscribe to the theory that a "sea monster" inhabits the depths of the lake. The native Eagle Lake trout, Salmo gairdneri aqtiil- ancm, while of interest to ichthyologists, is considered a game fish and is just one more variety of rainbow trout among many. The reason for the small number of trout in the lake is that the suitable areas for trout spawning are extremely limited. Pine Creek, the only sizeable tributary to Eagle Lake, is not accessible dur- ing spawning season. In the lower reaches above the lake, Pine Creek at that time normally dwindles to a trickle which is lost in the fractured volcanic rock of the stream bed. Improvement of the stream chan- nel, together with stabilization of the lake surface, could improve the biologic conditions for trout so that a sound management program woidd provide some excellent angling opportunity. Two man-made reservoirs, valuable as recreational areas, are Mountain Meadows near Westwood, and Tule Lake near Madeline. The former is owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and is a good rainbow trout lake. Tule Lake Reservoir is owned by the California Department of Pish and Game and is fairly productive of large trout. There are numer- ous small reservoirs throughout the county that sup- port some trout and catfish. Deer hunting is a very rewarding sport in much of the county. California mule deer and Rocky Moun- tain whitetail deer find natural habitat there. Goose and duck hunting are important in the eastern part of the county. There are several productive nesting areas, including Ash Meadows, Madeline Plains, and Honey Lake. The latter two areas are waterfowl man- agement areas operated by the California Department of Pish and Game. The mountains and forests abound with camping and picnicking sites. A portion of Lassen Volcanic National Park, the South Warner Wild Area, and all of Carbon Peak Wild Area are located in the county. Much of the area east of Lassen Park is suitable for recreation. Modoc County Modoc County was created by the Legislature in 1874 by division of Siskiyou County. The county oc- cupies an area of about 4,.300 square miles in the extreme northeastern corner of the state. The 1956 poijulation was estimated to be about 9,300. About 70 per cent of the population is rural and 30 per cent is urban. Modoc County is primarilj' mountainous, consist- ing of high volcanic plateaus, vallej's, and mountain ranges. The terrain rises from an elevation of approxi- mately 3,500 feet in the southwest corner of the county to the 9,906-foot summit of Eagle Peak, high in the Warner Mountains in the southeast. Summer day- time temperatures over most of the area are generally mild. Nights are generally cool. The winters are usually severe. Seasonal precipitation varies across the county from approximately 10 inches in the south- eastern corner to approximately 50 inches in the west. Much of the precipitation falls in the form of snow, particularly on the mountains. The gi-owing season varies somewhat throughout the county, depending chiefly on the elevation. The average growing season extends from about the middle of May to about the middle of October. INTRODUCTION 3:j Much of the early history of Modoc County coin- cides with that of Siskiyou County of which it was a part. Originally, the area was occupied by numerous Indian tribes. The first known white men to enter this region were the fur trappers of the Hudson's Bay Company. These early explorers gave the Pit River its name from the numerous pits dug along the river by the Indians to trap wild game. Although the discovery of gold in Siskiyou County to the west caused considerable activity there, the area to the east that was to become Modoc County escaped much of the excitement of the gold fever. Settlement of the area was slow to begin because of disputes taking place between the settlers and the Indian tribes. It was not until the close of the Modoc Indian Wars in 1873 that settlers in any number were induced to remain. Those who came in the 1870 's were attracted by the abundant growth of grasses in the valleys of the Pit River in the vicinity of the present town of Likely, and in Big Valley. Agriculture. The natural pastures and range land made the ai-ea ideal for cattle. The meadow grasses could be cut for hay and dry-farmed grains could be raised. Because of the ease with which water could be diverted from the streams, irrigation and water development commenced almost immediately. Most of the endeavors were by private individuals, although there Avas limited collective development. Numei'ous reservoirs were constructed to give regula- tion to the stream flow. The first public district to form in the county was Hot Spring Valley Irrigation Dis- trict in 1919, followed in 1925 by Big Valley Irriga- tion District in Modoc and Lassen Counties. The latter district has been inactive until recently. Following the Pit River Investigation by the former State Division of Water Resources, the South Pork Irrigation Dis- trict was formed in 1934. The largest use of irriga- tion water in Modoc County occurs along the Pit River and its tributaries where diversions by indi- vidual irrigators are made under adjudicated water rights administered by the State Watermaster Service. The northwest corner of Modoc County extends into the Federal Klamath Reclamation Project area east of Tule Lake where reclamation and irrigation de- velopment was begun in 1904. This area, covering some 64,000 acres of irrigable land, is one of the ii!i]iortant agricultural areas in the county. In 1952, the Tule Lake Irrigation District was organized in Modoc and Siski.you Counties to assume the distribu- tion of water from the Klamath Reclamation Project. The land use survey made during 1955 and 1956 under this investigation shows that about 151,300 acres of land were irrigated. Some 80,700 acres were devoted to irrigated pasture. Irrigated grain and grain hay were produced on 34,100 acres, alfalfa on 27,800 acres and truck crops on 9,200 acres. The 2 — 167G2 Modoc County Agricultural Conimissioner reports that the value of agricultural crops and livestock pro- duced during 1954 amounts to $9,.']00,000. The vahie of truck and field crops was about .li4,f)40,000. This, how- ever, represents cash crops from about 60,000 acres. The additional 90,000 acres were devoted to feeding and maintenance of livestock. The total cash value (if livestock, wool, and daiiy products was about .$4,360,000. Timber. The harvesting of the vast stands of timber has made lumber the second major industry in Modoc County. The Modoc National Forest alone encompasses 1,357,000 acres. Within the county, there are approximately 675,000 acres of commercial forest land of which 458,000 acres are publicly owned and 217,000 acres are privately owned. In addition to the above area, there are 622,000 acres of forest lands covered with juniper and other noncommercial vege- tation. There were eight active sawmills in Modoc County in 1951 which produced 106,300,000 board feet of ponderosa pine, 24,200,000 hoard feet of true firs and about 600,000 board feet of incense cedar. Mining. Modoc County contains a number of mineral resources including gold, silver, copper, and mercury, but commercial production of these has not been very successful. Since 1921 production of non- metallic minerals has exceeded the value of the pro- duction of metals. Unusual nonmetallic minerals mined in Modoc County include optical grade iceland spar and high grade peat moss. Sand and gravel leads the nonmetallic minerals in value of production. Pumice for blocks and for aggregate is also important. The occurrence of variegated obsidian is of interest to rock collectors and lapidaries, but is of little commer- cial value. The search for uranium has recently brought prospectors to Modoc County The California State Division of Mines reported that the total value of mineral production in Modoc County in 1954 was $445,800. This includes $310,700 for sand and gravel. Recreation. The many perennial streams which are tributary to the Pit River below Alturas support sizable trout populations. The upper reaches of the South Fork of the Pit River likewise support a good trout fishery, as do New Pine and Bidwell Creeks in the Warner Mountains. Goose Lake and its tributary streams provide lim- ited trout fishing. Several of the artificial reservoirs throughout the county contain cold water and are suitable for trout. Deer hunting is the most inip- ■1 Qal U|,|«.rncuf.L-oii»i.ndH«entiJb.vijJ TQ» Teilun-QundiRiur njlcaoaa iilana "" alone w Itaok of burn. Protablo inflow UuDu.1. voleanlca 1^. Pruliably inward LOWBC Klaisatli and iBdiui Tarn Ukis. raulU Doi known. GenorkUy conflood by ovarlyina dia- lomif. {7,8.0.8, 'SS Flowint i.aoo (Mln. 10] 60 anowini 1. (S2tt.| llilhly l»>ixnoeabU! dlatomile. Cantnlly high a»dlur«D in tuu algoa •mem maisio ol rtilvy- Hub. Lo« to niodu- Inflow ehiafly f.ou. flow. •oulhcjn vallDy. ekaau niviu llowa are nortb- ward lo Willow c™k. BSect of Durlberly Iftodloc liarniayeiutcn^taido of vaUoy, various lormUlona. U.S.G.S. ■SB U,B,B,R.-M Partially coniplele data. Su>»>i>ar soo F10W...K Flow,n« l«ll 3W 31 13) *H1 8(S) InTerioi «uably, llmiu use X. chloride. Ultra If, boron] and/or i^taaiium. DoBitslio Municipal Stock M.aor Sltainoanl Minor Cave bwall in out ccotial nUay toRaa bol aquilcr eoDiiaucI datdopmeni frwn cliialal depoaiu appaca poanble. (3) In Recant and older alluvium. W In facial and floio-Elarial depoalta. (fl) In Terliary-UuBlerearr Tolcamca. l-S S«,llV»ll^ SO Q*l gppu P1a>l«.nta. Generally auilsblo lot all major u«>. inicnUan UoioBtie Stock Minor EileiiBve No m Y.rid (actor, mai = 103, i-a H.,(»kY4llw " d«p»U, milaly chjinotJ dtpOBtj, NoditA. Probably tinsiu eliuuuJi. mulnly Hayfork Creek. Lo« ton, Oder- ate. Probablynoappiv- ciabEe inflow or ouUlow. Probably flank* Ihan wed. ecunl data avaUsbla. • • • • • • • • ln,uai™n.infnr,n.tioa. '-"■—' infor^.ti ... Dnkoowo S-l O^M I^kg V>Uw Appio. iwtn Q>l rpp«rPl«i»io»»«idIl«Mit»ll""«l ud liks dapontt. IcranutiOD AJluvikl fau (1 moutbl of Dari.. WUlo*. Laxo, and PlDo Creek. * Inflow from eon tic- Probably floni lawarda Coota Lokk OMln lormod by (aulUna. BSeel of laulU unknown. • Scant daUavaUablD. FaU, 1017 OS Flowing !,6I0 I.S50 TO n -' a0to230 tia.ooo ll-OaquanuiUoa e>«dbylaka(S). Generally auilabla but iafo- rior quality limlta uk id IiriiBilon DoiBOtio SicnlGeaat S-I South york Wt Rl.o AppTO. B3 Q>l DppwPl«uU««eoodRe«olJlgvi»l uul Uke dapoaid. "l^ Clmandl and flood Plain ol South Fork eaal of Likely. Norlt. Folk »>( gl Al- ■ Inflow frem ooDtls- endaoccofout- Boulh ami of valloy toward .llluru. Canby- fiedroek nanowa rotrig- tuinatT*1S',RUl::.SIl. andT-tJN, RIlK, eiE. Soma nowiojt wclb 20 Flowlni 700 HOD 9 ■iHltitil) 599,000 Generally auitable but LnJeri^f inalily liadU uje lo aoma 8Mk AUolhacuHw, Elinor SivdGont M J«V^sy * ■Dd Ilka dipotiCi lha«Uey. * NotilriblolBJI^w, Outflow Uirouib OMical UoUida. »»Uoy ouUoU ' Scant dalA avnilablv. ' • • • ' * * luuSeienl •rJoraitisn. s™"' Mi^ w Ril ViIlcT 103 Qol ne«nt ollunul &iul Uko dvpcniU. i.231 + Main and diiUibutory ehu- odsefPitRivtr.Aataaod Wdlo- C™k., ■ io ouUrjl eraveU Tonrda valley out- lot about lour mdnaoutbof Dlobei. cSeeL Pr»ent but aot de- fined. '•;=sst'""' FaU, 1D07 w Flowing 600 300 * 6 20 WKO 636,000 100,000 nndlowyxidof GcDcrally auiisble but inferior quality Uiiula use u, aoma Domatie Slock MuDidpal Minor SwDlReanl Minor Minor S-5 F.1I River Vin periphery toward Laks Atmanor. NoiDiporlaolaroaa kaown. DWR-fiS eatimatiao. 120 ,2 300 No data. 10IO3I0 «,000 DooMia Allolbwa Bi0>lfieaBt HlDor Moil of valley inundated by Uke Almanor. 64 MouoUloMado-iViUoT. lOooiio. UDdlM Qtl do-nuTial lltlMlU. No data. Minor lau at edouUb oI auall alreama. Um. Ftom paripbety towMiii r«orv..ir- NoDB knoivo. DWK 'SS Scsot daU avuloble. • * • ' luum Uant iofor nation Inaumcion. information Domeatle Slock &« lodUnVdW M q.j ItMCBl oUioiuui. 2B3 + iDdko C™ok n». Taylor.. >iiio, WoUCraikiiurCrctixiUo Low, Poa»blol fi-IS iH.i*- uk. v.n.» IS q-i 0-200+ Not Hum r»rt ol baain. pac- ticuUrly aluux Middio, Clover, and Alley Creeki. .^„„,..,. Po«blo minor in- floWKUIbolUpiat I^ikefroDiaouU.- wisL Outflow lo a«rUk«. Soulbward luu-ard Clear Uke. Bedrock bUha, prineipally in B«eholor VaUey and alooc Beelt Crtck. lAko and aoulb- waid;at>aL^uvlum. g«aD UlL»»iiiM»u O-ZM 110) Soultnn pan ol luun, par- rkularly aloKf Scull Creek. Loo 10 modcr- Minor inflow and ecotl Crock. In- Oow Inw ™tom Nortl.wmlwinJ loword loorr nod ol vaUey. No known bafTieroOocl. All ot valloy e.eepi valloy, SWRB fiuUetio No. 14, -65 Good covoraia of idoquslo dalA. Slimmer 20 Flowine 710 000 ' .OlolUO 4.100 GanoriJly .uiuhlc Inr all ma- lorUHsa. Dorocalio Stock Othan Minor "' lino 50 aod 100 teat. s-ia Ktl«yvile V.U*T 31 Tg Rnoil allu>iuiu uiU Uke dtfuJU. Tcrliiri -QunUnuio' dirpimit, itnaei- pally Cub* iDrmaliu). iDoluda vol- 0-7S± O-40O* KeUr asd Adobo Creeka. MaUy Model- oulOowtoaoir X^ke. Hortliwud tooard Clear Lake. No koowD barriat eSocL North d( T13-HN line. Loeal pna- SWRB Bulletin No. It, 'EG Good MVotMO ot adequate data. eummer 1B03 100+ Shattoo Flowtai ,..„ .» 87(11) -(12) 10 to 100 loo.ooo 00.000 Inflow of poofw quality lake water aod inubly from Generally luitable eicepi For blob boron arcu r-rtieu- larly lo east tod oi.rMi. ItiicaUon Domoitie Slock Indualrial Minor No terraiiB id aoulb vallay in Tertun'. Tartiory- (171 M«l devctopmnnt ia thaUoK Upper Pleb- &-10 lliuL VtU^y 3.1 Q»i lu and laka dcpwta. 0-100+ Liu.iled Id aciuio alluvial Loolovdrylow. NoapprKiabloio- modeiKla outflow loeatL Probably nearly all M»lerly. Nokoo«,harH«eO»la. Poaiibly coorm~l waier bmovtb upper fiae^cralood depoaiu. u.e.G,s, WSP 1M7, 'OS (BtlmallOD low !i.a 2.S Generally lOlolOO 0,000 000 Ti«ht aediexnt.. ably (Mxrally ti.ltable. OomMtlc Slock Mloot driUid>in»1B55. 6-17 Hum. VdW 1 1) Q^l Rwont rhmool mrslt. and llwd plain dDctalta. I'EHurr-Qualerury depoaiu. prlnci- pally C«l.. (uriMtloo- 0-100+ piu.e;'(aliy •Irauu cbunacU. Low.aomo from CMhe Creek J outflow W lake. Prolnbly aoutbwBl laward Cl«r Lake. PoMble Inult aerlMB valley Probably Kma >n only. U,S.G.8. WflP 1207, Br<»,'M Partially eonirloto 1061 IS ^ 360 lOloOO 4,000 1,400 Poiaiblo boron d«- gradaUun Irom Clear Uk» Tlibt '""-•= ="™'''" Irricatioo Docooitie eioek M)n»r BL^conl "' B-IS CWOU Vilky ii plajD. thuDfJ, OJurUl (an and U].> dcpwu. Tsniuy-QuaUnury depoiiU. prioeU 0-100+ Alout PuUt. Creik. msr- (ii»l alluvtaJ laoa. and lonoatloo alani north- eaiUni valley border, Modaraio. Powblc ioflow IrutD Cului lonnatioD ud hMolt aloni Dorlb«at vnUev marein. Outflow poamble Id biDill. Probably lo direo- deeper atratn in Imverendolvnlloy may bo confined. U.B,G.B. WBP ISttT. 'SB. B>lee PorUiUy cDiuplcIo 1061 6 31,1X10 Ti»bt a*llmcDl.. Genendly «iiublc for all ma- jor uaea. IrricatioD Domeitic Minor SicnlGeaol No nler proW.n* a-iB 0.T6 tw Uiu. totncM cUiuul. ard lal>* 0-230 Low,aoii.e cnodiraia Ne«lupbl.- Probably lo aeoeral dIrtcUon ol *ur- CsUayoinl fault ■ pCHJble barna on wbI pari of nonb valU* odte. AppateaUy none. US 0.8, WBP \-m. ■«. Briec •63 daU. Bummer 1«»l 13,5 OS 1.200 *1» S 10 to .DO 3B.ooa 7,000 Tiabt »ll...ani.. loruaoh IrricatloD Stock MUor 8icDU«l.t No. Froboblr ■"«• UHhte •to/Me tdoo 100 leaL uting !tors lity and Present general ground water quality Generally suitable except high chloride in area south of Sutter Buttes between Feather and Sacramento Rivers. Moderately high boron in Woodland area. Generally suitable for urriga- tion but quality limits use in some areas. Insufficient information. Inferior quality limits use in some areas. Inferior quality limits use in some areas. Generally suitable for all ma- jor uses. Inferior quality limits use in some areas. Present use of ground water Type Irrigation Domestic Stock Industrial Municipal Irrigation Domestic Stock Stock Irrigation Domestic Stock Domestic Stock Domestic Stock All uses Degree Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Significant Significant Minor Minor Minor Minor Significant Overdraft present Remarks Stream diversion main source of water. Some utilization made of hot and warm springs. Limited doiiip&tic use from springs. Numerous hot wells in eastern portion of basin. Internal drainage. Well logs show much clay and lava. Internal drainage. Surface diversion used for most present wat«r requirements. Internal drainage. liting rtors lity and I'resent general ground water quality Generally suitable except high chloride in area south of Sutter Buttes between Feather and Sacramento Rivers. Moderately high boron in Woodland area. Generally suitable for irriga- tion but quality hmits use in some areas. Insufficient information. Inferior quality iiniits use in some areas. Inferior quality limits use in some areas. Generally suitable for all ma- jor uses. Inferior quality limits use in some areas. Present use of ground water Type Irrigation Domestic Stock Industrial Municipal Irrigation Domestic Stock Stock Irrigation Domestic Stock Domestic Stock Domestic Stock All uses Degree Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Significant Significant Minor Minor Minor Minor Significant Overdraft present Remarks Stream diversion main source of water. Some utilization made of hot and warm springs. Limited domestic use from springs. Numerous hot wells in eastern portion of basin. Internal drainage. Well logs sliow much clay and lava. Internal drainage. Surface diversion used for moat present wat«r requirements. Internal drainage. TABLE 25-Conrinued CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND WATER BASINS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES GnUBd ■»!« b«iB or M«Bf voir WtKibMriuumU PriDCilwl KchuiB U«U Sub.url»« inflow and ou(llQ« Dirootion of (rounJ SlrncKiro tJTKrUTK oratoraie P™..«area. P„.,,„,„,„™ Data wlwiuaty \p,.':, n -tll*,''lo r« ..,„ tV,.bd .-»l cameily r.1 well. filurats mlerral eapadly I'roeni tracnl Krvtind water ciuality PRHDt U» olnroundwain Overdraft NUBbBT ODFkv No. 1 NUM mDn N™ iot«i ^„.. Rnhafta DiMliaria. f.p.in. StxelEe capacity Number nl data wells SUiraic inlerval inre*t Tolal. M.a. "rt Umiluc ration Type l>«« Bmarka Period „^„.. Minimum M«. Av,. Mai, Av,. S.IWO TQ TV viua,.odlen.«dfp«i(j- pcati' Tshim*, VioIoMUUl Uqum OS U» out ud wal. La> to Dodci- Bom* Indow In ll.o Tahtma. VleUu. maliona io U>e upland a.™. Ap- parooUy do .p- piaJablo oillflow. An* nocUi ol Bulle. Battel Bow mi>"- •Uy Kuthwcal in aoutheaat in wnl \-tiS .!» looatd vall^v Sutler Bullee aller nurmBl lej. No known laull bar- uiuaUy KRii- eonfined. t;,8.G.9. -60 SWRB BoUeUn No. 1 'SI Partially enmpleM Summer 250 MW200 33.700.000 22.000.000 Penawbaity and quality. GaoeraUy iwitable eiupt hlih nblarido in ars» kuIIi ol Sutler Bullea between Itiver, Moder-Uly hlili borooinWoodbiDd.no. InlMtiDa St^k" " Munlmpal iDlonHve InWMlvD &J3 ftWin BprlBO ViUe>- 34 TQ TQ. HeriDl ■Uuviam. T*rWry.Quileni»iy UVe •ediineiiU. TinlUT-Qii«teniary loluuuia. Pmt»bly Io Pit River .ur- f>«dtaina«e toward. vUJoy ward.' """ U.B.G,a.WBP S«nl dlU av>llll,l•^ »1u*inc tkiB but quality limili UM in Irricallon 6lo(k Miaor Miner Minor MtUiuli'.n ■i.ida of hot and warn •prino. ^31 Gn„\, V4lJ.y Q*> PnUbly Pnibabl) analoiou. lu Bii Uriiily Cr«k (urfaee dnuia(g.Mi>tb loiulTiFltDI inlonna- Sunt data available. 6-1 MO OJ ft«IO+ BtdweUCreokueo. 1*.-, No known Inllaw or oulBoi.. GoaemUy Iron) noit U buin ecnlar. North tiendiai wytictn ol laulU may hsiu lumo sflect. Mot of area near valley center. DWn '60 Saint dnU nvaitablo. Summer 03 no-int 3.000 «oo TS 30 10 :.0 Less than . 5 700-2.000 1.000-3,000 175- 3.50 60- 75 0.5- 2.0 More than 2,000 In conductance EC X 10" at 25° C More than 3,000 More than 350 Sodium in per cent of base constituents . . More than 75 More than 2.0 64 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION The application of these criteria to specific condi- tions is subject to several limitations. In many in- stances a water may be wholly unsuitable for irriga- tion under certain conditions of use, and yet be com- pletely satisfactory under other circumstances. Soil permeabilit.y, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and other contributing conditions, must also be considered in addition to quality classification. Industrial Supi)lies. The requirements for quality of water used for industrial purposes are many and diverse, dei>ending on the tyj^e of industry aud the use to which it is ajiplied. Eequii'ements for food-pi'ocessing plants, in general, conform to the United States Public Health Service's drinking water standards set forth in Table 26. Cool- ing waters used in man,y industrial processes ordi- narily are the least exacting as to quality require- ments. Table 28 provides water quality values for various industrial uses as suggested by the Committee on Quality Tolerance for Industrial Uses. These require- ments should serve only as a guide to a selection of the best or most economical source of water supply for a particular industr}\ Preservation and Protection of Fish and Aquatic Life. Studies by various state and federal agencies have definitely ascertained that water used for fish and aquatic life propagation should be free of exces- sive turbidity or toxic or harmful concentrations of mineral and organic substances. The following water quality criteria are recommended by the State De- partment of Pish and Game : 1. Dissolved oxygen content not less than 85 per cent saturation. 2. Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH) ranging be- tween 7.0 aud 8.5. 3. Conductivity between 150 and 500 micromhos at 25° C, and in general not exceeding 1,000 micromhos. Other factors that create serious problems to the existence of fish and aquatic life are listed as follows : 1. Mineral salts of high toxicity to fish are those of silver, mercury, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, alu- minum, nickel, trivalent and hexavalent chromium. TABLE 28 WATER QUALITY TOLERANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES => ALLOWABLE LIMITS IN PARTS PER MILLION Use Tur- bidity Color Hard- ness as CaCOs Ironc as Fe Man- ganese as Mn Total solids Alkalinity as CaCOa Odor taste Hydro- gen sulfide Miscellaneous requirements Health Other Air conditioning 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.02 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.25 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.25 1.0 0.2 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 1 0.2 0.2 5 10 10 10 10 10 2 10 Potable b Potable »■ Potable <• Potable 1> Potable h Potable !> Potable 1" tion. Brewing : Light Beer _ _ 500 1,000 75 150 NaCl less than 275 ppm (pH 0.5-7.0). NaCl less than 275 ppm (pH 7.0 or more). Dark beer Canning: 25-72 General Carbonated beverages- 10 250 850 100 50-100 Organic color plus oxygen con- sumed less than 10 ppm. pH above 7.0 for hard candy. 50 10 5 50 Food : General Low Low Potable t Potable •> tion. Ice 5 50 50 180 100 100 50 8 55 50-135 SiOa less than 10 ppm. Laundering Plastics, clear, 2 50 25 IS 5 5 0.3 20 5 5 2 20 15 10 5 5 10-100 20 5-20 70 5 200 Paper and pulp: Groundwood No grit, corrosiveness. Kraft pulp 300 200 200 100 Soda and sulfide High-grade light papers Rayon (viscose) : Pulp production total 50; hydro.\ide 8 Manufacture . _ than 25 ppm, Cu less than 5 ppm. pH 7.8 to 8.3. Tanning-. _ total 135; hydroxide 8 Textiles: General .. Dyeing 200 Wool scouring . alumina less than 0.5 ppm. Cotton bandage 5 Low "Moore. E. W., Progress Report of the Committee on Quality Tolerances of Water for Industrial Uses: Journal. New England Water Works Association. Volume 54, page ; ^ Potahle water, conforms In U.S.P.H.S. standards, *■ Limit given applies to both iron alone and the sum of iron and manganese. NATURAL RESOURCES 65 tin, iron, gold, cerium, platinvmi, tliorium, and palla- dium. 2. Many detergents and agricultural poisons and insecticides which are toxic to fishlife are being used in increasing quantities. 3. Normal range of water temperature for cold- water fish lies between 32° and 70° F., with an ex- treme maximum of 81° F. For warm-water species, a temperature range from 32° to 86° F. and a high of 91° F. is generally considered acceptable. 4. Waters containing more than 15 parts per mil- lion of ether soluble material are deleterious to most fish and aquatic life. Recreational Uses. There are no generally accepted mineral criteria governing waters used for recreation. Mineral content of water used for recreational pur- poses rarely presents a problem ; rather, sanitary fac- tors are of primary significance. Water Quality Conditions. A discussion of pres- ent quality of surface and ground waters, and a dis- cussion of water quality problems for the portions of the North Coastal, Central Valley, and Lahontan Drainage Basins in Northeastern Counties are pre- sented in the following sections. Inasmuch as most of the surface and ground water resources in these basins are of good to excellent mineral quality, much of the discussion pertains to those areas which have water quality problems. Mineral analyses of surface and ground waters in these basins are presented in Tables 29 and 30. North Coastal Drainage Basin. With few excep- tions, surface waters in the portion of the North Coastal Drainage Basin in Northeastern Counties are generally calcium or ealcium-magnesium-biearbonate in type. They are of excellent quality and suitable for all ordinar.y beneficial uses. The Klamath River, in its upper reaches, difl:ers from the ordinary surface streams in this basin in that it is generally a sodium bicarbonate type water. Further downstream, the Klamath River near Somesbar appears to be of a cal- cium bicarbonate nature, due principally to the trib- utary inflow of calcium bicarbonate waters below Copco. The upper Trinity River drainage is princi- pally magnesium bicarbonate type water thus differ- ing from most of the waters found in the North Coastal Drainage Basin. Notable exceptions to the good quality of surface waters in the North Coastal Drainage Basin are found in Meiss Lake in the 'northwestern section of Butte Valley, Tule Lake, and Indian Tom Lake. Meiss Lake contains water of a sodium bicarbonate nature, with high concentrations of total dissolved solids and an excessive percentage of sodium. Present quality of Meiss Lake indicates a Class II irrigation water, generally usable only under the best soil condi- tions and for the more salt-tolerant crops. Tule Lake water consists of a mixture of flood waters, local drainage, and irrigation return flows; and its quality falls between Class I and II irrigation water. Considerable concentrations of sulfates are present, which might create a problem for domestic or municipal use. Excessive concentrations of chloride, boron, and total dissolved solids and high per cent sodium are found in the waters of Indian Tom Lake. Ground water in the North Coastal Drainage Basin, with a few exceptions, is good to excellent in quality except for hardness, and reflects the character of sur- face streams recharging the ground water basins. Ground waters in the several basins are frequently moderately to very hard, thus limiting their suit- ability for domestic uses without softening. Fair to poor quality ground waters are found in portions of large valleys in the North Coastal Drain- age Basin. Excessive nitrates are observed in a num- ber of wells during the spring season possibly due, in part, to leaching from applied organic fertilizers. In Butte Vallej^, occasional high concentrations of sulfates, boron, total dissolved solids, and high per cent sodium create scattered water quality problems. The better quality ground water is generally found in the southwestern portion of the valley. In the vicinity of Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes there are large areas of soils consisting largely of de- composed organic materials. Evidence of organic sub- stances in ground water is indicated by analysis of a single sample collected from a medium-depth well near the City of Tulelake which shows an excessive concentration of ammonium. In the Little Shasta area in Shasta Valley, and the Willow Creek drainage area near Ager, poor quality ground water is found. Fault zones in these areas probably permit deep seated highly mineralized waters to commingle with and degrade usable ground waters. High concentrations of boron, total dissolved solids, and per cent sodium, make waters in these two localized areas iindesirable for irrigation of any but the most salt-tolerant crops. Water quality problems in the North Coastal Drainage Basin stem from three or four principal causes, and are not ordinarily concentrated in any one specific area. Drainage and leaching from aban- doned copper, gold, and silver mines are ma.ior sources of surface water quality impairment. Although only a small mimber of existing mines are presently in operation, an increase in this activity might occur in the future. IMine leaching ordinarily causes a con- siderable increase in mineral content and turbidity. Minor dredging operations on the Scott and Trinity Rivers also create a quality impairment of these ma- jor streams similar in nature to that caused by mine waste discharges. 3—16762 66 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o u z \u I— to < en o Z Z X 5^ < u. on to u. o if) UJ to >- < Z < < HI Z 5 J CO-*: SUM is ^1 ooooo oooooooooo II Per cent sodi- um Total'' dis- solved solids in ppm ^CC^^'O — ^- — _H — — .— — — in o "3 cj s s Cl lO d cr> U5 CO Cl s OO CO OO C4 CO CO CO 3 C g a a o. 1 a" ^is o o o d s o d CO d s d s d d CO o d d d d d d o d d -: <£> d CO d d o d d o d •1" o z 2z o O CO d d O CO d -- d "S- d 7— d irJ S CO d IT) o o d ^' d -^ d "'S^ d M d d o w d o d d o d d gig o S o d -^ S " d ". Sg —1 CO d -cr d CO d csi d ^ CO d »o 2 d " CO — d CO o d "" OO d — d d CO o a o QO O CO d -^ CO o -- d 00 d CO 00 CO CO CO d '" S^ o d "^ : ^ S o d ^ Ol OS d " « OO d '^ d ^ t2 lo d lo d "" CO IM d CO d ^ d S 3 1 » CO 2 - 5 » ^ s g 2 s ^ 5 2 ^ " g o. d "^ ^ ^m o g o g o d 8 2 CO CO ° g o d d S o d d g o d g o d g o g o g o d S d ^j|g d d -^ 3 -J O 2 ^ 5S CO O lO d c^ CO o o d oi d M o ira d M d "" S c. d t^ d -^r o o 9 - d (N d iii «3 d -^ 00 d « o § QO OO 00 *"" CO CD m d "" CO — ■ d OO d r- CO d *" d '^ :■ s^ 5 " O CO --i CO 2 2 d " ^ d rip _. a "3 l« s- CO d CO ^ 2 OS OO d '^ ■<»• OO S o d OO c^ d 1^ d d lO o d d r- CO d t^ CO OO d OO d d d d d CO M OS d t-1 d o-iB o CO Oi d d S 2 d d " OO o d CO d >o IM CO d CO CJ d °. 2 d '^ «D CO d " CD to O d "^ OO CO d *^ d " S 2 o " d t^ t~l C30 oi m t^ 1-^ t^ t-^ 1^ 1- 00 r-1 o t-l Spe- cific con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) traooooo a; — iot-^Dioc50«oco ■" - 2 g q S 2 S g 2 S ?. S = 2 Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet ; ; ; of — ' -p" t-" sm" -t cJ cJ cs ^ d d d q d d d d d d CO d CO d d us d CO d ■ 1 "* 1 • d d 00 d d q — -< CI d -^ -»■ d d c) d d d d d d q d 4«.- o 00 d -- 10 d d 00 — 10 d -^ « d -^ CO ^ d d g „ c^ d d :: 00 2 c »o 10 CO CO 5 - CO t-- 00 d ^ d ^ 00 d " q d 1 c o W CO CI d CO d d CO — U3 d CO d d CO « CO d c>a o> d M q d CO 00 q ^ d U3 d CO — d d r-i —_ CO d CM ! ^ ^r to d " d 0 Cfl 1" So OD !^ ^ s 60 J E'm CO d d 00 Oi d i-^ CO 00 d n (TO 00 d QO I-- CO d ^ q CO -^ CO CO C^ 1 QO CS d =^ 1- - ^ S S ^ •9* CD S ^ i ^ cm' "*" U3 CO 4 S'a - d " S -- ^ - d ^ 10 -f lO « c-t lo r- Beta SS^Si^S?: ggjSSSsSS Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet "Sg^lll S = -||52 = " iig zS z3 zg z2 z£ zS zS zs zS zS Sfe ^g o CO UJ s -1= .1 i 1 ^ 1 i 3 I 5 s = J r 3 " i 1 ■ : : 5 c I i i ^ IS = I i c 3 Q i 5 2 < I i! 3 1 ^ 3 3 1 5 3 3 i ■ c i 1 5 3 3 S 'z i ■ 5 : 5 3 > 5 s LLI C/J >■ I < Z < Z £1 S ai "§ C4 - g 8 o o -^ CO o o o « c^ CO "3 zg s?<^ 3| „ -r ^ ^ C-J -T- „ _^ oo xa Ha fe aiS S CO ^ in CM CM CO W 3.i^:i = | ;o^'o o- g "" — .. s JSgg oS5 " .IS ^ ^ ^ ^ QO ^ ^ CO as C^ CO CO CO CM -Jt '"' CM '^ "^ o CM CM CM i§m J^ -r M" us g to o o O o o J a o o o <=> o o o o o -t" eo o O o O §-Sfa o o o -, ^1 D. o O o o o o o o o o O o o o d ^ ^ - ^ CM _ ^ CO r- m o o ■^ o o U3 o o us o QO CO a > o o o o o o -- O o o o o o o CM O -^ o o o - o o o o o o o - o A ^ c^ rn en QO -f -1- . O) 335 ^. o »o '•'^ o o o ■^ o U5 o o -; CM Ui 1 3 o ■- — c^ o r- o c^ o M o o o o o '" O '^ o CM ^ t^ C-1 ^ o lO o -^ o -V o ^ _^ m or) r-) 1- ico _ nn j^ ^ ^ ."1 i cj o o eo <-) C-1 ^ o S o o £Sit? _ _ CO on o-i „ O o> o «■ o o o o o o -- o o o -^ o -^ o o o CO o o o o o o O o o - o ^ s^ c» to o <-) on r-l »o s ^ KJ ^C^ n o '- o lO o «o o o CO f o ^ o O CO oo " o -r o CM O 40 o (C. Of) ^ Ol «> OS Vl ^ ^^ ^ ^ CM c^ CO CO CM o CO o "" Tf O 1^ CO ^ ^ o '- 3|g M lO (O t-> t^ CO lO »o o lO m r-> f£> O - o a lo ^ CM o ;:! d CO CO CM d d d W3 d CM to d CO X c^ o CM CK. eo T _^ •n oo (^ cc Oi OS cc. oo oo r- f- ^ cc OO CO o> OS t^ f- «- ■^ con- duct^ ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25T.) ,^ -r 00 to CO ^ o o _ o »o s^ _^ -r _ -T- -r -T- T CO ' -^ , M , ' *J (M c-» r'i _ _ Oi »o o q|-Ss-2 T -t3 C" -v> o| s lO S '-S •2.SS &M S2 't^rj2 ^ VD B=2 &:2 >-/? 5:'-° &tc ^5 z2 ZS 55m zS ^^ ^5i -I' -r ■^ "^ -r ->- -r Ul a ■l -2 J C4 z •73 11 ^ a a. 1 9 rt K 5 c .1 W 'o a> 5l o 1 1 1 1 J c 5 s cj O •3 C 1 CQ i K cc o z hasta Va!ley~Con Parks Creek nort Road > 15 J4 o 1 a i 1 1 1 a 1 1 > — M o s "o 1 w V) NATURAL RESOURCES 69 1 ^1 O-^"— -OWCOOOOOOOOOO 3s o a HO. rr-r^oooooo — ^»ot^i«'5 eo o> £ (N .1 niS CO O o o o O o d i o o o d d o d d d S d d OO o d 8 d o d lis o o o d d o d o d d ° d o d d o d =^ d d o d gii o O M O M O CO d d d d g „ d d d -^ d d d d g c^ d d d d s . d d o O d d g c^ d d d d 8 - d d d d 8 d m o o O -I' d d o m d M s ^ d d o o d CO d -^ O lO d d O d W3 OS to d ■«" CO d """ l. g g -^ 00 ^ 2 d ^ d t-^ d iS OO d d d OO d d 5 o d '^ d 3 Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) d a ctL. S3?gSSSS5S^S5:gV'o Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet to « c^ (M O — Date sampled 5/22/53 9/30/53 5/25/53 9/30/53 5/25/53 9/30/53 5/25/53 9/30/53 5/25/53 9/30/63 2/27/63 9/30/63 5/26/63 9/30/63 5/26/63 9/30/63 111 44N/10W- 28D18 40N/8W- 16N1S 40N/8W- 20Q1S 40N/8W- 17C1S 40N/9W- 12B1S 41N/9W- 22F1S 42N/9W- 28RIS 42.N/9W- 8K1S i 1 NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN— Continued Scott Valley— Continued s 5 ■i 5 i a - 5 s C c t t 4 3 i > la P : 5 3 i I 3 Id il I u ■ 5 1 : 3 f 3 1 Id i i E ■■ [ 3 3 i t 1 > a 3 3 1 1 E 1 u . "3 1 1 i ■3 i 1 £ 70 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z Z) o u z q:: uu I— IT) < O z ■s z s ^ < > - m u < li. 0£ to u. O UJ to >~ z < < UJ z 1 If 1^ 0000000 00(M0 00*OC;0 3a 2?^2^^^ :;SK^ ^SJ::« Per cent sodi- um O^StOCiOCC too — "M 00 — T-l^ Totalb dis- solved solids in ppm co^ror-'O'^ (OOOUDt- looioai ^ a a n ^ tn ~' :; = -. - - 2 W5 01 J 1 .1 =3 1 a > ■3 c^ES s d d g d d d d s d d tra d 8 d d d d ; ' CM d d ^li c. g r- 000 in d CM d d d d d d g d d d d d d g d d d d d d d d d d g d CO ™ 1 »o d d d — d — d d d CO 00 d -^ U3 to d CM c^ d - S d d c^ d d 00 ^H 00 d t^' 2 " d J 1 1 iM its CO d c^ s 2 d d CO d ^ d ^ d -3^ CM d lO d -^ ^ d »o — 00 d --" d CM "<>• d CO d 00' 00 d CM 2 g 1 i CO 00 CO -n i'^ 5 ^ 00 00 d "° d 2 s d OS 5 2 CO siM 1 = 1 = 1 = i ° i. 1 ° 1 = 1 = 2 = d ° 1 = ° i° d m^ CO d -t* d d t^ d d eo d d d d d d 0> CO d CO m 00 10 d I- " 2 d "■ 10 01 d '^ g ^^ ^ _. d 00' d "■ s 2 d "" t^ CD 00 -^ d d "^ t— CO d -^ d "^ to — d *^ to 40 -r d CO X -t< — —iioco-f cc»n»Oco ■^ — e-?eo l-«,t^COl^l'^t'~ 00000000 t>-00CXQO Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at CM — a;. coGc ioo ffl p; oi o-c 5 oi = g g g St = t 1 ,2 1 tg Z .S H ; a a ■ a 1 1 i 1 S; 'S 1 1 H 31 NATURAL RESOURCES 71 <^ " 3 SI 2* « • i is" ^1 Z a Ol— o— oo o ooooo II o^^ c^-r oi- lo locotooeo Per cent sodi- um cq• d d d 3 1 S ^li 2: d d d d 00 d 00 d r>^ 2 _ S 00 _- -a. d d d t^ 2 d d 2 00 d d d liMi to ^ 2 " OS OS d ^ 2 s S i S d ^ to 2 » ! 2 to f— d ai€ CO C3 S = d - d ° d ° d ° ° ° 1 d ° d = 8 d ^iig M d -^ —■ OS d -^ d ca CO 00 d d t^ 00 r- d — 3 » d — d d d d eo — eo d ^ s d 1=1 d S d 00 CO CO d CO d d 2 « d d CO CM I^ d d »o CM CM Oi CM t- OS CM OS d d d CM CM d d CO CM d l^li d 00 d d (N or, -: ^ CO d "* d d ->- OS CO CD d d CO 00 d cm' d d ■^ d 00 CM CO d ^■13 s» S 3« S g 1 D c -a ■£ s ; (S .iEa.O'= j< « ° S : ii i " S t « 1 'ill ^' s i { i i i 1 i jii ii 1 lit fill! u 1 J ifiit IS 1 1 1 1 i H « J < a < 01 72 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z Z) o u 2 CO < UJ X t— a£ O 2 «J "^ 1 rv CI UJ 1— lU < < ^ 1- UJ U < i£ 0£ => in to lU W) >; < z < _J < lU z 5 CO i 1 1 b;2 so So Z a o<— CC OOO OOO OO -VO 3a O Q. CM-TO« 000«0 — co-f 00(0 cjeo Per cent sodi- um o — ict- iraocc — (oc Gc—i _o Total b dis- solved solids in ppm — c^ior— co-roo oocr-— r-cc >> .16 as C3 CO CO 00 c^ ^ 2 OS CO OO CO c-j CO ! .2 1 c o. ■§ a S c ■3 > ^|g 8 to o o o o d d d d g d s d d o d s d 8 d 8 d o o o CM o d d (M d d o o o d o o o d o < d z 2g 2 o -^ o o o — ^ O CO d -^ g - d d g c d d g „ d o O CO d d O CO d d d d d d 8 . d 1 iii o -J" — tn d CO d —I O OO d d d d g o d d CO d CO d « CO O OS d d o to d d O CO d d O d g 1 a s ill M O QO O OO CO CO d '^ o oi 2 d -3^ d d o o d d g d d d -^ d (>» d c^ to O CO d -~< CO O 1 d ; li^ss s -r -t- Oi »0 O ° s ^ " S o d CO ° K 00 lO CO d " CO d ^ 5 - d .si-^i o 2 ° i = o O o 1 = 8 I d o i ° o d o o d o o o d 8 => d d m^ c^ M CO O CO O iM O CO d "^ d c>> O CO d d 3 o d -h" S 00 d d d « o o d ca d d d ~ o to d d o — d d s d - o" '^ d " 00 d g ^ — ' OS d M o •— CO d -i^ 2 d ui d OO o d -^ ^- CO d -a* g 00 d — ! cc O OO d d o d l^ii to S CO d t^ o CO r- d QO d t^ CO 00 d -4 «3 ^^ CO d -a- 00 d CO CD d lo d -^ CO U3 CO d N d « d r^ OO d CO d 3|l o tn OO O 00 5 « d " 00 00 d o OS — ws -* d d »o d U5 d ITS -H d " W5 lO — d d d U5 — d -^ to d d d Q. cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) »— — (M(N — O— r— ^,-. C-ICD OlTJ -r OS 03 Oi CO CO !!■ -fiom iW5*D iraio -r-^ Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet 'o colo u:>oo oco 11 ■ ! -^' ^ ' CO CO t-^ 5i I I ' ! ! -J- M — ; 1 i^cor-M OO — 'T — cow «ccc Otf <>;— 'r^— iM»OCi OirtOi 4I505 COM Location number MDB&M 2 *^ tiS Ha, w2 a &2 S S: ^2 ^ „ 5;S !»2 !=cy Si ^S r s^o ^5 ^2 gS zg zS z zsg z zS zS z5 CO CO coco coro CO coco u < z gi 1 si 5 £ 1 « m J; ^ o < tS E 1 1 .1 ] c 1 1 z > C > = > E 1 C C c <3 £ i ^ f 1 E a. E 1 c c o 1 1 1 1 s ? J E E 1 i ^ ■ 1 1 O a i 3 I NATURAL RESOURCES 73 CO UJ I— Z o u z lO < o Z UJ X I— Z X < u < u. Oi CO CO >- I < Z < < a: LU Z Remarks faco if ^1 Z a C*JO=iOO S^S --OOOOOM9 3a Per cent sodi- um -fC^^tOr;^ tO^M ^JS22222'"2 Totalis dis- solved solids in ppm • I 1 — CO QO -»" « .. 1 1 11 1 1 o a oo Q. Q- ac^ a Ea7 laT Illlii ? fa *t: u, < ta^o N fa .16 ; 1 1 GO s c^ S? CM 2 to S t* CO s; CO a o ■§ a o. 1 a a 1 ^is o o o CO o o 8 o d d g d 5 d 8 d 8 d o d o d s d 8 d d ; : d o — d d o o d d d ° o d o d o d d o d d •-^6 • d o — d d g d " d — 3 - d c) d d d d o o d d g c. d d d d d d CJ d d 8 d §5a o o o d d g o d ^ o o d c^' O OJ d QO d f' — o d I-: S o ° oo d oj to o 2 d "* U3 « d ^ d d d eo GO w d GO d CO g d J o ii III : ; lO is o d 1 '^ CO 00 t-I d d OS d — O CO d M d to d d " 2 d d W^^l M ■^ g o d " o » g "1 s o ss 8 o d 8 o d 1 ^ d " oo CD d " 2 = 2 s t» « o S o § o d d d g d 8 o d 8 o d 8 d g o d § = d 8 = d 8 o O 8 d 8 = ° g d ui% o o O "• d d o o d d O U5 d — 3 ^ d d o o d -^ d d o o oo d d d — CO O oco»oo or— i-~ cft-s to i>l i^ r-" oo e-3 oi" c^* t^ t^ t^ i^ oo r- eo Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25"C.) :;^5SS lis iiiiiig Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet ggggg g"S iii^isi n „„„„„ J. „^ -s^siSi^stsi gfel ^2 &:2 ^2 ^ ^2 ^2 &^ 5=2 ^2 5S :^s ^Q 5.M 5s ^5 t^S ^^ ^E S- 5" §^ ^^ g^ 2- ^^ g" S- eocoweo CO co ^^^ M c^ s 1 g z S'^ 1 t §11 ' UJ g p 3 >z g ^3 1 " 1- ,5 » a : 3 ; 1 t ■J 3 3 S S -. •3 J 3 A 3 I 1 O § 5 1 ^ TJ 3 5 e S 3 s 3 I 2 6 ■ 1 s. 1- 3 J 1 \ \ d S 3 i ; c a d B 3- !j i| ■3 ■ 1 a II z 1 ■23 74 NOKTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o u 2 en. t— to < o Z lU -o Z < HI U < O to tu - — I < z < < HI Z 1 P-co ■o P-W ■0 CO rt P-;m CO « so ^1 Oir~ O OOOOOOOOtMOO 1 ^ «3 CO f- 1 3a O D. oat- l-»-int^0O-T--r CM-1" to (M(7^C0CMCOCOeOeO«Or-.-^_^ 0(0 1 lOCDCOtMIMtOOOl^^ I Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet i" ° °;;:";^-«^ -a III S si ^<« §2 1 S S fe Sm ^2 i^ ^. ^ ?;S z- /^S z z zS z£ zS zS 1 111 SI 1 if i «S £ ^ z S 1 UJ E 5 O = tH 1 c c "e E 1 s B >. fc o S 55 1 c 1 J ^ 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 a 1 6 1 2 t •> 1. ! 1 I 1 i •c m 1 NATURAL RESOURCES 75 Ul I- Z Z) O u z Of HI I— < 0£ o z 111 X u I < UJ U < u. q: Z) lO u- o to UJ CO > < Z < < UJ Z 5 J3 s 03 da r. g c o o o o 00 o o r^ o »o |3 zS 1" 3s ^ D. -f o o CI lO o o OJ o ■^ o M o o QO o 3 a ^ I" f ^ ^^ ^ _ "3-1^ OO CO a o o o '^ -"^ ° CO o lO o ^ o ^ o o m o to o |g|xo eo C) _, -r a CO ;i: OJ CD ^ ^ o o o CM o '^ "" , , ^ o o ^ 1— 1 o f-» <-> o o o o 31% -M £iig •r ^^ lO Ol 1 OS M C^ o 00 CO o CM o o o CO t^ o ° oi 1 c: o o CM o - o o o - o - o &r^ ss ^i2 S^rw ^rn ■3=s zS 2:2 ^ Z ^s ^^ SJoi zS ^7: zfe &g -" -^ o* CM eo CO " - Ill a < z 1 = > c 3 1 1 3 "o E § * ■g o .2 o <2 8 1 s o a .;^ o i a .d i il gi 1- z LU u 1 s 1 « 1 ill CO a CO ll (5 i 1 B ■3 3 1 o Z i 1 1 1 •3 E o 1 1 o ft 3 U Q. 76 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o u z oc ILI I— to < a: O u I ILI I— < UJ U ;5 Of to O «o 111 to < Z < Z i H i M O} CO •« BUT, 0.-0 a;^ a «?s =°s «§ ^ cC .. 2-^ a -* C5 t° z S ■Sri -g 33 ■rj" •r -^ U3 10 f^ CO ■^ lo CO CO CM e2c „" g^ s 00 ao CO to 10 10 CO CM 00 -T- '^Sg = ■a -o .„ Total dis- solve solid in ppm en CM ^ s CO S I"- J5 -f ^ -r r^i Sm CO C4 C4 CO CM CM «=!§ s 1 rg « -f -r g a a d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 a),-. - — ^ "" "^ '-^ « to «D . --^ r.1 _^ -t- = 5Si OS «D «o 00 •^ W ^ -- - Tf -- - -- ^a^ __ — _^ tf ^ -f ^ ^n CM CO ^ CO S CO OS -S' so 00 OS 00 M ■ -1- ^ -S" ira .N (Ti •r. j^ CO ^ d ^ co to SO d 10 d »o d eo d « CO d d d CM OO CO d CM d C4 OS d QO CM d -si's r- to OS m 10 (-1 2 oi ci d - d -^ d " d -- d CO d CO d M d " d r» d CO d d g CO d S (N irt eo (O CO t^ ^ _p 01 CO Cl 00 r~ f^ '- '- ^ CO ^ ^ t^ i^ t^ ^ ■^ '- CO ai c con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) CO c^ an oa ^ »ra to to 00 CO CO W5 □0 " CO CO X) CO CO CO S =t. CO 00 QO CM CO u; « CO CD 10 CO ■rj> ■al-'-n& ^- — • -r — ^■s CS> 01 ^ ^ M »o CO Q a e -S M f. s .2^1 ^^:2 ^CQ &^ & & ci H '^ S"» lis Si ZS ^^2 j?S ^ z z 55 CO 01 tM CM in UJ ; ' bS 03 ^ Ji < > ^ n: s z ■s 1 S fc. o CO VALLEY ORA IN— Continued -Continued eek Dear Estep "3 1 c "a to 1 a CO C _c, c S S a 1 1 1 IS 1« CENTRAL BAS ittle Creek- Oak Run C 1 S 5 1 = 1 c5 1 s 3 CQ j S. I f 1 m £ OQ Z NATURAL RESOURCES { I z Z) O u z < on o z < UJ U < u. on to u. O to UJ to < Z < < on UJ Z S ■0 ft:2 CO"*- Hardness as CaCOi 6 1 00000 0000 0000 II WSr-OOOtO 'J'OOO— to -?■ — to-c Per cent sodi- um Totalb dis- solved solids in ppm OOC04000-— ■ --C-ttOt>- C^ (Oit--.0> co-a-t^tot^ tcr- — go Qc Oi-ro: ^'1 tl ' ft - CO iO -H O) 00 S3 CM CO w ; n: M .1 E Q. s 1 E > ■3 0" ^iS 0" d d d d d d d d - S d lis 0' d d CO d d d d d d d ■^li o' « 0' 0" CO 0' T»| d d -f d d W5 d d — • d d 000 d d d d d d 1 d M5 d W3 0" d d sli 00 o' 0' CO 0' tN CO 00 d — ' -r d d w (M d c CO 00 d d TT 0» CJ CO d "^ -4 ci 2 d U3 d CO CO CO CO 00 d w d 00 « d «" 00 ^ -a. d -^ d 3-11 U3 cq en 00 in d d S d (M m »0 CO d S Oi 2. s - 10 d 00 d 5 - — ' d CO -»• d d Spe- cific con- ductr- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25^C.) 10-— •- o-f^c^ oi -i-c^-e^ OS — COM — OI^« — — roci-^ S_C&H Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet lloows oiolt ' lloo ogcM CO—., . ''is^; 1 ! "" t 1 ' ' ' o> — • T3 a 1 c? am g 3Q — — CM Cs< -^ t^«: S S 3 3 g;2 ^2 ^ 3 S ti 3 go- CO t- « ^ _-g -Q -. ^ ^ ^^ ^ 1 bJ <^ ■s 1 .; 3I ! \ u 1 1 ^ - 1 111 £ C " 1 = \ 1 ; J \ \ \ fa \ \ -■§ \ -S E ft J — c 2 > 9 1 j 2 c Q 1 1 i 1 ^ M « a ■£ ^ ^ li 1 I c 1 1 I .J :i S -c i : 1 1 ; i . 1 at ■t ■ 1 1 5 1 ^ ft 3 1 1 - 1 * c 1 1 1 78 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o u z < a: O Z Z X < LU u < u_ Of to u. o UJ to >- < z < < LU z 1 § ^•1 as z S -HCCO OOOOOC^iOOTfOO « II Per cent sodi- um Totali- dis- solved solids in ppm lii • Jo s ~ 1 o> CO oo CO r- CO CO d -:r d CO d "* 03 CO o d CO d --r o ^ CO eq d d d M ?3 r^. d oj d I-; o t~ o s d m o IS ^- d " to g - s « g - d d g CO d "■ g „ 5 ^ d oc d d d "" d ■^' d ^ s „ s ^Is _ "c. to 00 r— t- t— r— t- t— t— r— 1^ I- r- t-- oc Spe- cihc con- ducts aiice (mi- cro- mhos at u^ t^ QO r~ c: »o 1- «= lo r~ - «3 O »rt eg Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet II CD t^ lO CO 1 ! 1 -T3 occco IMCV3 — CJ — o-^cor — f — ^0"0 tOOJiOOsOMCMIM — lOCr. CI 1^1 lis a2 g a2 i * ^2 &:-o fev. i'S i.^ ^ i *S ~« "g "S 'S "S "^9 ^:3 "S '^ "< " •-^S >^S 5^2 z?S 2:2 zS z5 5^^ i-.n ?:3 zS ?; ^ < Q c si = £ 1 O ^ 1 > i a *■ - 2 11 3 - 5 1 ^ S 5 i a i - a. §1 I 5 2 a 1 c f c 3 5 S ! Q ■ i 1 1 1 -d i 1 1 g. < 1 1 £■ •§ -S 1 1 ? '^ ? 2 1 1 1 2 :S 1 1 -^ 2 1 1 -3 -3 r^ 1 1 1 o o 1 O O O S S i & S E g Sg 1 = ^ ^ 3 as 1 O O O M 03 o 1 ! 1 1 1 NATURAL RESOURCES 79 ) K 1 a, to SI b;2 suSo CO'** 0-'-/} a; 2: Cm Z a OcoOO^OaOMooi^(0-roo^ II SS5SSgSSSgg|S35~5 HP SSS2?!S2g'.;:^S?S25S? Totalb dis- solved soliJs i.i ppm o cs CO S c^ - - 00 d " S 2 o> S 'a Q. s ex 1 1 iiS 2 o o o d o O d d d d o eg d d d d d q 2 d d d o o d eg d c" o d = d d d CO d d CO d o d z 2z o d d O CO d d o — o' cJ O CO d d o « d d d CO d d -^ d -^ g CO d ui § o. d d d d o O CM d d g » d d S CM d — d CO ^^ OS d d -^ g « 2 c^ d CO d "«- 2 o d (N § CO O " CO 2 - o ^ o, d '^ d ^ oo 2 o U3 OO CO CM oo o- 2 CO •f CM S CM d " o OS d 1 5 O C^ (O d CO CO •-; d ^ d -^ 2 CO d t^ d ui d eg 2 s : " OS ^ CM C4 00 2 =^ o d ^ OO OS OS d ^ 2 S5 = 35 J= "^-O CO OS 2 " 2 g » s ^ s O (M CO : ° 1 S ^ 5 CO CO 00 oi eg OS ■^ eg OS 2 i •o — eg CO c^ CO - S i s Co" ^iii o S o d o o o d g o d g o d o o d o o -* d d g o g o o o o d g o d g o d o o o d o o o d S o d 8 d m^ CD O OO d CO d -- O ^ O CO d CO d — " O CO d ^ o r* o o> d d d d d w S o. d o> ■ CO C3a CO 2 „ W3 CO CO • 00 ^ ° : s 2 s I j; 2 " ^ i>i r-1 t~ r~ t^ t-^ 30 t-^ r^ r^ 00 QC oc oo r~ t^ Spe- con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25T.) — .iMO!0-fi-~ — ^coiraoo — oc — M 0»ra -(MCOCMQCr^»Oc-)»^-rir>oc — — oiooco — — roco-rioOcoMOT'TiO (oeotot— sotra-ft-.toeo > : . s g Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet o i ; "; S S -^ '^. ; S " ira . CO "^^ oi o — '3 II r>r cni«»OOcoo> ^"""^•^"^-^^^•^^'^^.^"•^ irSOT m ^; »ra os — *e> >n en »o lo -^ •*■ »0 oi US s i i i s ^ ^ Sm Sm td z2 z:: gg zg zS zg z2 z^ zS z = (M Ol N f) — — _ — — — 1 UJ a 111 J Q c .S = V c o •= g If " r 3 I 3 i 5 3 ■; c ! c d : 3 5 1 E i 1 i i 3 1 1 i ; 3 i 1 ! J 1 C 5 g 2 : c 1 1 2 i 3 > s i • 1 i i 1 < 5 ; j ; i 5 1 1 I I <; 2 ^ < J 1 c s 2 s e I.I CQ 80 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION ILI o u < en. o z » > U < u. a: Zi «/> 111 CO >- I < Z < < cs CO CO oa CUCO Ceo ■0 o.tc p:I 00'*' CO* CL,CO ai* |8 1^ ^1 ^ D. 000-'«I- — OOOOOOO-W 3a O C. CT-. c^I^lrtOl^^QO•ooc^l---r^Dooo-f ^lli Total'' dis- solved solids in ppm o "3 CO "B ^IS O o d d o d d g d g d o d CO d OS d U3 CD CO CO d ^ o d d d d d o d d ° d CM d C-l d d CO d d ^ o ^i5 o o o O CM d d ° 1 d d d o d d d d d d O CO d d O CM d d g „ d d O CO d d O CD d d O "f d cm" d d d d g d 6 !D^ s? d S p d — d — O 00 d d s 2 d "^ O 00 d CO ^ CO d t^ d d o o d CO* CO O CM d d CM CD !S o d '*' 5 " ° H oo 2 ^ •9" Mineral constituent f S o d t-^ CO O M d oo d -w o d "^ S CO d oo 00 5 - CO lO o d CO CO o o d -^ O CO d " CM [- o 5 r; d '^ S? <, oo d *" CM 2 CO o» CO S » CO lO CO d ^ ! " d 3 00 d " - so M ■^J- CO W3 =Biii o g o d g o d S o d g o d g o d g o o o o o d d § o d g o g o d g o O O d g O g « d "^ d ^i|s o» O c, O o d — ■' o o d -• o oo d .-h' d M O OS d c^' d -■ S CD d CM s d PI s CO 2 s d CO 2 «, d —1 d c-i d CO 2 d r^ CO -V d CM d d CS> CM CM C» U3 .-H a ~ ^ "^ o ^ ^ CO lO |, OS CO |S.2S s 2 J5 r^ c^ >-• CD d c^ d - d »o ■?r o d »o -»■ CO d " CO -^ CM CM O d d d d d ^ oo OS h- d "^ CM CO OS — s ^ n " CO m o eo O >0 (M eo 00 d d 00 d d " d " CO CO CO ws d U3 [^ CO d CD 00 d ^ OS I- d " 2 s? ! s CM OS CM U3 TT O-9'C0**''MiM0S!0r^-rc0«CJa5-J"O Spe- cific con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25X\} — i<-jio«ot— otoiooi— •b-ooocor— Oil CD '^ to Dis- charge in sec- ond- feet ° i 1 i § ^ : : i g i I is Is ^Q)(-jiOC-3tc>eotDeoto«oos«OOS(00> lis 1 ul 1 III 5 z E £ bJ n " 1" 3 2 : i L - c b > 3 3 2 5 3 ■ > 1 i 3 ^ 2 1 1 s i B 1 s a § o i i 1 NATURAL RESOURCES 81 1 OS i « |8 :z a. o o o o o o o o o cs o o s s O D. o C3 ^^ C5 „ to „ wa ■^ "^ ■^ ^ H o- g^ a Oi Ol Ol -f o ,_ o g C-) fO p~, ss^ JS l:i = | o o o CD _ CO C35 ^ -11- s ""_ '^. — •o 'O iC ^ (^C ^ s o o ..o si| -: So a |a!l d Ed S 11 d £d S fa- <; ^ &; < Jo m OO ^ CO kS to CM CO -r T CM ro nn 1= O mSS ^ o d d d d d d d d a .2 1 S 1 o o to o d d d CM d o d o d CM d o d o s. i9 2|i ^ O O — _ -r o l« o o O to o w CO o CO o CM CM Si 5 o o CO o o O o O o O o o W3 o o d o o O o o o o o. 1 ^-2 — S2o o o o -*• -2 o '■ — — CO "■ g IM i^ .-. "^ '^ ^ CO „ rs) ro _^ ^ 2 isg S '^ K CO "Z ^^ 1 ec ^ t.j " " OO .iil=o Q ^ (M CM o is en o> >o , , ^ Bm LM CM (.M — o iO cs CM OC c OS OS CI *- ■^ ■^ ^ t- ^ CO a» CO k^.ki S-J-iS-d o o o ^ s o g g g o g fa. &-§='" »o Ol — — Q. (M cs CO i-sE^ en r- H iS O lO ira s 3^ -Sg^ -T- -r -»• CM c^ C>1 -r Q a S lO '^ "^ 1^1 ■3=3 WO! Ci:^ wm B &5 C:^ ;a] H a^ [^ u rx zg "9 2: Si Sh ?s z2 ^.n -^CM Ss 5^S -f CO CO CO _^ z aJ = >» s E 3 -O S CO < '? > rt o _rt H :^ O o CO "S -M o "o o C •s .-3 "3 i g z g Q z < 1- z o S >■ := 'o 1 E -^ E 1 1 o s •I > s '3 i 1 -id O 1 o u 1 1 "o 1 5 5 < H J > 3-s 1 ^1 c t=3 * 3 z < ■i s e 2 Q. 1 -s ea K 3 IS > 1 M fci < LU 5 id. CO CO — CO - s 10 3 o M w -r -r u H O (SiS d q d CO 01 z LU 1 1 ■3 "a 1 a g "3 lis 1 d q d QO CO g d d d d d d ^ M d d I o. > 1— CT i a>^ •o r~ C-J CO Of .5* 3:50 U5 00 q M 00 u « O z -§ CJ ^ — ' Cl M d d d d d (N CO d ^ _ M CO 00 CO LU 2 "3 -so d d CO d d q d W3 ?* 2? C^ X § r- s 00 5^ CO s s 10 en CD CI CO cK CO ™ CO CO ■o Z cc J «— eo tti ■M ° 01 CD d - - 0) 3 C 1— i JJii d d g os c o ^ u ^ilg f- OS O) OJ t- CO Ov a: LU 1— < LU CO CO d '^ d w d d CO d JJ ^ aS __ CO 'O OC' CO 00 10 OJ 10 ° 3^ CD 01 c^ ^" CO d tti d >o Ol -^ K Mag- ne- sium (Mg) o> to U3 „ 12 ^ in s OS ^ us S u "" -^ d CO d """ d ci d 00 d < u. 3|I to r^ q: g CO 00 ^; m CO 09 ^ q CO 3 ^" d d 09 d CO d u. l::^ '^ '-: »o to OS o oc' t^ r- '^ OC t-^ Spe- cific con- ducts anne (mi- cro- mhos at ^ oc' S '^* 50 LU >- % Tl ^ H lO d en CO to (M ~J B cc^ »o CO < ^"° z 0) < 01 1 = X o dis- solved solids in ppm 0"| »0 C' d S CO S lis JiS .16 as Ol ■ •^ GO en TO TO S o to TO !S S S s .2 e c 1 a. .2 'e i-r S c 1 a" mis M3 O d d d o o d d o o d o d d B d d d d ° d — d CM d Ms d d o d d d d d o d d TO TO d d => d .i-2o 00 TO d o d "^ d d d t-^ ^ d g TO d '^ d d d OO d " d d o — d TO g o d d d » d s:5o «. o d — ? o d d d " OO d CO o o d d d CO 2 o d r^ d = O CO d " o d - CO (M to d ^ -T- C d d to d « CO o d r-^ o « 00 d d o d 1 1 o o "a S s m s O d «o ° - ° 2 — csi d o — d '^ TO O 04 CO ^« ^> d -r d d n CO d — is TO CO oa d -^ O C3J d TO 2 ' d liixi s CO !^ ss CO CO o _^ o d M o d ° 1° o 2 ° o d ° d = d ^ o o cc d o d ° d ° o o d '^ 2 = 1 = g d TO d CO lO O TO oi d d — — d cj in o -^ CIS r^ _. ^ O t-. d CO 1 d 00 w o d w S ; d -^ TO O O « " d CO d d d " — t- o r- ill ^ O CO — 2 o 3 2 d ° 3 d ■"" I " CO r- t^ r^ J - d " CO o 2 s 5 f= ^ ~ ? " — to CO tr i " - " oc im 1 f^ C^ O 03 ^ -fl -f- O -rr oj d d d "" g „, s 3 d CO «3 cc ^i t^ -r c^ d d " o CO CO ci d CO d '^ 00 Mi O — d _ d " CO o « Mi l«, lo I-- OD ° *" t ^ "^ "" r d d d t^ d <:>) CO c^ ^ d CO •r CO d " S 2 O 1 — o -^cocr. ao=>ao«oeoo — -r mS — TO — S?)»0 — — Oi«>CO«>eOM S ISSS i lw5u? jouseowifs'-r il lO -f lO lO >0 "O lO 1(5 .« -r .ra lO lO >0 — I < z < I < on UJ Z 5 67' Cased depth 190' Depth 365' Depth cased to 210' 201' Depth; 130'-195': Perforations 80' Depth 22' Depth 200'+ Depth 100' Depth 20' Depth 27' Depth 32' Depth 148' Depth 55' Depth XS3 Z a. oo oo— c^ooo S'^'^ZS 3a o a Per cent sodi- um ?S ?5S§ =:!2SS ^„_^-^ Cr- r^cioi — EC — o ooeo — irt — <; t- o c^ — 4X5 eo d CO d d d d CO d d d •-■so z 2z - O (M c> d r-^ 04 2 " CO W5 — ' d -f d CO CO 1 d d I-. d CM S CO d ej — d "" 2 d """ CD d ill CO O C4 eg CO "^ o ^ 3 » 00 i;o CO d C: 10 d d ?r 1 2 d cjo alM o s o 2 ° 2 ° d ° g "" d '^ 2° ° 2 ° 2 = 2 = 2 ° § d ^iig CJ CO o" CO CO CO O CO to t-^ d " d d d M d d ° i d S CO M d d ^ 00 d " CO d »-^ 3 ^ d CM ° d Pi CO CO *"" 2 - OS 2 „ CO g CO CO CO ^ CO CD '^- CO CD to d w d ^ en r- d 00 oo CO t^ d oo 00 CO d l^ii CO 2 ° CD 1^ 10 — CO S CO eg' en 10 d " ^ N •^ s s »« (M ^ CO ^ s ^. s Tf CM m o CO CO "^ 2 s — CO CO CO 01 CO f CO d CO d "^ w eo eo d '^ d '^ 2 = CO Spe- cific con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25^C.) |S s:?g sssi sssss ■"".—, M CO f-? '^ ^ P^ wi U5 CO C-* -^ -^ CO 1-- 1 CD i ' I to 03 1 1 ! 1 1 -»•-»* iw3. • \ in t^ ,1... Date sampled ^to cococo cococo-f eocoeOMco lag zz zzz zzzz zzzzz ' S ; I ; i i i i i i ; 1 1 i i 2 . ; ... , . , , ,1,1. Si ; i ; i ! i : i i i i i I i o= ; : ; ; ' . ; . i ; ; ; ; : ^l 1 \ \ ■; '■ ■ : = 1 : ■;;;;; tef J i i : J i 1 : i i i i i IflO i --3 -S ,o D. -^ £C -^ -^ o « "-S '-3 --3 '^ -S £^a B 1^ B^e a S>.s a a e a s a zfa Q a s Q Iq q M ^ S a a a a a NATURAL RESOURCES 85 " \^ 1 110' Depth 16' Depth 44' Depth; 30'-44': Perforations 27' Depth 150' Depth; 100'-150': Perforations 59' Depth 12' Depth 96' Depth 175' Depth; 65'-175' : Perforations 63' Depth 20' Depth S is SJ3 d a Z a 3a too>oejto-raou^o*cc-r Per cent sodi- um cocoa>c2to^a>oc>iOM->:i-f--, toio ^ CJ « ci e^ ro ™ — ov ^1 — ci CO Totals dis- solved solids in ppm .16 g d d C^ CO d '^ oo d t^ to d U3 CO — d oc) d '^ CM — d d d 1-^ 2 ^ o o o r- d "" ^ o d '^ W CM d "^ oo CO d M 3 2 ^ d CM CO 2 W5 -7- CO iM CM to -f CO or d g o »o lO CO 2 i % i 2 1 3 ^ 2 = CO 40 S 00 d — " CM CO 5 i CO CM Jill o o ° O 2 ° i = S o d " 2 ° 1 = io d g o d g 3 d c; o d g o d § o d g o d 8 o d § d £i|S d o m d ^ 2 „ d M CO o o d CO oo o oo d d g o d cm' d S CO d — ' O .-t d — ' d d d -^ d -^ d — O CD d —^ O CM d ^ d d Pi ^ 00 =; " S CO CO CM s « CD r^ o •9" CO 2 s oo oo c^ ^ r S '^ "? — CM t^ CO eo d " S ^ S 2 S 3 O - "5 s ^ s Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25"C.) o;ooocDoi:>irai~-^-rcotocoOt^c>JO d S_efe, CM — CO ira CO W3 CO o CO S "5 »0 >0 -if a 1 lllllllllll§llll sis iiOTCJCOfM'rc^ — C^ — <:OCM — OJl- .J < Z < < a: 1 16' Depth 20' Depth 22' Depth 25' Depth 15' Depth 65' Depth: 30 '-65' : Perforations 17' Depth IS' Depth 20' Depth 15' Depth 30' Depth 19' Depth 20' Depth is d 1 oo-roooct-^om-rtDoc-r c^ so -7- CO " ro 00 II c^(0*occccioc^ ii§ 5 o o O " o o O so d "" d « S o d d g o d -^ S oo d ■»!■ d d g oo d d d ^ d ™ eo O OO d d O CO d " eo d 1 o c: ^li ^: o « O M o « d '^ S o d 00 o c^ ° -. d QO' d OJ OS d --^ i ^ U3 OO ^ d '^ OS d ^ CO OS eo M d d "^ d i i a, 1 "^ 00 — CO W3 M CO 2^ us (N «0 00 o «o CO QO o " CD OO d eo (M QO S " CO eq 2 M-4 o g o o o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o d g o d 8 o d 8 o d o o o d o o d 8 o d o o o o d d 8 d fiile o O — o to o o o r^ d CO o r^ d d d d o o d d O eo d ej CO O "^ d — O CO d — O -J- d d O CS05C0O>O r~. t— t- t- (O t— r- t— to SO t- r- t^ r— Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25T.) as — oc^ — ■or— '*^oei--c ootMoc c. 1 cfa — ' ' iac-fOc>»-T-or — Q 1 {^ofoto-T■cocococ-5coc^cocccoe^ — — r^MCMC-iro — CO.' toe-;cgsc oo o^ oo 7^ ^) 03 o^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 00 oo 03 a u. g z <'S SI -1 c < e x2 1 - g 1 = (A 3 C 3 - i c ! 1 5 i 3 C J 3 t 3 C I 1 3 i 3 C : ? 1 5 5 I J 1 : 1 5 ' = ■ 1 ^ ■e 1 i 1 1 1 e • J NATURAL RESOURCES 87 " tii (9 § 223' Depth 250' Depth \ 148' Depth 80' Cased Depth 606' Depth 175' Depth is" X3 ^1 1 *" 3s gss f;s3g°gsg ggg Per cent sodi- um C5t— Ol C-JtOCJOCOC^t^OC »ifl»0 Total" dis- solved solids in ppm :S§i c: r— o _- _ O O O iC CO iig iig lis la |& iig fc- [^ fc. tt. S. fc. .So g s s ■»*" - - o 1 to 5 : to to d d d ^ O OC d 00 to o d d 8 c^ d eo to 2 ~ CO I— eo — 1-^ to lO d eo to °. ^lg ■rr r- oj oi h- d ^ d '^ lo CO ^ O OO ~ 1 -• » Tj- OS d "" Oi W d — ' d o CO cn ■«• cw CO — — g 2 o d X — — to OstOOiftCeoo: ■ CrCC^ t^ t-^ r- r-^ r-^ cc i-^ d oo t~ • ac t-^ r-^ i^ i-4 S-j- i S^d — pom :r. oico-fCf ' '-r Occ-r QCJOOr; or. ?o-rcoc ■ ,i-~ »«C: — •O on ro iti tn -^ c^ ' i ' ' ' ■ O CO 0- to . 1 ■ - • ' lo -r w 5 Date sampled to^to usw; — ^lOPOWi^ (Mess. 5 3 5 .■:; E ^ ^ J a 3 - .> Z!!:Z -7, •?'. ■^. -z 7. -ir. 7. ■y. 7. -z. 7. 1 as ft . S t. 1 1 ! 1 1 \ I I ■J = ij < i c c ■ " 1 i 1 c [ .1 1 "E 1 = 5 \ 1 c 1 ■; 1 3 E : ; ■ tJ is 1 1 88 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o o z to < lU O z UJ X ■s •- I z. c O (^ U IM t i O a: O m UJ (O < Z < < UJ Z -0 ^ -C ^ ^ 0.0 .. t a -0 *2 D. -0 j3 ^ :So ^ ^ s & ^ i Si 0, a— g. tS Q p:.ii Q Q Q Q So d d U5 d to 10 M ■^ jg 10 '^ -r '^ "" 18 ^1 00 OS cm" CO CO = 2 ^" a -»■ -f ift C-) *n CM 00 C-l Cl OC' -I- 00 to *s CO 00 CD 10 '^. t^ 00 CM s H a s=^s 00 C-l (^ ,, »o OS „ 00 „ 00 C-5 CO CI CO CM CM CO CO ^ s i 3 .^ -O M 3.2^:2 = 1 CM (D QO t^ 10 to 00 OS 01 t» *n CO 00 10 -^ g^gi-s CO 0" CO CM f CO CM s ,S J3 S OJ ^05 «.2 -s .IS CO -t. 10 CO CD CO ™co -I- »0 CO CO 00 CQCi ^£g _^ in CO CO _, CO to CO r* fl "O C3 CO ' o d d d d d d to d a o a i s 1 3-2 ST CO d d d ; : : d d d CO d d ; 1 a c •-1° >o CO CM to CM to ^ ^ ^ CO CO 00 d 00 d OS d d 00 CO ' ' d d d d d d c^_ d CO d a •g 4 eo ^^ « " QO r^ -»• -r CO r-^ r- srao ■M f£> 00 CO 00 CO 10 00 CO co .S »o CO CO *-^ csj d d d CO d d to d d r^ d d i Ci -T- CO -t" -f OS CM to CM 1 sii CO 00 ■^ 00 CO OS eo N d CM d CM d d d ' CO - CO CD CO "^ d - d d ~ CM QO .^ 10 OS CM CM c» OS to 10 to CO "* to CO tj* 10 CK -»• rP QO (JS CO 'i' OS 00 OD U3 ^ OS QO CO OS CM ^ '-' CM IM CO -^ CM -^ d "" -^ CO CO -" CM ^ 1-^ CO f CO CO to i ' .,'= a It, ai-»8 CO CO CX> ^ CM CD d d d d d ° d d CM d d ^i|8 ^ j.^ -*" M CM CD C^ CM CM CM 00 ^ CM ^ CO to to '^ -r OS ^ 00 -?■ •^ ^. Oi 00 ^. "^ to CM -". ^ CM (O — d d d d d ■^ d d d d d CO d d d 00 d i^z O) 00 ^ ^ CM CO o» ^^ CO CO Ca 00 00 CM 01 CO 90 t- CM CM CM to 00 C5 ^ d d CM CM d d d d I^ d DJ d l^li fO CO ■^ OS to •0 ^ CD 00 ^ to O) t- 03 "^ «3 CO CO <0 CO U5 CM CO CO 2 to to t-- CO CM CM OD >o QO »o CO d d d t-^ d "^ d d d CM " CM >o ^ CO "^ 3.iJ US 00 10 ■* to to OS O) CM CM CD OS 10 CO CO CO OS 10 CO CO CO 00 c» ■^ CM CO CO C^) CO CM — d d "^ oc d — d — CO — '" '- ffi -r 10 <^ CM -f u? 10 GO CO to to »o a. f~ f- ^ t-^ ■^ •O r-^ t-^ t^ t-^ oc r~ r* 00 C^ Spe- cific con- ductr ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C. »o CO Oa r- U3 00 CO »o W3 CT5 lO OS OS OS c^ IM r-j" " CM "-^ •^ ^ -^ \ \ S - CO CO CO CO CM 00 00 S-.S 5 § CM s „ CO 3 5 £ 5 3 !=^-« CM eo CO CO -7 CO =7 CM CM -7 -7 ■^ CO ^ « ti [z] ^ «^ cc & S S ^ & ^ i S f- 00 «^ r- -f to r- to (^ 00 OS =s \ "■-.. ■-^ -^ ^-^ "^ ■^ \ -^ ■^ 5^ z Z >r; z z ^ Z Z 5^ •z. z •Z. Z oa OS CO r— CM CO CO CO CO "^ CO CM CM CO CM CM c^ ■0 c •^ 1 s as jT 1 * i 1 s, « V 1 J' 1 55 13 I 1 ^ •I •£ : Sg < 1 c ■T a bO a 1 ■s 1 I 1 1 1 =3 a ft % -5 * 1' 1 C3 1 S Si S 1 1 .2 ■g 1 .2 1 » a 1 1 1 .2 1 1 cc > !^ •? « ° •c 1 ^ "^ :3 3 ^ S SI ' - ■■ ». b. a - Q ^ NATURAL RESOURCES 89 I u I Z Z) O u z V) < LU O Z z X < z o O u. o to lU w >- I < Z < < 111 z 1 i 110' Depth 168' Depth cased to 150' 104' Depth 110' Depth 18' Depth 111' Depth 40' Cased depth 40' Depth 175' Depth 137' Cased depth: Perforations: 84'-137' go 1" ^1 Oi;DOOOOOOO o»~ C^OO 3a Igs^ssssg gs lags Per cent sodi- um OacOjC»O^OC. t— OOtO 100)0 |i| 11 CO o CO — ■ o s c^ 1ft CO CO CO CO CO ; 00 o ■i a .1 'i c 1 ^SB M o d o o d o d 2 d o d d d d o d US d d o d d (X, '- — o d o o d o d lO d d CM d o d o d ; d d ^li s M3 00 — — d d d c d d o o d CO d d 10 d d d s:2o o lO CO d lo 2 c. d CM as O O d 1^ — ■ CO d Tc' d CO i ^ d ir> oi d d CM Ui d CO — CO d d »o oo >-• d ws d CO d c c s Hi GO d S o d d d -3^ d oi 2 00 d — d — . ° 2 CO *"" CO Ol d d — o d t^ S « oo S o d -»■" § CM d -«^ d Ji^si o CO lO CM eo oo CO d CM S o ^ g " 8 « s CO CO CM CO (O CO 00 oo 00 CO — 2 5. oi — CM -« ^ di€ o o 2 ° 1 = o o d ° o O 1 d o 1 ° i o S 2 d 1 = °. g d 'Si-is M d -- d d o o ^ d »-^ CO d d O CO d d O CO d d O CO d d O 00 d d d — ' CO O CO d d d -I- 2 ,, d — d CM d Pi g ^ o ^ O CM — d lo d oo ■-»• CO d CO CO CO CO d "" d " ^ - OS ift d ^ g d d 2 " d S — d S2 „ -f CO d c» d 00 OS (» eo QO — CO I^ c^ -^ d " o o CO d 00 t- Ift CO o d " ^: " 5 g CM oo to CO CM ^H o ^ 5 o> Ci CM d " 3|I s (M CO OS to d eo 2 o d ^ o to CM CO CM Oi to ^ lO o -1" CO S 5^ !? » " 2 d "^ 1 - S c. 2 2: d r-QOt-i-oor— r~r--cc oooo .t-cc Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25"C.) o-H-foocq c-irao too ot~5 .1 = HUI 1 * gg ^ ■ : 5 = 1 1 : 3 1 a = I i 1 i i S 1 r = 1 = c J i 3 3 \ i ^i i ^M i \ i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ■ i f 11 1 il 1 I I - - s 90 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION lU H- Z Z3 o u z Of CO < LU X O z -s z s ^ LU ^ 3 ^ r3 O O to UJ >- —J < Z < < Z 1 ^ 2 ^ OC CO J3 •o •O c^ ^ ^ _- « - " g ^ ^ ei •s o ^ Q. :S Q. "d. J= o •S.2.2X. ^ o. 1 D. Q a Q Q ='l °|is Q Q OT3 t-OT o o o - 3 O S -r 'X- o o CO CO o o o to -?^ lO ^ P-< CO CD CM w — a. — CM 18 ^1 o Ul o - CO CO o o o o o o o CO o -5 CQ go Il c» -X o o f -»■ CM o CO CO CM o 00 CO sa CO ^ CO to CM W3 -?■ to o H a S; c4 a _ ^, ira rM -t- OS OO CO ^_ ^ _ CM !» b- 03 o CO CO CM CM fl- £ O 3 J3 n3 ,. Total dis- solve solids in ppm o o CO CM o CO C-1 ■o ID ■D to CO to to c^ co_ CO c» " '^ ^- S ^ a g SS.3 ■s Jg C-3 EC o CJ> o oo CO CO OS ■sOT CM c^ CO CM o t~ OO M Oici ^|g o CM »o Tf o CM o o o -r _ o o o 2 d d ■y^ d o d O d C5 d d d d o d d g 3 'a 3 3-0 £r _^ o — . o ^ ^ o o ^ o o o o o E ="- d _^ d d d d d d d d d d d d K -2 a •-■§o O o CM « Tf ^ ^ ^ oo o -. o o O 3 1 3 o o o o d o d CO O d lO O d CO d CO d o d CO d d CO d o d d d d d d d o d d o d d d o. S" A c^ CD oo o oo 2 o o o o o o ^»" « 333 o CM CO -V -* CO o ■»r CM o o >o o »D o o o o o o o o to o a eo o "-^ o d lO d d o oo in d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d S ■^ C-l o 1 Q>'^ CD o oo OS S im CM CO o d o CO CO o d CO CM d s CO CM o d o d CD o d ■»r o d :!; o d CO CO d CO o d CO to d wi d ig|K3 CM to ^ oo j^ o ■o 00 QO ID to o ^ OS CO OJ C^ o r- ■^ CM o Ol CM o o OS OO CM CO CM CM o 00 CD CO I-~ CO 1^ CM CM 1^ CJ t^ 1- to CO to a S^ -" CM c^ d "^ '"' CM "^ d "" d - d *"■ CM , , ^ o o o o o ^ 3 o o o o o o s 31^8 CD o o o o o O C3 o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o O d d o d d d d d d d o d d ^JlS >o lO CO CO W5 CD _ Q CO OS ^^ ^^ —1 CM o o o o o — j o o in O C-) o o CO C=i CO o o -*' o CO o OS o M d d d -" d •^ o CO d c^' d d d d d '^ d CO d d d d d d o d d ^ S^" -* o o CM r- 2 U o CM -f to o CO t^ ■» d o to d to CO d ^ OS d 3|I lO f QO lO OS lO o OS ID 00 lO CO oo to eo CD CM oo CD CM CO to CM CO r- CO CO CO to CM lO to CO eo t-* O CM ^ CO in d d »o d d eo d d '^ d d d d '" K ,- ^ _ ■o CM CO OS m ^ o; o C^ to to t- ^ r~ d d ^ f^ CO '^" ■-^ cc". t^ CD d ^' Spe- cific COD- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos 1 at j 25T.) (M o _ CO O -f CO OS -f _ CO CI oo (M o o >o CM o OS CO CM r- »o C3 »o CO ID D. QO rM CO <-] -T- CO CO a ccl. lO in CO ^ to ■^ to ^.-0 CO CO ■o CO CM CM UO to CD CD to "S »o »o »o U5 tn IC •o lO ID to to to •o to ^-^ ~^ ^^ ^~v --^ ■-^ ■-^ ~-^ ^^ ^^ --^ «1 00 »o CO r^ CD r^ O CD CO CO CO CM CM ■^^ ^ '-^ -^ •\ '^ -^ S »o o o CO O o OO to to "^ >o .11 o tq g O 1 5 S -3 CO CO 3 5 i i ^l§ s & &: i & &: ^ s ^ Ed 5 3 CO fO CO CO CO QO OS C3S °s ^^ ~^ ^^ ^-^ ^^ •\ \ -v. -v. ^-v •z z •^ s: Z :?: "iT. 5i z z: 5S z ^ "Z CM CM CO o -r CO CO CO CO CO CO M CM CM M 04 •a a> 3 _C > c UJ e 3 si 3 . a 1 1 g 1 •3 00 Totals dis- solved solids in ppm 155 147 65 109 278 221 921 121 1.320 139 421 1.470 174 164 162 lit o ^^ & S eO 2 " o >o o ^ S ft s s CO s s a 1 s a 3 'a 1. 3 a > 1 - ^is o b o o ci b s b g b o b »o IO s b CO CO b >o CO o b OI o b o b b t=j b o b b o b CO b w o b o 00 o b CO b o b ■--s° b b b b b o o eo b T)^ O CO b b b O CO b b b b b -i" b b g » d d b b b b s - b b g „ b b o b b b b b « o -^ b c b CO oo o « b b g c^ b cj b Bicar- bon- ate (H- CO,) Oi io i^ — CO 2 o CO ^ S " oo »o b ■-< CO 00 f O) S3 oo 1" !S CO 5 § : S Car- bon- ate (CO,) o 2 ° o d ° d ° o d ° o d - 1 = d ° d ° o d ° g o b S o b i- S o d g o b g b Po- tas- sium (K) b O CO b b O Oi b -^ b b O CO b -,; — IO b cq CO o »o b 00 (M to b cq" O (M b b b -^ O 00 b b b "" CO CO 00 b ui 0.15 3.1 0.08 3.6 s b |il - b CO b W3 d -a^ 00 2 " CO 00 d i 00 2 i u5 CO t-^ QO CO CO 2 b •-< ! s i^ CO oo d ■" 04 C^ Oi -^ o» 5 b Mag- ne- sium (Mg) oo 2? 2 O CO o oo b "^ b "^ □0 ^ ^ QO b -«-" Oi CO US b b O CO b Qo' 00 d ->■ CO »o d -^ b b b CO Ok b CO CO S J5 3 o — ' b S o b OS b CO 2 .o d ^ C^ CO CO t- b ^ QO O b "** o O CD CI b b d " to Oi b >o d '^ b "c. t«.(0^--cD tot--r^t— QOt^i^wi^t^f* Spe- cific con- duct- ance {mi- cro- mhos at 25T.) 263 238 102 185 443 321 1.480 145 2,230 175 582 2,4 60 204 198 197 Date sampled 4/26/56 4/26/56 4/26/56 4/26/56 5/25/55 5/25/55 6/ 1/55 5/12/55 5/11/55 5/25/55 5/12/55 6/ 1/55 6/ 1/55 5/13/55 6/13/S5 =j2 26N/10E-22C1 27N/9E-35P1 28N/7E-5M1 28N/9E-5FI 21N/14E-15J1 21N/14E-20A1 21N/15E-5D1 22N/13E-12J1 22N/14E-13K1 22N/14E-14F1 22N/15E-11F1 22,\/15E-32Fl 22N/15E-35G1 22N/16E-5N1 22N/16E-20P1 Xi CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN-Continued North Fork Feather— Continued 1 1 J i 1 % c « — » c 5 s s c s i \ i 1 i c .1 \ 5 ; 1 : ~ J _i ^ j '■> i 3 - 3 1 ■ i I j : 1 3 i ' i 'i ip 1 ■ 'i 3 J I ' : '■; 1 j -i t 1 i .s j 1 1 '. .1 i 1 o .= 1 1 1 i 1 1 • 1 e 92 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z o u z Q£ Ui I— m < O TJ Z « — Of Ol I Z o o U. o IT) to >■ < Z < < ILI z 3 5 o. o. Si a 1 D :S ^ ^ jS •a 13 a. -o •3 l^s ^ 1 Q. "d. D. ^ "B d ..— 3. 1 G Q Q 1 ^ o Q. a 1 d d ID d «5 ons'^CM 1 o eo Ol C^ ID C-) CO (— CM OS C-J . oa >o o o O o o o o o « zs S •S3 rt^ 11 CO CO CO c CO o lO OC' 00 sa CO CO CO CO CD CO »o CM CD 00 H o- s=:sa ^ -r _„ OO ~ O o ^ CO QO T s s:2o QO •^ QO O »D O o CM OS to _d CM ^- o ^"— d CO d d o d d CO d CO d r-^ d o d ■^ d d CO r- S 1 co g 1 O 1 o'^ to QO CM CM CD -K o CD CO «o •r I3g o d Ol OS o CM CM d OO d O d => q d r-^ d q q d q ID d q CO d ^ d q cm' q d d q d CO cm" q d d J, t '^ _ CD -f CO CO 00 _j, OS __ CO to CO CD -^ o» ■* CO OS 00 O CO CD ^ 00 o i^ CO o OS 00 00 CM Ul '"' (Tq '^ "^ ■"■ '"' ^ '"' •^ — . "^ -H •"* CO ui IN -f "i-aP o O o O o o o o o g O § o o q 1 o s o g o g § s g g o J «o d d d d o d d d d d d ills N i« CO ift »D ^ lo CD CM _j. CO CM CO CM CO 00 O 00 o CO o OS q OS O q d o OO o ^r o CM o OD q CD s CO d d -^ d cj d ^ d -^ d d d oi d d d ^ d '- d d d -* d d d - =a Sj ^ ID CM o CD ID ^ OO _ ^ ~CM~ 00 -f ^ o OO o tD U7 CO r* CO U3 o CO CD CO CM kO ^r t^ o §Z lO o -- OS o OS CM Ui CO OS q q CD CO OS 00 CM " -^ d CM d d d •^ d OO d d d cm' d r^ d d r^ d CO c^ OS d »o •^ OS o o U5 o »D 4D ID Ui o 00 Ui Ui 00 CD o m CO CO o o >D o CO Ui (T* CD CO OS Ui lO c^ CM CM oi ^ d d •"■ d r-^ d "^ d d oi d CM d CM — a C, CO ^ 00 CD ^ 00 CO -^ ^ CO 01 CD p. l-^ i-^ t^ I-^ I^ I^ 00 d t^ I-^ t^ t^ d Spe- cific con- duct- ance {mi- cro- mhos at 1 j^ CM ^ CO OO CO CO -r CO CM -r ^ g o CO ID CD CD -f [~» CO o» m ID a _ in -f OO 00 -r CD CO CM a c&- Id »o to in »D CD CD CO CD s -a in in »o l« »o CM CM Ui tD CM Ui ^ ID ID u^ "3 »o »« Ui ID Ui « Ui Ui ID Ui Ui "-2 ;^ ^^ ■^ -^ ~-^ ■^ ^-- ^ '--, «l in CO CO ^ 1 CM CO OO CD Ui CM -~~^ "-^ \ --., ---, --^ -v^ ~-^ ■^^ --^ s W3 tn »o Ui lO OO CO CM ^ O) 0^ o J 5 i 5 5 s 5 i 5 Ui CO CO CO 63 CO CO < fc£3 y CD CM ? ^ CO "j* CO =s '-v •^ "-^ "^ ■\ ^^ "■^ ^^ •^ ■\ k; 2; Z Z Z Z z ■z 7Z Z z z Z z « ec CO CO CO Ol OS o o CM N es] C4 C-l " CM CO CO CO CO CO T3 £ -a '. a » c 3 "S c > c — UJ O a > _|0 -^ -I ^ : 1 .a 1 5s l_ ; d " jiMCi t-r^oooooaoiOsOOO 1 1 o a O o to m to >- I < Z < .J < lU z 1 1 CO 151' Depth cased to 120' « 137' Depth* 230' Depth cased to 40'" 200' Depth cased to 120'" 105' Depth cased to 60'" 150' Depth cased to80'« 364' Depth 100' Depth 118' Cased depth io So K3 ^1 55a o^go^o^o ^^g®^-^^ 3a CSi(OiCOiOCeo- — ■ ■^ CO o alM o d g o d g o d § o d g o d g o d S o d g OO d S o d § o d 8 o d g o d g o d o C) CO d CO d ^iig t- 3 -1 S -^ d d o d O eo d ^ CO O eo d d o ^ d •- CO O CO d — d — S c d «" O 00 d ^' O QO d ^ O CO d -^ d d O CO d '^ d d o d iii CO d OS g 2 d "^ s. o to CM CO CM o ^ d d CM ■^ OS d t^ d " Ol t- 2 « CO 2 S S^ — to So CM l^li s S - R « S 2 -H CO i = QO 00 CM CM OO g s d '^ CO CM CO CM CO 00 Ol OO 2 " in CO 2 ua CM CO 3-11 s CO ^ g S t- cq d " 00 2 ^ CO CM ^J" CM Oi CO r- d " 2 " 2 S O) iO OS CM CM 8 C4 a Spe- cmc con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) 313 314 624 276 1.309 545 420 188 378 963 5,060 625 1.110 562 779 d to loo — « OC g ^ g rt 1^ S tn 10 _ "^ 05 in 00 CO ^^ __ -r -rf CO 00 m kO CO in CO CO C) CO 0. S.is Ba| r- .2 1 d d d d d d d CO d q d CM d q d d d d §-§£: 1 00 1 C5 „ c^ -H CM „ e^ r^ 1^ CM _ in "2 a fc, "-^ d d d d -" d d d d d d d d d d ao 00 „ g CM Q c* -H ^ QO m -P r- (O »o e-S CM lO 00 CM -*• o» CM a ^ s 1 d CO d d d d d d d d d d d d CM d ° CO d i-^ d cm' d •n d Q. =3 C* 10 10 00 « CM CO OJ SSo irt M OS 00 (M -- CM CO in r- 00 CO to r- ^r o> m m r^ ^- CO CM _ 50 CO TT CM . CM 'i — 00 d -" d d d d CO d cm' d "" d •0 d CO d ? 00 r- (M t- CM OS e^ t^ 00 CO CO r> £i iM QO e*5 »o CO to W OS t^ m in CO CM to CO 10 r^ CO CM CM r— •n r3 U9 ^ i« o> Cfl CO CM • 1 d '^ d — —• d ■"■ d CM in d CO d d d ^ d d i ■ „ .-;; 00 .» CO to _ ,^ in l t^ "f — ^ 00 iM t^ OJ CTJ CO <» CT> CO co 00 to Ci CO oo r^ CO T t— m >o oa r. CO a> ■-=> to m t- CO CO CO CO >o ^ CO CO c^ o in 10 00 O) m m 10 «n w Q S CM --^ ^^ -^ •\ •\ •^ "■-^ ^v. ■-^ ■^ ■^ ^^ in CO CO »n CO 00 t^ CO CO CO oe CO CO CO i-S ^ ol! - 3 - 5 5 ~ 7. ^ - ^ ■< - CM u:> CO E ^3 =^« C'l CO 01 ^ CO 'T" M "7 "7 " T "7 *? ? ^ > >: ■-; ^ ^ ST s s S= ^ j; ^ s > CO C-J CM = S -^ '^ ^^ "^ -^ ^^ ■^ "^ ■^ ^ 2: "Z :z 'Z. ^ ?^ ^ "Z. "r. X •r. X ?: ?: X U5 2 to eo to t;^ i;^ I^ CO 00 00 00 2 2 2 •D ! ' 3 _C > C Ul Ti -j9 2 : = <^ 3 1 1 ; ■ g 5 l-LU ; 2- % ^ ^ 1 ft s 1 >- i 1 ^ s s 1 1 ft 1 § .2 i 1 ■J 3 .— s c e 1 1 i 1 .H .2 < "c s Q 09 -£- 3 ^ _3 t Q & Q Q Q Q n a Q Q u 96 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION I Z o u z < O z z X < a z z> O o >- I < z < < LU z 1 79' Depth" 105' Depth" 27' Depth 125' Depth" 80' Depth; Sampled at 55' 290' Depth '^ 80' Depth "^ 127' Depth 82' Cased depth; Perforations: 67 '-82' ■146' Depth 110' Depth 72' Depth li xa ^1. Z ft — — — COM— (>» CO ■» 3s Cq-^COO'MOOr^O'n cctcto — Of ooieocoorj-rioco— oocnr—t-- — lo Per cent sodi- um Total !> dis- solved solids in ppm — t-~ -r GO (M »o M ctj CO t- r-- . -^ O -o r-.-rooeo-f — iMOJtD (mgo .-rovm lOCM — T)coco 1 iSSB CO o ° O d d d c: s d o CO d o d o d •O d o d ° o d d CM d o d o d CI o d i : o d CM d CO O CO S CO d f d d d t^ CO d r^ — CM d d o __ d d 03 CM M» d — CM O d ° g ; d o d o O CO d d O f d f r— o d 1^5 o - — CO O oo CO O d *^ s = d " o OS d - CO ^- d " to d cc* CM CO d *"" CO CO d 2 CO CM CM iO d to CD — to d — a, O CM d ^ d 1 •-3 b 1 e ill - =■ co CO d d ^ o 2 - f -J- d *" CM CO d CO d ""* OS CM CO d »o 5 s C^ 1 r- CO CO d — o oo d !>; CD d s 00 (M CO — 5 g CM CM =1 g CO CO 5 g CO CO o d — oo U3 O U3 QO oo S 00 to — ■ eo CO — • ^ 2 CM o g O o g = d g o d g = o o o d g O d S o d g o d g 2 d 5 =2 d "^ d 1^ oo O d 8 o d '^ d «si|S o d d g a. d d d d O CD d d O QO d d O f d d O CO d d O CO d CM CO o o d CO oo O 00 d — d — o »o d t^ 2 to d t-^ 2 o d d g d in lO CO S 2 d £ 2 d d "^ 00 d QO QO d "^ d oi 5 « d d d — -f. r_ r- CM d CO d l: CD ■* OS oo s d s 2 ^ fe = S o - < z < < UJ z ^ 154' Depth cased to 110' 172' Depth 70' Depth cased to 60' Q o o on 100' Depth 261 'Cased depth 87' Depth cased to 40' 157' Depth Is is" 1=3 333 Z a S|Sg|?S° = = ° = 3g3oo 3 a o o. sisiSSsSiiiiiiSS Per cent sodi- um Total' dis- solved solids in ppra lit .15 CO o -f ^ s Ci 5 eo C3) CO i; s U3 r^ «o CO a a 1 c 1 a i2 a '3 (^eS o o s ^ CO o o CO -I* ^ d s d O O d o d d ^ d 8 d d d 00 d s d - ; => d d o d d d d o d d d o d ^li ® S o O IM d c= d «M d d s 1 d o d S o d d d d o eg d d is CO 2 ^ «0 00 d *" e-* CO d d o d ils o O CO O CO o CO *»< 2 " SJ o PO CJJ m c^ o OS Ui d ^ d t-^ d "^ g g eg U5 2 s K .0 5 ^ 00 S CO d 00 d J 5 s IK'S 2. -r o o 2 » 53 us -^ d S f^ -^ ' eg to O CO d 00 oo ^H CO d to — CO d -1^ O US d " CO o d 2 ° d ■" CO d eg d iii£i o o -*• US CO — ca to 1(5 (O -t* 1 S S S f- § 12 s C* CO »o eg ! 1 CO ■-■ 2 : i CO CO QO O w eg 00 CO ^m CO CO I o ■= o d o o o d o o o d d S o d g o d § = d " o o o § o d g o d d o o o d g o d s d -*i|S M o o 2 = O 00 d T 2 °. d Ci CO eg t^ d d g 00 d d d w O CO d 'T o o d co' O CO d CO oo O OS d d d e^ d eg - < Z < .J < Of Ul Z ^ 1? -a J -o d g ■£ « a. -o CQ ■73 =« a ^ as £ |.2 §^ D. Q. ■B -o i . a oi j3 "a o| a. Qu o a 3^ £■ P Q ^s. Q Q ^a Q Q d Q d d-S d o tft-O US ^ ea O) vra o o o •o ^ CD -rOi t- " ^ — CM CO s CM 1 .^ = o Ol o o o o -r o CO o o o o o 18 SI r- T- 15 3| M -f CO OS t~ CO CM ^ en -T" oo CM OS •o 5=3 o W3 o QO CO 00 O CO o a CO E-. a -*s ' O CO Ol CM o CM 00 M _^ CO tn o oo CD S c^ IC CM CM eg •^SS' 3»l^.| o o> CO CM -r iO C" O o CO »o CM 2 CO cc lO 1-11- a CO — -^ fM -M " -^ T- "" o U3 lil CO "5 ■^f* II a 9l ^i sa !§: Is w z c^ t£ .so _^ lO CO OJ o CI , o -r ^ o Oi gs CO CO CO CO to ' IC '^ ^ CO ^is o CD CM CO o CM CO o ^^ o o ■^ o c CO CO o o O o o o o o o lO 1 .2 1 1 d d d d d d d d d d d d d "■ o o d d CM d d o d d CO d ; o d o o d p. a (M o Oi t- CD CD t^ Oi o 1 4) w o »o o CO o o o o »o un CO o «s o CM o CD o 1 d CM d »Q d d d »»■ d CO d o T*< d CO O lO d d d d ft '3 g" 4 co^ o eg CO CO -^ oo c« oo r^ W3 ^~ CM 3So CD CO CO CO CM c^ CO Tf eg CO o CM CO 00 CD o CO CM W3 O CM CO _a ■^ «D '^ CM o - — d 00 d •^ d CO d o O d ■^ d CM d 00 O d d S s CO o o o o o O o o o o o O o o <= O o o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ^0S loo CM CM r^ C^l o i^ CO -r _j ^ ICM M5 CO CO W3 CO CO o CD o CO o 00 o o oo o o o lO o U3 o o Oi O o o CM o -^ d d d o ^ d d d CO d pi d ^' d -* d d d d d --' d -■ d -* d 1 ,-^ ■^ CO CO ^ _, CM ^^ CM OS CM CM CM CM CO ^ a,5 CO TT* CO W3 CO CO o> CM lO ■^ CD CM lO o CO U3 •O CM »n CO CM CM ^=5 U3 Ol CO CM U3 «' ^ d ■"' d d d d oi d d d d •^ d CM o eo ■V It- 12 ■^ lo> to o» o to us CO lO aa M CO o t^ CM CD ■«' in o oo o Tf eg 1^ 00 -«« o CO OS OO CM CO CM •O d c^* OS d oo d '"' Ol "* CO "^ oi d OS d ■^ -*! d -^ lO '*' CM o o ,_, »o o 00 OS CM o CO m »o Oi CD CO o M3 O o CM CO CO CM oo 00 CO CM 00 Oi eg ^J- CO CD CO CM CO CM CO d CO d d '"' '"' '"' '-' •^ d "rf d d oi d ■"■ K C^ o j^ ^ M3 ^ o -V CO CO OS eg _^ o a CO ^ '^ oo '-^ *-^ 1-^ '^ ^ '^ CD t^ *^ 00 Spe- cific con- duct- ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25°C.) o >o t^ CO CO CM CM „ CO o Oi 00 o •"»• t- CO oo 02 CM 'T CO c^ CO CM c^ CO CO CO CM ci -t" CM o o i^ « CM lO o o S,CtL. "3 »o ira lO CD lO CO lO t- «.-o -a M CM CD CO CM CO CD •o CD CD U3 CM CO CM W5 »o •O lO »o »o lO »o U3 iO •O U3 »o »o ^ — ^^ ^-, ■^ ^-. -^ ^-. ■"-, ^-^ '-^ ^ ^^ «l 00" OS 00 »■ QO CO o CM CO ~^ ■^ "^ ■^ ^ -\ -^ •^ ■^ ~-^ S (M PI CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO QC CO I- _ _, ^ 0^ p^ s CQ B J s >i Q Q S'. Cu C jjS o -rf UO CO o o Oi :=!xi'* CO CO -^ — 2 T — CO CO ■-3 ^i§ p: g cs: ^ e; j: ^ ^ p: 1:; S: k; OS CO CM CO CO CO c^ -^ ^-. \ -->. ~~-. ^-s CO -^ 2: Si Z § ^ Z Z »: Z ■z •?^ z Z CO CO CO in "3 o CD CD CD b- M CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM r- 1 .1 =3 1 a -^9 .2 o _i 5 5s a o = s> eg za 1114 UZ 1 1 O o .1 J .1 1 J 1 ^ s .2 1 i .1 S 1 ■fi 1 ,2 EC 1 =2 % o % < E S S] e S a a 3 S) s oc « ^ o o O o o "O 1 o o o « < i±; Q Q Q O Q ii: Q ^ Q s 1 ^ H > NATURAL RESOURCES 99 in Z o u z a: UJ I— CO < O z t- 0£ lU t— t Q Z o O u. o to to >- —J < Z < < a: 111 Z 1 i 20' Depth 120' Depth 113' Depth 172' Depth 47' Depth 1368' Cased depth: Perforations: I180'-1350' 412' Depth 105' Depth ISO' Depth 466' Depth 120' Depth 280' Depth 516' Depth 42' Depth 410' Depth go ^1 s "■ ^ — "^ " s 3a f~ ~r m oi to o -r co ■t i- ci ii5 e^ ci to Per cent sodi- um SgS?i5SSSSSSS?5S??5 Total" dis- solved solids in ppm S6 «! ?! 00 t~ r~ 00 CO Ol CO CO — CO CO CM CO s OO CO c o i s ■§ s. -2 a 1 1 3 SsS d CO o" d o ^ s o r d CO d 00 d ^ CM d q o o d W5 d q d d o CO d d CO d d CO d d d ■-■SO g to w d eo d CO M3 q <>i d -H CM d d o d - d " d CM d wj B - d *^ CO CO d d 2 CO d CO d -«■ d «*■ d 2 H ° CO 2 i 2^ S oo d — ■ 5 ' S o CM oo S ° q M ^ CO CO o oo' ^ » Z 2 ^ ^ a 1 1 a 2 ill g 2 o S « c^ " d ^ ^ s => d g 2 " d CO 5 s !: § CO 5 s s = 2 s d jjisi « s CO QO d » = § -fi CD d "o 5 = s » 00 o ,4 3 s i lO CO us M CO U3 aHi o g o d § o d d o S o d 8 o d S o § o d g o d g o d g o 8 o d 8 2 d 3 o d s d £||g M O 00 d d d d d CO o to d -^ O CM d CM CO o r- d oi q CO d ^ d CO O OC d d d d d w d — q o d (O CM r- d d CM q d |i| OJ O oo CO ^ s 00 5 2 2 - CO CO CO CO « CO oo oo -»• CD d ■» d 2 3 c» B d ^ ! ^ CO CO CI M S c. d "■ d S d s 5J 00 CO CO CD s^ CO CO U3 «J 3 g CO CO CO S 55 CO ^ CO Oi d "** t ^ ^ g (N CM — 2 ^ : s g 2 eo CO " p. a:r^r-.oit~-^cno>«oc^c>meo 1 ' ' > 1 ' 1 ' ' ; , , , = I 1 I ! i 1 1 '■ < • > . . • ' • al i : ; i ; ; : i : ; i ! i i ■ i ^ 1 1 i i ; 1 i i i i J i i • i _,<« ■■= 1 1 ; ■s ; 1 ' ; s ; ; 1 I ; 1 is H 1 1 1 J 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 ! 1 J 1 ii f 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 q|o q i n s c j; J5 o i Q = - «.- 100 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION tn UJ I— Z o u z 0£ UJ I— tn < a. O z z X z o Of O to UJ «o < z < < Of UJ Z 1 60' Depth 60' Depth 275' Depth 95' Depth; Perforations: 28' 134' Depth 252' Depth 280' Depth 96' Depth 660' Depth SI ll 545' Depth cased to 490' 90' Depth cased to 80' is ^1 Z ft ll H ft Per cent sodi- um — i — - ] 1 C^" 1. S M3 g eo CO g g t~- Oa " , IM t- ■^ £ CO a .2 a H a > '3 03 ES eo w o o o d CD •V d CO CO CM d U3 CM d d CO d d t^ CM d lis o o O d d d d d d d d ; d d CO S oo o w S 3 d ^ d -V d Tji 00 O '-' d d d 00 — d d -r (-~ CD cs 'T a d — d d ^ ; d r S d d g d 2 CO CO O CO 2 § OS —• O 1—1 cn O -*< o> CM >-H CO CM R S C d -^ g ; d CO «D d d d ^ CO d -4 d d d d d iii g S i CO ^ " ^ " eo ca CO 00 2 g =^ 3 CO CM cm' ^ CO 00 CO oo " 00 ■^ CO d '^ s d 5- " 2 CI J5 d |s|i i o ^ o CO CD »o 1 " 2 " ^ - ^ g CO : ^ OS 2 " 00 -J- — 00 d 00 2 ^ CO I- d "= "9- 3|S S5 g CM ^ s - 1^ «= CO ^ ^ U3 ^ " ui to 5 " CO 2 ° "S iS 2 """ 2 i i ^ ". Spe- cific con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25T.) ooo — c^oseoo — -^ o — »oO(o mcRcor-t— ci«^--co-H occiO'O— ' CD en 0_ 50 CD CD I- CO »0 lO CO — C^l — _ ■» oo l<>)(O00»o»o-f 1 1 • i^artoo (O .I>.100t0«5ti0 ■ 1 1 II— coco -o s 1 ■o j 1 1 j [ ; j [ [ [ I ! 1 1 I = ' ' I I I ' I I I 1 ! : 1 1 : c 1 1 j ; I ; j ! 1 [ I I 1 1 I >c : ; i : : : ; ; ! ; ; ; ; ; ; llj O 1 1 < 1 • < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^T ^ i iii 22 § i 1 ^ = = = = = = = 44:44 II t 1 = .2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 1 .1 1 i .1 .2 5|-a iiaaaiaaiiSi-sJis S " o S 'P -C -C -p -C 'C -p -E cj -p = 5* -p -c Q|S Q 5 A A £ A A £ ^ -g-i 2 p: A A NATURAL RESOURCES 101 z o u z to < o Z z o Z z> o O o to UJ CO >- < z < < ae. \n Z 1 120' Depth 160' Depth D. V Q d t ? CO CO 24' Depth 25' Depth 95' Depth 25' Depth 120' Depth CO CO 18 ms3 z S ooooooooo too oo-t* 3a ooiojoocciooc^o loosD cir-to Per cent sodi- um Total b dis- solved solids in ppm gggsggsg jgS iSS S g 8 2 g g dada dsdads ds iia US Is la la la b- fc- fa -<; [I, fo -J' CO s ira OS 00 t- ' i CO CO eo o o 1 a o (§!§ 00 o o o d CO d d U3 o d ■o d s o d § d d d d ■g o d o d CO d d o d c-i : d •== d d d a > 1 isJi o o o »o o o O 00 d d O Oi d d o o d d g „ d d O CO d ^ d — d d o o ■ d ; « d -^ d M 3 o o <>« i ^ d 2 CO o o o d -^ O "532 Sz§S§^&^SS|| III 1 I ; ! ; i i a i i i ; . ; i i , 1 C , 1 1 1 ' I ' 2 ■ i ; i ; : : I ; 1 ; i i J i ^< := 1 : :=: ;© ; ; ! ..^ % 4 I 4 4 \ I \ \ \ \ % \ ill ^111 1 1 1 ! 1 s i ! i 1 1 1! 1 1 eS fa fa fa Hi: fa ^ < Q & -J OrtP Q. Q 102 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION u I in 3 o u z Of ui I- < O z z < o z o O uu o UJ to < z < < UJ Z 1 1 1 18' Depth 280' Depth cased to 90' 60' Cased depth 198' Cased depth 350' Depth cased to 120' 1 So So 1^ ^1 Z a. (TO — OOOOOOOO-rO CO 3a o a ^ a. gsss?;s£ggss| S3 Per cent sodi- um o, ^coc^WM-T-io-rci — CO coco Total'' dis- solved solids in ppm aii:DO-T'iMOO-t*OiCOCO-T'CO (MOO r-02!>5cocow3COcoO(MOco -f-f C1lO'*"(M»OC-gT(N'-'COlO „^ o "S Jo OO ■^ 3 s 5 CO o to « CM 5 CO us us CO OO c 1 a o :a s s a S > '3 a* Sss o o g d o d o d CO d US d d d g d d s d ° d o o d d CO d d d d d o d d d d o d ^ll - o ■tr en d ^ «5 d ■r^ d d 1 s CO ■?i d O M d d 8 «, d d O OO d d 2 ^ eo .-■ d -5- d d 5 t- d d o d 335 O) ^ o CO d d d d 2 =^ 00 O O u. O CO lU tn >- < Z < < UJ Z 3 ^^ a J5 a A » u Q Q Q Q Q Q (S o to 1 o CO lO •o »o c» s ^i o o _ -r o o CM o o o o o> o -r lO o zS; C-J ■"* 3s -^ OO C-l .^ M3 "T OS ■^ -»• »f OS ^ 00 eo SS OC CO (M c^ to CO to OO o o. CO CM f-a fe , CO o cc *o >o to -r CM CM CO «> CM CO __ o^ a eo CO "3 CO OS Ol CO -r ■^ OS 0. 28 = £, 15 = a o J,^ o lO <>) Ol OS ^ cc r^ 00 I* o T Tota dis- o CO Vj OS lO *o CO CO -r il'-a m CO n- CO CO OS CM CO 00 -- CO Is! o o CM C) o o o o o o da dS dS da =■§ °"l 1%. US ES tt- ES ^ u. u. u. ^ iS cc o CO ~v •r CO CO ,^ OO OO ^'rj5 (M to « lO -f CO CO -f COs— <^ig — t^ to CO Oi CO o ^_ ^ eo - O o TO OS f o '^ CO CM eo ,o o d d d d d to d o d "" d 3-0:=, o _^ « ~f »o ^ CO »o ^ ^ CO -r Tf -r a Q. fc.'*-^ o d d d d _•' d -!P d d d d — -i a a 1 "3 to f^ OJ C3:> CO to CO ^ o o op o 3 --■s^ o CO o lO o -*• ca ^ o CM CO CM CO o o o o "rt z Eg oj o ■^ d d wi d d ^ d ' '^ d d d d d d to d d d "5 CT 4«~ 220 CM -^ C4 CO o CO CO to eo CO en CO lO lO OS to OS 00 o to to t-- CM "V (O CM CM 00 to 00 eo eo t- CO CM « M OS ■^ «o -T .s o '• — lO o d lO ^ =^ d d d to ^ d 00 d d "^ CM '^ '^ s a . Oi^ CD to CO to o -f CO l"ss o OJ o Ol CO lO OS to CO to I~- CO CO QO CM -s* to CO CM CM <2 ■^ t: OS 3 <» . CO CO CO eo OO OS CO CO 1 o CO^-^^ o o d " d ^ CO '^ CM d d '"' CO 00 w— CM ■^ , ~ "i~ c-» o OS to o t^ ^ CM ^ OO liMi r- « lEl OO IM CO ^ QO OS OO to CO 00 CO OS to 00 •V o CO 'J' s eo o . OD ^- o to r- OO o "rt CO w CO f (N CM ■rj^ CO OS CI '" ■"■ ^ '"' " " CM eo '"' CO to Oft w CO ,-^ o o o o o _^ ^ o o r* o s 6S-4 IC o o o o o d o o d to d OO CO d o o d CO o o d o d o d o o d o CO d o d oa -: -^ OJ QO ■^ c^ "i- CO d CM -^ CM d c - -r ~ OS •* '^ d CO X -f lO iM (M QO to CO ,, CO lO CM C-J -»• -^ a OO f^ ■- I-^ OO =^ •^ 00 f~ t- 1-^ '-- 00 I^ £ig| to § ?3 CO CO o CO o Oi s s to o CO o OC CM OS M o w.^ c^" — —"■ "" "" d. CO J^ o f. to 3 a^; lO lO s CO to CO »o eo «.-o -a 1 CO to t ffl s a s C3 cS ^ -< rfT3 Z§ ^ T3 yi o s >, ^ :d CQ to =2 _: s -o =3 "-"o T3 "o 1 i 1 1 c <; "S- o X < > 1 1 1 J if a i "1 c o 1 c 1 St .2 4 i o si 1 •1 h 3 C J CO 3 CO I 10-i NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION u I Z o u z < Of O z z X ILI I o z o o o UJ CO < z < < Of Ul Z J Hardness as CaCOi o o 3b s s Per cent sodi- um s s Total h dis- solved solids in ppm -^ o era r- o d a lis SB ?3 en a i a t. p. 3 s c 1 3 iSss o o o d lis d m CO o o o d d o o d s:sS 3 o •^ oo d CO d 1 1 i ill CO 00 d CO d li^si C^ i § t- Jjis O o o d § d £j|@ ■M d Tji d iil U3 QO t4l d d (M CO d Ul d d o" Spe- cific con- ducts ance (mi- cro- mhos at 25X.) g i d a ct4 QO «1 Its lO « o CD 1(5 .^ am 2 ° Z CO s 111 il if 1 1' 5 1 z 1 ^ i II 1 .£ SE; ■a '" "J 2 s 0) ? -3 -. 2 -2 >?— ^ « -J ■tf III I If J K g -a ^ =^ OT "c "c o c c c NATURAL RESOURCES 105 The most serious water quality problem in the area, especially in the Klamath and Trinity River Drainage Basins, now that mining operations have nearly ceased, is posed by the lumbering industry. Drainage and discharges from logging mill ponds can cause a tiixic condition in the receiving waters due to tannic acid dissolved from ponded logs. In order to control these conditions, restrictions on waste discharges from the mining and lumbering industries have been im- posed by the State Pish and Game Code, as well as the Regional "Water Pollution Control Board. Waste dischai'ges are generally permitted only during pe- riods of high stream flow. Additional sources of quality impairment include sewage and industrial waste discharges. Percolation to ground water from private septic tanks constitutes the principal method of sewage disposal. The larger communities, including the cities of Yreka and Weed, have sewage treatment plants which discharge to percolation beds in the immediate vicinity of surface streams. Control of waste discharges is administered by the Regional Water Pollution Control Board. Improper construction and abandonment of wells constitutes a threat to ground-water quality in the various ground water basins. Such wells permit mix- ing of poor quality water with usable ground water. Shasta Valley is almost entirely underlain with lava flows containing waters with excessive concentrations of boron, magnesium, fluoride, sulfate, and other dis- solved minerals. Wells penetrating this aquifer should be sealed off to prevent commingling of this poor quality water with overlying iisable water. Portions of the Upper Klamath River near Ager are believed to have a similar source of poor quality ground water. Considerable impairment of ground waters in Butte, Shasta, and Scott Valleys, as evidenced by high concentrations of nitrates, may be due to organic materials which enter the ground waters through wells with inadequate surface sanitary seals. Central Valley Drainage Basin. Surface waters originating in the northeastern tributary streams of the jjortion of the Central Valley Drainage Basin lying in northeastern counties hydrographic units 12 and 14, are generally of a ealcium-sodium-bicar- bonate type, soft to moderately hard, low in total dis- solved solids, and suitable for all beneficial uses. An exception to this is found in the waters of Goose Lake. These waters are of a. sodium bicarbonate type and contain excessive percent sodium, making them gen- erally unsuitable for irrigation uses. They also con- tain moi-e than 2 parts per million of boron and are of Class III quality for irrigation. During periods of low flows, streams draining this basin become more highly mineralized, but nevertheless do not normally exceed 100 parts per million in total dissolved solids with low concentrations of boron and fluoride. The concentrations of mineral constituents in sur- face streams within the Sacramento River Basin vary widely with the source and seasonal period. There is a gradual increase in total dissolved solids in the streams from the foothills across the valley floor to the trough of the Sacramento Valley with a further geiu-ral increase from north to south. East side streams originating in the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade Mountains are ordinarily of excellent quality and calcium bicarbonate in type. Those wa- ters are characterized by low total dissolvcfl solids, chlorides, boron, and fluoride, and are generally soft to moderately hard. Water from the west side of the Sacramento Valley can be divided into two cla.ssifications : those waters originating on the lower slopes of an extension of the Klamath Mountains, and those flowing from the Coastal Range. The latter classification includes waters of Cache Creek. Waters in the first classification are of similar quality to east .side waters. Waters in the second classification have higher mineral cont(Mit, but they are generally of excellent f|uality. A notable exception to the general good quality of surface waters in the Sacramento River Basin is found in Cache Creek. Water from Clear Lake, a tributary of Cache Creek, is generally of the same type as its tributaries, that is, calcium-magnesium- bicarbonate in type, soft to moderately hard, and low in total dissolved solids. Boron concentrations of 0.5-2.0 parts per million place it in Class II irrigation water. Waters of the North Fork of Cache Creek are calcium bicarbonate in type, but generally more highly mineralized than streams tributary to Clear Lake. In low flow periods, boron concentrations up to 4.6 parts per million have been observed in this stream. Use of this water for domestic purposes would generally require some softening. Bear Creek, a ma- jor tributary to Cache Creek, is highly mineralized. Waters of this stream are very hard, sodium bicar- bonate in nature, and contain extremely high con- centrations of boron and total dissolved solids, par- ticularly during periods of low flow. However, these waters are extensively used for irrigation. Another west side stream of poor quality is Spring Creek, flowing into the Sacramento River above Kes- wick Dam. The creek receives mine waste run-off, and contains high concentrations of heavy metals during periods of low flows. Aluminum, copper, iron, and zinc, are the principal metals present in significant amounts; and the waters are high in total dis.solved .solids and hardness. The waters of Spring Creek are of a calcium-magnesium sulfate type, and are highly acid, with a pll on the order of 3.0. These waters are obviously unfit for beneficial purposes during periods of low flow. 106 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Quality of Sacramento River water generally re- flects that of east side streams, due to the much larger quantity of inflow from those sources. During periods of low flows, reaches of the Sacramento River near Knights Landing contain increased total dissolved solids, because of irrigation water return flows from reclamation and drainage district drains. The Sacra- mento River is generally a calcium bicarbonate type water but, from Knights Landing south, reflects re- turn flows during the irrigation season by a change to sodium bicarbonate water, inci-eased total dissolved solids, chlorides, and per cent sodium. Total hardness in the river ranges from soft to moderately hard. Ground waters occurring in the upper watersheds of the Central Valley Drainage Basin are ordinarily of good to excellent quality, soft to moderately hard, and are calcium or sodium bicarbonate in nature. However, in the Bieber area in Big Valley, a more highly mineralized sodium sulfate water, with con- siderable hardness, high total dissolved solids, and a significant boron content was indicated by one anal- ysis. Highly mineralized springs frequently occur in the foothills of these upper valleys, and contain so- dium chloride water of high total dissolved solids content and significant boron concentrations. Like most of the ground water supplies in the upiDcr Feather River area, those in Sierra Valley are good to excellent calcium bicarbonate waters suitable for most beneficial uses. However, several wells in the valley yield highly mineralized ground water. Most of these wells appear to be in the vicinity of Marble Hot Springs and yield hot, highly mineralized ground waters. These waters are characterized by a fluoride content exceeding the 1.5 parts per million maximum recommended by the United States Public Health Service for drinking water, and values of boron greatly exceed Class II irrigation water standards. High sodium percentage and chloride concentration make this an undesirable supply for most iri-igation, industrial, or domestic purposes. Ground waters in the valleys contiguous to Clear Lake are generally of excellent mineral quality. How- ever, scattered wells in Big Valley and the Upper Lake areas yield very hard waters with signficant con- centrations of boron. Although the Avells containing boron in Big Valley seem to be located predominantly along the lower edges of the valley, their intersper- sion with wells yielding waters of excellent mineral quality prevents the delimitation of any speefic area of poor quality ground water. A limited number of wells scattered throughout the Upper Lake area yield water containing boron in quantities toxic to the more sensitive crops. "Wells in Big Valley and the Upper Lake area contain typically magnesium bicarbonate water, with an occasional well showing predominant sodium or calcium cations. Sacramento Valley ground waters generally reflect tjie quality of sources of recharge. East side ground water basins, recharged by streams originating in the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada, usually contain calcium bicarbonate waters of excellent quality with low concentrations of dissolved solids. Similarly west side ground waters, replenished by streams from the Coast Range, reflect the quality of tributary surface waters. These waters, although of a more mineralized character than east side waters, are nevertheless of good quality suitable for most beneficial uses. Dominant cations in east side and west side ground waters ai"e calcium and magnesium. Toward the trough of the valley, sodium replaces the calcium and/or magnesium as the predominant cation, par- ticularly in the lower reaches of the Sacramento Val- ley. Total hardness of ground waters in the Sacramento Valley trough appears generality to range from slightly hard to very hard, with the majority of the observed wells containing relatively hard water. Excessive ni- trates have been noted in a number of wells through- out the valley. Variance from good quality is noted in ground waters in the Cache and Putah Creek drainage basins. Class III irrigation water exists in the following areas: lower Yolo By-Pass in Yolo County; an area to the east of Woodland and extending between vi- cinity of Woodland and the Davis-Sacramento High- way; North Fork of Willow Slough to the west of the Plainfield Ridge ; upper Chickaliominy Creek ; and lower Capay Valley. Boron concentrations toxic to the more sensitive crops are found in these poor qual- ity ground waters. Aside from boron content, the mineral qualitj' of the water is usually good. Ground waters in these basins are generally very hard and, for domestic use, would require softening to some degree. A M'ater quality problem area exists in portions of Sutter and Yuba Counties, located in the trough of the Sacramento Valley. In the areas enclosed by the Sacramento River and Sutter By-Pass, that bounded by the Feather River and Sutter By-Pass to the south of Yuba City, and two small areas in the vicinity of Wheatland, appreciable chlorides have been encoun- tered in the ground water. Many wells in these areas have yielded ground water of such poor mineral quality as to make its use for irrigation undesirable, particularlj' upon such crops as sensitive as peaches and apricots, extremely important products of the area. Chloride concentrations as high as 3500 parts per million have been found in water from wells in the vicinity of Robbins. Boron concentrations consid- erably in excess of the 0.5 part per million limit, for i Class I irrigation water, were noted also in many wells. A geochemical studj^ of the area has indicated that deep-seated brines are responsible for the high NATURAL RESOURCES 107 chloride content. These brines are usually encoun- tered in the deeper wells. However, in these four gen- eral areas they have been found at shallow depths. Til is is, in most instances, due to rising of the brines where the water table has been lowered excessively. Around the fringes of the northern portion of the Redding ground water basin, wells yield waters of a predominantly sodium chloride type, and occasionally moderate to hinh fluoride concentrations are found. Boron is often found in excess of Class II irrigation water standards. These waters are not recommended as a domestic supply due to their high chloride con- tent. Water quality problems in the Central Valley Drainage Basin have been investigated in detail in i only specific local areas. Municipal and domestic sew- age, treated and untreated, is discharged into many stream sj-stems throughout the area, but waste dis- charge requirements set by the Regional "Water Pollu- ' tion Control Board provide adequate protection of ; water quality. Numerous lumbering and food-process- ing industries contribute substantial quantities of mineral and organic wastes to both surface and ground waters. Most lumbering activities are carried on in the mountain valleys, and in the Redding area of the Anderson-Cottonwood Valley. Waste drainage from mines and associated industry is especially prevalent in the mountain counties. The principal mines in the area include chromite, copper, gold, iron, manganese, silver, and tungsten. Many of these mines are presently inactive. A number of natural gas fields are located in the Sacramento Valley including portions of Butte, Co- lusa, Glenn, Sutter, Tehama, and Yolo Counties. Wastes from gas wells ordinarily contain high con- centrations of dissolved mineral constituents. With the jDresent small production of gas in these fields, resulting waste waters are at a minimum. A substan- tial industrial increase in the Sacramento Valley will increase the demand for natural gas by industries and will no doi;bt create an increased production of waste waters. These waste discharges could pollute receiv- ing waters unless stringent controls exercised. Highly mineralized hot springs widely scattered throughout the mountains and foothills impair the quality of some streams and, in many cases, percolate and impair ground water. Deep-seated saline connate brines are believed to underlie the entire Sacramento Valley. Heavy ground water pumping in certain areas, uotabh^ that of Sut- ter County to the south of Yuba City and in the vicinity of Redding in Shasta County, have created an overdraft, causing the connate brines to rise up- ward or laterally and commingle with usable water in the overlying aquifers. A major source of surface and ground water im- pairment in the Sacramento Valley and, to a much lesser extent, in the mountain valleys is irrigation return water which includes minerals leached from the soils and the various applied fertilizers. As the Sacramento Valley becomes more highly in- dustrialized, increased use of ground and surface water for industrial and domestic uses will occur. Increased use of these waters for cooling purpo-ses in air conditioning and refrigeration installations may create localized temperature increases in receiving Avaters. Lahnnfan Drainage Basin. Surface waters orig- inating on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada, and draining into the highly mineralized lakes of the Lalioutan Drainage Basin, are generally of excellent mineral quality. All are calcium bicarbonate type waters, soft to slightly hard, and are satisfactory for all ordinary beneficial uses. In Surprise Valley, the Alkali Lakes contain so- dium chloride type water, with excessive concentra- tions of fluoride, boron, total dissolved solids, and arsenic, which preclude their use for domestic, irri- gation, or most industrial purposes. Water in Honey Lake contains high concentrations of sodium, bicarbouates, chlorides, and sulfates; and significant quantities of fluoride, boron, iron, and ar- senic. This water is unsuitable for domestic use or as a source of irrigation water supply. Long Valley Creek, tributary to Honey Lake, contains water less highly mineralized than the lake. However, it is un- suitable for such crops as deciduous fruit, most vege- tables, and grasses, due to its boron content, which runs as high as 0.95 parts per million and its per cent sodium which is as high as 80. Eagle Lake is a sodium bicarbonate type water of doubtful quality for unrestricted irrigation use. The lake waters are moderately hard to very hard, re- quiring softening to some degree for domestic use. Ground water in Surprise Valley generally varies from a soft to slightly hard sodium bicarbonate to sodium sulfate in type. The sulfate waters appear to be concentrated in the area near Middle Alkali Lake. They also contain excessive amounts of boron, high total dissolved solids, and per cent sodium which place them in Class III irrigation water. A toxic amount of arsenic was found in the analysis of water from one well. These waters originate from mineral- ized hot springs prevalent in the area with tempera- tures ranging up to 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The sodium bicarbonate type ground waters appear to be principally found in the vicinity of Upper and Lower Alkali Lakes. An excessive per cent sodium in these waters restrict its use for irrigation. Ground waters in the Madeline Plains area are predominantly calcium or sodium bicarbonate in character. The majority of the wells sampled yielded 108 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION moderately hard to very hard water. The mineral quality of these ground waters is generally excellent to good and falls in Class I within respect to irriga- tion iise. "Waters high in nitrates were found in sev- eral areas. Ground waters in Honey Lake Valley are gener- ally classified as fair to good but variable as to min- eral composition. Waters to the north of Honey Lake are ordinarily sodium bicarbonate in nature, soft to moderately hard, and contain total dissolved solids ranging from 200 to 700 parts per million. However, water from a deep well in the Janesville area, in the immediate vicinity of Honey Lake, contains a very hard, sodium chloride water, with total dissolved solids exceeding 1,000 parts per million, and per cent sodium on the order of 60. Hot springs located near Wendel contain a sodium sulfate type water with high concentrations of chlorides and total dissolved solids, and a per cent sodium of about 90. Ground water in the vicinity of Janesville and Wendel to the north of Honey Lake is Class III irri- gation water, and generally usable for only the more salt-tolerant crops. Ground waters to the south of Honey Lake are generally of a sodium bicarbonate nature, soft to moderately hard, and contain total dissolved solids ranging from 200 to 400 parts per million, with the exception of ground waters found in the vicinity of the Sierra Ordnance Depot near Herlong. This latter area contains sodium sulfate type water, very hard, with total solids ranging from 400 to 800 parts per million. Impairment of ground and surface water resources in the Lahontan Drainage Basin is caused primarily by discharges of domestic and industrial wastes. Do- mestic wastes in the principal ground water basins are ordinarily discharged to the ground water by means of individual septic tanks or cesspools. Industrial development in Madeline Plains, and in Surprise and Willow Creek Valleys, is presently at a minimum. In Honey Lake Valley, the lumbering in- dustry is of considerable importance, especially in the Susanville area adjacent to the Susan River. Mining operations are of minor importance. Natural causes of ground water quality impair- ment include highly mineralized hot springs, and the inability of the closed basins of Madeline Plains and Surprise and Honey Lake Valleys to maintain a satis- factoi-y salt balance. Salt balance refers to the condi- tion wherein the quantity of .soluble salts entering the water supply of a basin are balanced by an equal quantity of soluble salts being removed from the basin by surface or subsurface outflow. Water Quality Planning Considerations. In de- veloping plans for the utilization of water resources, both surface and underground, thorough considera- tion must be given to the maintenance of quality levels suitable for the intended beneficial uses. Plan- ning toward this objective involves the evaluation of the native quality of waters, the effects on this water quality of future developments, and a determination of protective measures required to maintain suitable water quality. In order to determine whether water quality re- quirements for all intended beneficial uses will be met under conditions of future development, it is necessary to consider and evaluate the various causes of water quality impairment. The more common causes of impairment in quality of waters in the Northeastern Counties are as follows: 1. Domestic and municipal sewage 2. Industrial wastes a. Organic wastes b. Mineral wastes 3. Irrigation return water 4. Interchange of poor quality water between aquifers due to improperly constructed, defec- tive, or abandoned wells 5. Adverse salt balance 6. Upward or lateral diffusion of connate brines and juvenile waters 7. Poor quality waters originating from highly mineralized springs and surface runoff. The iise of water resources for waste disposal must be considered along with the water requirements for other planned beneficial uses. Many organic wastes can be successfully treated by ordinary sewage treat- ment processes, including self purification in streams and ground water bodies. In surface streams ade- quate quantities of water must be provided to permit natural purification of these wastes in order to pre- serve the quality of the receiving waters for down- stream beneficial purposes. Ordinary treatment proc- esses do not, however, materially reduce the mineral content of these wastes, which may be many times greater than that of the original water supply. In cases of highly mineralized wastes, therefore, the im- portation of water of high quality specifically for dilution, or removal of wastes through a separate waste conveyance channel, may be required. Irrigation return waters present a problem similar to that of mineralized sewage or industrial wastes. These return flows are usually of a higher mineral content than the original supply due to leaching of soils and applied agricultural chemicals. Further, since plants use only minute quantities of dissolved minerals, the concentration of mineral constituents is greatly increased in irrigation return waters. In many cases these return waters could seriously impair the quality of ground or surface water resources of the area. Plans for water development should include pro- visions either for adequate dilution water, or a sepa- rate waste conveyance channel in order to maintain water of a suitable quality for other beneficial uses. In many areas, water of poor mineral quality either overlies or underlies water of usable qualitj'. The NATURAL RESOURCES ion interchange of these poor qiiality waters between aquifers, due to improperly eoustrueted, defective, or abandoned wells could seriously impair the quality of usable ground water supplies. The enforcement of proper well construction and sealing standards can control quality impairment from this cause. Overpumping in ground water basins often results iu (luality impairment of usable water supplies. It may reduce outflow from the basin to the point that adverse salt balance conditions exist. Continued ad- verse salt balance would eventually increase the concentration of soluble salts in the basin to the point where the soil and ground water would be rendered unfit for beneficial use. Excessive concentration of pumping can also caiise upward or lateral diffusion of poor quality waters, snrh as connate brines or higldy mineralized juvenile waters, into usable water supplies. In planning water development pro.jects, it may be necessary to consider till' need for control of the pumping draft and pat- Irtu in order to avoid creation of quality problems fiiiiii adverse salt balance or diffusion of poorer qual- . it.v waters. The existence of highly mineralized springs and streams within the area of water resources develop- ment projects may adversely affect the quality of water for intended beneficial purposes. Isolation or dilution of these poor quality waters should be con- sidered in planning water development projects. From the foregoing, it can be seen that plans for water development must include consideration of all causes of quality impairment, and an evaluation of their effect on proposed beneficial uses. LAND RESOURCES Agriculture, and the utilization of forest products, will continue to constitute the major factors in the economy of the Northeastern Counties. Further, the development of these resources will continue to pro- vide the greatest demand for water service. By far the largest use of water in the Northeastern Counties is for agriculture, a condition that will continue to prevail even under conditions of ultimate develop- ment. Detailed and extensive surveys to determine the nature and extent of present land use, as well as the probable nature and extent of the ultimate land use pattern, were conducted % the Department of Water Resources during this investigation. The United States Forest Service provided data and estimates of the sustained yield of the forest lands and the esti- mated future production of forest products. These land surveys and estimates of sustained yield wei-e the basis for the evaluation of the greater part of the water requirements of the Northeastern Counties. The methods of collecting and compiling the basic data, as well as the data itself, are pre- sented in the following sections: "Presently Irri- gated Lands," "Irrigable Lands," "Urluin Lands," and "Forest Lands." Presently Irrigated Lands Data as to the nature, location, and areal extent of lands in the Northeastern Counties, to which water is presently applied in addition to precipitation, were obtained wherever available, from federal, state, and local agencies. These data generally were based on results of field surveys, segregated in accordance with various classes and types of land use, and are regu- larly determiued by many water service agencies as a part of their operational procedures. The Bureau of Reciamation of the United States Department of the Interior, in planning for and operating the Central Valley Project, has made land use surveys of much of the irrigated area on the floor of the Sacramento Valley. The former Division of "Water Resources, now the State Department of Water Resources, in connection with recent and current water resources investigations, has examined and classified water- using lands in many areas of northern California, including areas where water rights determinations have been made and which are now administered under watermaster service. Surveys of present water service areas, conducted during this investigation, were accomplished gener- ally by field inspection, using aerial photographs to delineate the boundaries of the various classifica- tions. Areas so delineated were then measured and the data compiled with that from other sources. Within the scope of the present investigation, it was impractical to survey during any single season all areas receiving water service in the Northeastern Counties. Tabulations of present water service areas included herein represent a composite of survey data covering the period from 1954 through 1956, which is the period refei-red to in this report in discussing present conditions of development. Irrigated lands include all agricultural lauds de- pending upon application of surface or ground water, as well as those utilizing water directly from a high Avater table. The irrigated land was categorized into the following individual crop tj-pes: alfalfa, im- proved and meadow pasture, grain and grain hay, truck crops, field crops, deciduous orchard, sub- tropical orchard, rice, and vineyard. Irrigated pas- ture crops were grouped in accordance with differ- ences in water use. Improved pasture is that with improved ii-rigation facilities, and is generally cropped to select grasses and legiunes. Jleadow pas- ture consists of that with little or no improvements, normally growing forage of native gra.sses including rush and wire grass, and utilizing more water than improved pasture because of high water table condi- 110 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 31 PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) Hydrographic unit Type of land use Name Irrigated lands Urban lands Swamp and marsh lands Refer- Alfalfa Pas ure Grain and grain hay Truck Field De- ciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vine- yard Total irri- gated Prin- cipal number Im- proved Meadow ervoirs 1 North Coastal Drainage Basin Tule Lake 5,400 1.820 910 11.210 4.370 80 70 11,780 4,120 3,830 22,700 12,130 100 1,890 300 990 70 8,440 2.780 370 3,930 8,630 50 43,840 3,490 910 1,330 7,320 20 12.960 2.610 20 10 10 20 10 10 82.420 14.830 6.040 39.200 32.470 100 1.890 380 1.080 120 260 720 250 1.450 160 460 2.580 110 1,310 120 36,550 2 2.850 3 Klamath River - 800 4 Shasta Valley 1.640 5 Scott Valley - - Q 7 Upper Trinity River 13,120 8 9 10 Southern Trinity County - 11 Lalie Pillsbury 1.600 SUBTOTALS 23.860 940 5,200 3,060 1,710 970 120 10 10 210 2,350 110 80 260 SO 10 90 490 1,210 30 830 3,970 4,700 100 6,070 1,660 12,820 4,940 250 2.850 2.340 4,910 460 610 23,770 13,750 100,970 57.910 1,900 40 2,530 6,950 5,940 3,140 1,340 1,650 1.810 60 1,240 650 220 620 760 3,560 1,480 350 7,010 2.040 830 270 80 220 1.530 4.650 11,300 2,660 80 210 1,070 1,000 21,200 24,560 9,430 660 31.330 5.940 53,330 18,640 2,430 290 3,930 5,270 23,260 2,350 60 400 12,010 14,840 24,200 8.270 4.950 27,550 17,900 17,890 6,550 50 560 930 80 1,010 40 110 70 1.670 170 860 1.580 200 10.390 11.650 26.310 3.580 30 870 120 10 50 50 40 300 2.120 20 370 570 20 56.910 260 7,110 1,900 30 690 60 10 10 90 990 1,370 850 470 500 20 1,020 5,650 1.520 200 70 270 6.410 15.600 90 40 10 50 80 30 380 30 30 20 140 500 4.710 70 2.470 32,440 8,710 10 2,750 13,130 5,090 11.450 15,850 60 10 340 1) u 10 160 1,490 6,210 1,970 3,400 26,660 4,150 50 2,210 4.680 4.150 70 70 10.000 24.510 50 10 70 10 10 6.180 20 30 50 120 230 1.220 80 20 10 10 30 390 3S0 2.060 10.340 10 3.990 12,200 11.590 21,690 1,460 7,840 22,140 13,280 50 200 970 7,380 650 410 470 480 180 4,170 4,780 40 1,360 40 120 1,490 330 20 50 410 20 220 120 710 40 150 50 1,420 19,260 199.980 85,540 40 6.310 19.920 25.510 6.610 17.870 25.900 750 50 10 10 30 40 60 280 178.530 11.370 4.990 42.480 29.810 26.670 11.320 1.560 2.220 2.770 50 70 1.860 1.160 230 620 1,050 15,260 1,610 630 7,460 2.310 2.740 360 170 860 1.680 280 2.1190 11.920 17.860 40.190 6.260 120 1.090 1.400 6.340 23.610 37.840 36.190 840 47.310 45.010 342.890 148.800 2.780 2,100 26,160 68,030 77,450 8,560 260 2,050 82,980 101,930 3.300 90 1,910 320 440 390 10 670 1,300 60 20 470 100 100 110 1,650 160 1,810 30 180 10 10 190 630 280 100 250 130 3,320 1,170 3,260 2.660 1.970 2.420 1.410 20 510 2.370 3,560 2,810 2,520 4,120 50 1,240 700 600 40 80 980 20 20 20 30 60 10 10 ■ 50 1,420 6,000 9,570 70 660 50 56.56C 12 Central Valley Drainage Basin 150 13 Jess Valley 2.870 14 11.090 15 Big Valley 1.360 16 1.120 17 1.170 18 60 19 20 21 27.500 22 2,600 23 Keswick - — - 600 24 60 25 Oliada 20 26 Redbank Creek... 27 Elder Creek - .. - 28 29 2.480 30 40.540 31 100 32 Stillwater Plains 30 S3 Cow Creek --. 34 10 35 Battle Creek - . 80 . 36 37 Antelope Creek . . . . 38 Mill Creek 39 40 41 230 42 30.910 43 140 44 1(1 45 Middle Fork Feather River 230 46 South Fork Feather River 90 47 400 48 Challenge 260 49 90 50 51 30 52 S3 Fruto 54 55 56 57 50 58 Browns Valley 290 59 60 Arbuckle 61 Sutter 62 10 ■63 64 West Yolo ---- 480 '65 Capay ._ '66 Woodland . •67 EastYolo SUBTOTALS 297,120 147,540 29.460 98,080 90.200 124,720 14,590 408.430 1.230 1,312.340 39.290 24,250 125,070 NATURAL RESOURCES 111 TABLE 31— Continued PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) Hydrographic unit Type of land use Name Irrigated lands Urban lands Swamp and marsh lands Refer- Alfalfa Pasture Grain and grain hay Truck Field De- ciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vine- yard Total irri- gated Prin- cipal res- ervoirs number Im- proved Meadow 6S Lahontan Drainage Basin 16,540 20 5.070 1.000 1,490 1,010 60 850 160 3.150 2.980 440 11.960 5,030 3,580 3.940 2.760 10.250 920 2.420 3.S90 1,960 120 2,S40 420 60 160 n n n 1} 33,880 8,020 3,640 4,970 2,920 21,470 5.320 2.860 310 1,430 520 460 180 380 40 980 20 140 300 1,540 Q 69 70 71 Willow Creelt 72 600 4,560 73 74 75 Little Truckee River Q SUBTOTALS -.-- 22.630 10.140 40,950 9.230 220 83.080 2.260 2.200 7.060 TOTALS. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 147.460 365.170 212.600 95,600 113.900 90.200 124.770 14.590 408,4.30 1,230 1.573.950 44.850 27.990 188.090 tions. This hitrh water table condition may be either natural or induced, depending upon the method of irrigation practiced. Deciduous orchard includes all kind.s of deciduous fruits and nuts such as peaches, pears, walnuts, almond.s, prunes, and apples. Subtropical orchard is made up of oranges, lemons, limes, and olives. Prin- cipal crops in the truck category are tomatoes, melons, strawberries, carrots, cabbage, onions, celery, green beans, and potatoes. Field crops consist mainly of corn, sugar beets, grain sorghums, safflower, field peas, and beans. In the field survey, no separation was made between pasture or alfalfa used for forage or cut for hay. Similarly, since determination of water requirements was the primary objective, no distinction was made between small grains threshed and those cut for hay. The acreage of presently irri- gated lands by hydrographic units and counties is presented in Tables 31 and 32. The tabulated values are for gross areas without reduction for roads, farm- steads, and other non-water-using areas. Urban lands, swamp and marsh lands, and principal reservoirs are also included in Tables 31 and 32 as present water services areas. Urban lands were taken to include the developed areas of cities and towns de- lineated during the field surveys without regard to municipal boundaries. Swamp and mar.sh lands com- prise those areas that are, for most of the year, too M'et for agricultural purposes. As swamp lands often make heavy demands on available water supplies, the effect of these lands on present and future water supplies were considered. Similarly principal reservoirs were included in the present water service ai-ea because of 1he depletion of available water supplies caused by evaporation. The average water surface areas, ob- tained from operating records or estimated as SO jior cent of the normal pool area, are shown in Tables 31 and 32. These lands are depicted on Plate 4, entitled "Clas- sification of Lands for Water Service." The area de- lineated as presently irrigated lands includes agri- cultural lands irrigated by man-made and natural methods, and swamp and marsli lands. Irrigable Lands The extent and location of the irrigable lands in the Northeastern Counties were determined by field surveys which grouped all lands into their appro- priate classifications of irrigability and crop adapta- bility. Considerable emphasis was placed upon tliis classification procedure and pro.jection of the prob- able ultimate crop pattern, since the water require- ment to meet the consumptive use of irrigated agriculture is the most significant as to quantities involved. The magnitude of water requirements for other purposes are relatively small in comparison. New developments in irrigation practice in recent years, and new irrigated crops have modified I'ormer concepts of the types of land suitable for irrigated agrii'iilture. Land.s formerly considered noiiirrigable because of excessive slope or roughness of topography arc now being irrigated satisfactorily by spriiikler.s. The successful irrigation of ladino clover, and certain other irrigated forage crops, has resulted in a rapid expansion of the acreage devoted to irrigated pasture, and has justified the development of shallow soil lands formerlv considered nonirrigable. These recent tech- 112 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 32 PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (rn acres) County and hydrographic unit Type of land use Name Irrigated lands Urban lands Swamp and marsh lands Refer- Alfalfa Pasture Grain and grain hay Truck Field De- ciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vine- yard Total irri- gated Prin- cipal number Im- proved Meadow ervoira 40 Butle County 30 2,550 1,660 3,120 80 220 320 60 60 1,000 3,410 5,940 13,630 200 140 30 40 1,230 260 1,490 20 3,720 2,470 3,440 10 4,640 3,400 2,430 1,220 20 10 390 5,280 12,200 9,870 480 4.170 40 1.490 120 710 150 19.260 64.520 50 10 280 2,090 460 80 100 6.340 20.010 45.010 101.220 190 2,650 1,970 1,100 20 30 10 1,420 4,110 41 230 42 North Fork Feather River 630 45 Middle Fork Feather River 90 48 49 Wyandotte 90 52 55 57 Gridley 60 COUNTY TOTALS . 7,360 100 7,240 130 1,750 9,220 110 100 6,070 4,260 24,720 310 80 23,280 180 50 2,830 1,640 570 120 260 1,750 610 40 9,650 4,890 10,480 10,890 640 28,990 5,880 930 6.800 6,180 50 20 84,760 102,650 10 4,060 60 40 175.590 410 650 166.610 440 1.120 16.180 5.910 1,640 390 5,590 2,630 60 990 29 Colusa County 1,460 30 Clear Lake . 20 S3 56 57 Gridley 59 60 COUNTY TOTALS 26,730 330 640 31,180 24,990 700 950 80 10 180 650 20 1,020 500 4,890 70 2,220 11,630 1,970 4,240 13.610 10 3.990 4.080 70 1,360 70 106,720 50 1,420 50,140 10,700 40 30 174,410 520 820 47,120 90.500 11.580 2,030 110 2,660 490 2,690 80 50 2.880 1.390 1,480 11 Glenn County Lake Pillsbury 29 1.020 53 54 Orland 56 Colusa - 57 Gridley. -. . - - 59 COUNTY TOTALS 10,540 2,350 110 57,840 3,480 1.480 270 1,040 1,540 90 2,290 380 6,210 340 8.080 6.180 20 1,430 62.310 30 760 150.540 14.610 1.610 3,260 1,650 150 4.400 980 1,020 11 Lake County 1,600 29 30 Clear Lake 40,520 31 100 COUNTY TOTALS 2,460 1,480 250 20 5,070 1,000 4,960 20 4,420 330 60 240 1,010 60 850 160 3,150 1,350 1,040 1,020 10,680 4,220 580 5,210 1,030 5,030 3,580 3,940 2.760 10,250 920 90; 420 50 1.960 120 2,840 420 380 60 160 o ooooooooooooo CO 6.200 750 16,220 1,040 17.000 4.800 580 5.270 1.320 8.020 3.640 4.970 2.920 21.470 3.690 1,800 150 30 400 1,430 620 980 170 330 180 380 40 980 20 42,220 13 14 Lassen County Jess Valley 2,120 120 15 750 16 890 17 Hat Creek _ 42 North Fork Feather River 4,750 68 69 1,540 70 Eagle Lake 71 Willow Creek 60 72 Secret Valley 600 73 4,560 74 COUNTY TOTALS 7,820 3.510 940 5,200 1,580 16,540 11,650 4,360 1,900 20 2.530 2.530 1.250 49,220 7,120 8,270 3,930 27,550 7,220 2.650 10.930 5.810 21.430 260 7.110 1.480 3.840 220 9,080 90 c 74.720 45.500 11.370 3.950 42.480 12.810 2.650 32.560 2,530 90 1,910 170 20 310 2.100 70 50 1.070 20 460 . 15,390 1 Modoc County Tulelake 22.220 12 150 13 750 14 Alturas 10.970 15 Big Valley... 610 Hi f i Surprise Valley 300 COUNTY TOTALS 27,770 12,590 67,670 34,120 9,170 151.320 2,500 1.670 35.000 NATURAL RESOURCES 113 TABLE 32— Continued PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) County and hydrographic unit Type of land use Name Irrigated lauds Urban lands Swamp and marsh lands Refer- Alfalfa Pasture drain aud grain bay Truck Field De- ciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vine- yard Total irri- gated Prin- cipal number Im- proved Meadow ervoira 40 Plumas County Chico Creek 490 540 1,150 4,650 8,750 2.600 5,030 11,650 11,640 3,580 990 1,150 80 (I I) 6,180 17,860 22,080 6,180 130 280 260 42 North Fork Feather River __ 25 630 43 140 44 Sierra Valley - 45 Middle Fork Feather River 230 46 47 73 74 COUNTY TOTALS 1,030 1.460 970 60 10 80 260 80 650 17,150 5,610 3,140 1,340 610 140 60 1,050 650 350 7,010 2,040 350 17,440 31,900 8.540 5,970 60 60 40 110 70 630 10 2.140 30 590 60 10 560 40 10 60 80 30 30 3U 100 60 10 150 80 10 70 10 10 30 50 120 40 140 410 470 H 10 62,300 15,640 10.740 1.500 670 170 50 70 1.610 1,160 530 7,460 2.310 1.020 10 19,050 660 260 390 10 40 50 10 470 1,810 30 140 3,320 350 600 40 I 20 20 30 26,000 16 Shasta County 230 17 Hat Creek . 1,170 18 60 19 McCloud River 20 21 27.500 22 Clear Creek 2,600 23 600 24 60 25 Olinda 20 32 30 33 Cow Creek _ _ 34 Bear Creek . 10 35 Battle Creek .. 90 38 Mill Creek 42 50 COUNTY TOTALS 3,570 670 39,790 2.560 170 1,630 440 15,480 14,670 860 2,420 1,250 220 370 220 480 10 880 10 62,050 18.110 1.040 1,630 2.860 6,520 100 50 1,060 140 32,370 44 Sierra County 10 45 Middle Fork Feather River 47 North Yuba River 150 74 75 Little Truckee River COUNTY TOTALS 670 1,890 1,820 910 11,210 4,370 4,790 7,420 4,120 3,830 22,700 12,130 100 1,040 1,670 17,950 1,320 2,780 370 3,930 8,630 2,480 600 930 220 22,410 3,490 910 1,330 7,320 10 3,880 2,610 20 10 10 10 20 10 10 23.640 36.920 14.8,30 6.040 39.200 32.470 100 2,480 1,550 2,600 160 260 720 260 1.460 160 140 670 1.260 140 2,510 110 1,310 120 160 1 2 Siskiyou County Tulelake... Butte Valley 14,3.30 2,850 3 4 Klamath River ShasU Valley sno l.l!40 5 Scott Valley 6 15 Big Valley 16 19 McCloud River 20 COUNTY TOTALS 20,200 800 1,820 2,340 660 460 2,310 53,010 4,240 4,130 5,270 2,420 2,350 3,440 20,940 ISO 450 370 10 20 35,470 3,630 30 70 6,520 24,420 5.270 13,130 440 3,310 9,790 1,720 4,680 530 70 2,720 SO 1,350 11.820 22,140 4,170 50 60 50 20 29,630 10,320 19,920 6,060 5,610 12,110 D 60 136,190 74.040 35,560 68,030 14,290 8,560 23,970 4.910 180 310 2,370 200 40 4,050 490 4,010 70 40 19,620 56 Sutter County Colusa 57 Gridley 61 Sutter 62 63 Pleasant Grove 67 East Yolo COUNTY TOTALS 8,390 21,850 1,030 3,730 40,570 19,510 39,590 70 83,650 60 224,450 .3.100 4,610 114 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 32— Continued PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) County and hydrographic unit Type of land use Name Irrigated lands Urban lands Swamp and marsh lands Refer- Alfalfa Pasture Grain and grain hay Truck Field De- ciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vine- yard Total irri- gated Prin- cipal res- number Im- proved Meadow ervoirs 24 Tehama County 60 10 10 90 180 3,970 2,150 190 220 620 120 480 270 3,760 24,560 6,020 20 150 1,040 170 860 1,580 10 50 40 290 470 300 40 500 990 10 1,490 1,570 190 240 2,060 5,060 4,780 40 40 250 230 620 120 1,720 360 170 860 1,580 4.560 37,840 16,180 20 190 10 100 100 40 10 10 1.170 600 30 10 26 Red Bank Creelc - - 27 Elder Creeli 28 Thoraes Creelc - . . . 29 35 Battle Creek - - 36 37 38 Mill Creek 39 Deer Creek - 40 50 51 30 52 53 54 Orland - COUNTY TOTALS 6,470 80 70 36,410 1,890 300 990 70 3,750 50 1,060 20 1,530 3,070 7,550 4,820 40 64,700 1,890 380 1,080 120 2.040 460 40 30 7 Trinity County 13,120 8 10 COUNTY TOTALS 150 520 120 1,100 610 23,770 11,440 3,250 820 240 1,100 60 400 12,010 11,440 50 20 910 160 6,410 910 10 2,750 11.450 12,540 1,740 50 1,570 70 10,000 21,790 2S0 530 1,040 200 970 7.380 590 220 17,560 30 2,250 17,870 13,790 280 3,470 22,740 980 9,970 260 2,050 82,980 77,960 460 110 120 2.810 2.480 10 13,120 30 Yolo County Clear Lake . - 56 59 60 64 West Yolo - 480 65 66 Woodland --- -- 67 COUNTY TOTALS - 37,560 4,250 26,030 20 40 1,070 2,430 20,840 10 120 20 560 7,480 270 27,660 4,650 35,220 3,620 10,990 30 9,110 220 ISO 330 410 51,500 19,450 280 196,940 20 50 1,400 2,780 63,160 5,520 80 20 3,360 10 650 480 46 Yuba County South Fork Feather River 47 North Y'uba River 250 48 Challenge 260 58 Browns Valley - _ 290 62 10 COUNTY TOTALS 4,250 24,400 710 270 4,650 3,620 9,140 920 19,450 67,410 3,460 650 810 TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 147,460 365,170 212,600 95,600 113,900 90,200 124,770 14,690 408,430 1,230 1,573,950 44,850 27,990 188,690 nological developments made it necessary to review and revise some of the land classification standards established for prior investio'ations. Standards for Determining Suitability of Lands for Irrigation. The suitability of land for irrigation development is influenced by many factors. Some of the indirect factors are those related to the produc- tion and marketing' of climatically adapted crops, lo- cation of land with respect to a water supply, and climatic conditions. The phy.sical characteristics of the land, and the inherent conditions of the soil itself, directly affect the adaptability of the land for irri- gation development. Further, the location of the land with respect to the available water supply affects the degree of possible development through irrigation. For this investigation all pertinent factors, direct and indirect, were considered in evaluating the reasonable ultimate requirements for water. Land classification surveys determined the amount and location of irrigable lands, and divided the lands into various crop adaptability classes. Lands classi- fied as suitable for irrigation development were segregated into three broad topographic groups: smooth lying valley lands, slightly sloping and un- dulating lands, and steeper and more rolling lands. Where otlicr conditions limited the suitability of the NATURAL RESOURCES ii; lands to produce climatically adapted crops, the three broad classes were further subdivided in accordance with the nature of the limitations. Such limiting con- ditions included shallow soil depths, roekiness, high water tables, coarse textures with low moisture- holding capacities, very fine textures limiting the effective depth, and the presence of saline and alka- line salts. In certain of the mountainous and foothill areas in the Northeastern Counties, lands are found with soils and physical characteristics which make them suit- able for irrigation development. However, due to climatic and other factors associated with their pres- ent utilization, they were classified as best suited to remain under some type of forest management. In general these areas lie at elevations where length of growing season and frost hazards greatly limit crop adaptabilities. The soils are usually of the residual type normally associated with conifer production. Such soils were formed in place through the action of soil forming processes upon the underlying bed- rock. They exhibit chemical and physical character- istics which make them well .suited for timber prodi;c- tion where rainfall is adequate. In other areas, where the economy is influenced by the production of live- stock with the accompanying demand for range land, particularly in the national forests, it appears rea- sonable that the marginal land classes would remain as grazing lands under general forest management practices. Other areas, adjacent to high mountain lakes and streams, have a value for recreational ac- tivities and were not considered as potential agri- cultural lands, but were assumed to remain under forest management. Table 33 comprises a description of the land classes used in the survey as they affect irrigability and crop adaptability. TABLE 33 LAND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS Land class TABLE 33— Continued LAND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS Characteristics Land class Characteristics Irrigable Valley Lands V Sraootli lying valley lands with slopes up to 6 per cent in general gradient, in reasonably large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane; or slightly undiilatint: lands which are less than 4 per cent in general gradient. The soils have medium to deep effective root zones, are permeable throughout, and free of salinity, alkalinity, rock or other conditions limiting crop adaptability of the land. These lands are suitable for all climatically adapted crops. Vw Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the present condition of a high water table, which in effect limits the crop adaptability of these lands to pasture crops. Drainage and a change in irriga- tion practice would be required to affect the crop adaptability. For the purpose of this investigation, it was assumed that there would be no future cliange in use of these lands. Vs Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the presence of saline and alkahne salts, which limits the present adaptability of these lands to crops tolerant to such conditions. The presence of salts within the soil generally indicates poor drainage and a medium to high water table. Reclamation of these lands will involve drainage and the application of additional water over and above crop requirements in order to leach out the harmful salts. Vh Similar in all respects to Class V, except for having very heavy textures, which makes these lands best suited for the production of shallow-rooted crops such as rice and pasture. VI Similar in al! respects to Class V. except for having fairly coarse textures and low moisture-holding capacities, which in general make these lands unsuited fur the production of shallow -rooted crops because of the frequency of irrigations required to supply the water needs of such crops. Vp Similar in all respects to Class V, except for depth of tlie effective root zone, which limits use of these lands to shallow- rooted crops, such as irrigated train and pasture. Vr Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to prevent use of the land for cultivated crops. These lands are suitable for irrigated pasture crops. Vhs Similar in all respect^'^ to Class V, except for tlie limitations set forth for Classes Vh and Vs, which makes these lands best suited for the production of shallow-rooted, salt-tolerant crops. Vis Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes VI and Vs, which makes these lands best suited for the production of deep-rooted, salt-tolerant crops. Vps Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes Vp and Vs. which restrict the crop adaptability of these lands to shallow-rooted, salt-tolerant crops. Vpr Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes Vjj and Vr, which restrict the crop adaptability of these lands to irrigated pasture. Irrigable Hill Lands H Rolling and undulating lands with slopes up to a maximum of 20 per cent for roUing large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane; and grading down to a maximum slope of less than 12 per cent for undulating lands. The soils arc permeable, with medium to deep effective root zones, and are suitable for the production of all climatically adapted crops. The only limitation is that im- posed by topographic conditions, which affect the ease of irriga- tion and the amount of these lands that may ultimately be developed for irrigation. HI Similar in all respects to Class H, except for having fairly coarse textures and low moisture-holding capacities, which in general makes these lands unsuited for the production of shallow- rooted crops because of the frequency of irrigations required to supply the water needs of such crops. Hp Similar in all respects to Class H, except for depth of the effective root zone, which limits use of these lands to shallow-rooted crops. Hr Similar in all respects to Class H, except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of tlie land to noncultivated crops. Hpr Similar in all respects to Class H, except for depth of the effective root zone and the presence of rock on the surface or within tlie root zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of these lands to noncultivated crops. lit Similar in all respects to Class II. except for topographic limitations. These lands have smooth slojjes up to 30 per cent in general gradient for large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane, and slopes up to 12 per cent for rougher and more undulating to- pography. These lands will jirobably never become as highly developed as other "H" classes of land, and are best suited only for irrigated pasture. Htl Similar in all respects to Class Ht. except for having fairly coarse textures and low moisture-holding capacities which in general makes these lands unsuited for the production of shallow- root«d crops and presents a great erosion hazard. Htp Similar in all respects to Class Ht, except for depth of the effective root zone, wliich limits use of these lands to shallow-rooted crops. Htr Similar in al! respects to Class Ht. except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of these lands to noncultivated crops. Htpr Similar in all respects to Class Ht. e':cept for depth of the effective root zone and the presence of rock on the surface or within the root zone, which limits use of these lands to noncultivated shallow-rooted crops. Other Lands F Presently forested lands, or lands subject to forest management, which meet the requirements for irrigable land but which. because of climatic conditions and physiographic position, are better suited for timber production or some type of forest management progratn rather than for irrigated agriculture. U Urban lands presently used for residential, commercial, resort. and industrial purposes. N Includes all lands which fail to meet the requirements of the above classes. 116 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Example of Land Classification Delineaied on Aerial Photograph NATURAL RESOURCES 117 Land Classification Survey Procedure. The land classification iirocedure employed during the inves- tigation consisted basically of an examination of the soil characteristics and the physiography of the land- scape. Field mapping was done on aerial photographs having a scale of approximately 1 to 20,000. Stereo- scopes were used in the field to assist the soil tech- nologists in making delineations in accordance with observed conditions. The character of the soils was established by examination of materials from test holes, road cuts, and ditch banks, together with ob- servation of the type and quality of natural vegeta- tion and crops. The presence of rock, high water tables, alkalinity and salinity were observed. Repre- sentative slopes throughout the area Avere measured with a clinometer to determine their degree of slope. Considering all these factors, the appropriate crop adaptability class for each parcel of land was deter- mined and delineated on the aerial photograph. In certain areas covered by this investigation, work done by other agencies was of value in the land classi- fication procedure. The Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture has made detailed land capability sui-veys for a number of soil conservation districts throughout the North- eastern Counties, and the Bureau of Reclamation of the United States Department of the Interior has made land classification studies in connection with Federal reclamation projects. The surveys of both these agencies were used to supplement the work of the Department of Water Resources. In addition, the cooperative soil surveys of the University of Califor- nia and the United States Department of Agriculture aided in the classification procedure. After irrigable areas were delineated in the field on aerial photographs, the areas were projected to either United States Geological Survey topographic maps or United States Forest Service planimetrie maps at scales of approximately 1:24,000 or 1:31,680, respec- tively. Tlie areas of each of the land classes were de- termined by cutting the delineated areas on the base maps and weighing with an analytical balance. The areas by land classes were then computed and tabu- lated by hydrographic iniit and county. Results of the land classification survey indicate that approximately 4,575,000 acres of land within the Northeastern Counties, out of a total of about 23,- 500,000 acres, are susceptible of agricultural develop- ment under irrigation. Approximately 3,470,000 acres, or some 76 per cent of the lands classed as irrigable, are valley lands. Practically all of these irrigable valley lands are composed of recent alluvial and lacustrine soils, and the greater part is of excellent agricultural quality and will produce all climatically adapted crops. Some of the irrigable hill lands are found on recent alluvial soils, but for the most part they are comprised of residual soils or old valley terrace soils. The best of tlie irrigable liill lauds, those whicli have adequate soil depth and reasonably smooth topography, comprise abovit 325,000 acres, or approximately 7 per cent of the total irrigable area. The remainder of the irriga- ble hill lands, totaling some 780,000 acres, or about 17 per cent of tlie irrigable area, are quite limited in crop adaptabilitj' Ity iii;ule(|nat(' soil depths, presence of rock, or excessive slopes. Results of the classification of irrigable lands in the Northeastern Counties are pi'esented in Table 34, segregated by hydrographic units. Table 35 presents the results summarized by counties. The irrigable val- ley lands, irrigable hill lands, and other irrigable lands best suited to forest management are delineated on Plate 4. Determination of the Amount of Land That Will Ultimately Be Irrigated. Even in the most inten- sively developed areas of irrigated agriculture, not all of the irrigalDle lands receive water every year. Since the results of the land classification survey were in terms of gross areas, it was necessary to determine the net acreage that might ultimately be irrigated in any one season. This probablj' will depend on one or more of the following factors: (1) Quality of the Land and Crop Rotation. It is anticipated that in the future the higher quality irrigable lands will be intensively developed for ir- rigation and will i-emain in relatively continuous op- eration, whereas lands of poorer quality and of limited crop adaptability will be in production only as favorable economic conditions pei'mit. Also, even though it is assumed that all irrigable lands will re- ceive water service, the effect of crop rotation is acknowledged. Even in areas of intensive irrigation development certain lands lie fallow each year, thus reducing the Avater requirements. (2) Irrigahle Areas Utilized for Purposes other than Agriculture. It is anticipated that there will always be a portion of the irrigable lands that will be occupied by urban types of development, farm lots, highways, railroads, canals, industrial establishments, etc. The nature of the agricultural development will, to some extent, determine the amount of certain of these nonagricultural land uses. For example, orchard and truck farming areas ordinarily include more land used for roads and farmsteads than areas where field crops are dominant. (3) Inclusions of Nonirrigable Land. Due to the scale of the photographs on whicli the irrigable lands were mapped, it was not possible to delineate all of the small areas of nonirrigable land which occurred within the lands classed as irrigable. The occurrence of these small plots of nonirrigable land, which are included within the areas classed as irrigable, varies generally with the detail of the survey and classes of lands being survej-ed, being greatest in the marginal classes. Livestock Pasfured on Cuf Hay Land Depanmevt of Water Resources Photograph -.-rtK^K-: - i^^:m^ -m Milo in f/ie Sacramento Valley S^ United States Bureau of Reclamation Photograph NATURAL RESOURCES 11!) (4) Size, Shape, and Location of the Irrigable Land. It is apparent that small irregularly shaped plots of land, particularly those isolated from other irrigable lands, cannot be irrigated as readily or completely as large, regularly shaped, compact units. Ownership boundaries also exert an influence, since small, iso- lated, ownerships probably will never be developed. (5) Ease of Development of the Irrigable Lands. The inherent difficulties encountered in developing and serving water to lands with more adverse topo- graphic conditions will tend to prevent them from being utilized completely. This is particularly true of those lands with hilly topography which could not be served completely by a gravity irrigation system and would require numeroiis pump lifts. (6) Economic Condiiions. Influential factors in limiting the annual irrigated acreage and resultant water requirements are crop production costs and net farm income. It is probable that there will always be a tendency to withdraw land from production in years of economic adversity. Inasmuch as the concept of ultimate development adopted for purposes of the present studies presupposes maximum land use within physical limitations and water supply availability, the factors of production costs aud net farm income were not given consideration in determining the prob- able ultimate irrigated area. This assumption is con- servative in relation to water requirements, in that the estimated requirements have thus been maximized in this stage of planning for future water resources development. (7) Availability of Water Supply. It is recog- nized that one of the limiting factors of irrigation development is the availability of an adequate and economic water supply. In the final evaluation of de- termining the land that will ultimately be irrigated, consideration must be given to the relative reason- ableness of the physical possibilities and costs of developing and conveying the available water supplies to the places of demand. While the current investiga- tion does not include specific project plans for the entire area, past reports of project development were considered in evaluating the availability of water for each hydrographic unit. The area that will actually be irrigated in any one year under probable conditions of ultimate develop- ment, was estimated by the application of appropri- ate percentage factors for each of the above-mentioned items, except for economic conditions and availability of water supply. The factors were largely based upon measurements previously made in intensively devel- oped irrigated areas of the State, and upon knowledge of the characteristics of the lands. The method of reducing gross irrigable land to that potentially irri- gable from the available water supply is discussed in Chapter III, "Water Utilization and Requirements." Probable Ultimate Crop Pattern. Tlic projection of a probable ultimate crop pattern that could be sustained on the net irrigable lands in the North- eastern Counties was an important step in evaluating the ultimate water requirements. The present irrigated agricultural development in the area, and trends in such development throughout California, were considered in projecting this ulti- mate crop pattern. Other factors affecting tlic ulti- mate crop pattern are climate, and limitations on crop adaptability due to various undesirable land and soil characteristics revealed by the land classification surveys. The county farm advisors and leaders in agriculture throughout the region furnished addi- tional information to aid in the forecast of future agricultural development. In many of the areas in the Northeastern Counties that lie at the higher elevations, and which are adjacent to large tracts of public lands, the raising of livestock will probably continue as a dominant seg- ment of the agi-icultural industry. The availability of summer grazing land, coupled with the production of forage crops for winter feeding has largely been responsible for this development. It appears reason- able that such an economy will continue, and, there- fore, the crop projection for those areas was weighted heavily toward the forage type crops. In the Sacramento Valley the diversity of products raised in recent years would indicate that many cli- matically adaptable crops may be grown in the area. It was anticipated that there would be a considerable increase in the acreage devoted to the production of deciduous fruits and nuts, particularly on the better lands bordering the Sacramento and Feather Rivers. This will be partly due to the increasing demand for homesites in and around the San Francisco Bay re- gion. This demand is, even at this time, causing a significant decrease in the acreage devoted to decidu- ous orchard in that area. Similarly, a fairly large increase in truck crops in the Sacramento Valley is expected as the population growth of the State brings about greater demands and some of the present truck crop acreage is taken up by urban development. At the present time there is a considerable acreage of swamps and marshes in the region, particularly on the heavy, basin soils of the Sacramento Valley, and in the low-lying, poorly drained parts of the mountainous areas. In the valley, most of these areas are used as gun clubs for migratory waterfowl hunt- ing. Since there is a great demand for this type of recreation, it was assumed there would be no change in the use of these lands under conditions of ultimate development. Similarly, it was expected that the marsh lands of the higher areas would remain as at present, since, due to the land's physiographic posi- tion, drainage and reclamation are generally difficult. 120 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION z O u z 0£ LU I— - b X o c z ~ to z < CO < z g I— < u to to < u = -2 -^ ■ 5 .2 a « a »0 OS M -^ CO ^. '^. ''^ "^ •"■ ^ °0 °° — ■_. ._v -T c^ ■£? -7- =» ^ "3 —• _ OOOOOOO ~ — — — c-j lO O 00 — .— W3 1-. — 0 ec t— c^ »o •— c5 -T"0 CO cot~ioiO-^ t^ d^-'nc»5'oi''-H.-i'M'i>r-r»OGCi:d'<--c cn-r eo.-i oo-j-co^Sa com iooo) -? OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO m lo CO -^ eo o t^ ■^ Tf r~ -rr o .— I 1-^ m od .—■ OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO cOOOCOCSICOOmCiOTOO '^T'COi— 't— •J'-J'.-HCOrftD § SSSSS22®222^P'='°'='SS^'=''= = °=' = oooooooooooo ^ I2S™ — S-Er=^ £::'~'Z^ '~ COOeOCO«OiM010000JrrC'=''=''='Ooo 0_^— m00^--CM_r-M«3OO — _C ojeooocMC^ CO oo" -^ cocoto-rf'co-rinoo" ..--- CO eo eo QO e CDOOOOOOOOOO 222222'^'^^'^^'==^'^^<=>^'^oooooooooooooooooooo Ssi2j^f2i^z3 -:t"(M (M eo— 'oocooo— oso) eoeooo OOOOOOOOOOO I o ^ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O o o o OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooooo OOOOOOOOOOO --10C10C— CO"— ir-o -rfiO-rfeOOS I— < coco CO O" Tp OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO m 2S2222222°2'^?^2'^'^2'=''=''=''=''=>'=>o'=><='Oooooooooo g ^'^S;;;S22'"^'^'~' *^ " -rfOCOMO-HCqmOOeOO Oi OiOSiOOM^ §mSSS2'=''='2'=='='2222£?22'==''=='^'='=°='Oooooooc cscoe-jcoCTico -* -I'Orfioc^t-cooocviio-r ost-~0-^ c OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO CO -- Qo oi oo m OOOOOOOOOOO -reod— lira ooooeocM lO '-'^ 0-; — _ l~ C-J C^ cr r-T to ci "f (m" cm" O [-- 1:0 CO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOiOOOOOOOOO SS2222S22°'^'^°='°'='^='2'='2=^^=''='^'='<=<='oooooooo SS^ S E2 ;3^ 2 '^ ^ ^ <^ 2 -f =0 CO -. eo us -? c^ -j< o -- 22S£2S22'^2'^'^222'=''=''='<='=^'='='='^'='Oooooooooooo S?Sii5i2S2J5S2E2*:::;<''^ f-^OOTCMco— i»oocr:'CMt^-f*cM»oGorj.coc-]ococo-^iHio cocooiOi^eoo_i»-Pco •-^'-^comoC'coeDa:' — cooccooeot— to mcNCMO— to in ^ZliS*^ oj^ c^eoirococ-f.— * — T cMOi-^, ^^.— ■TrcM — _Hco.— — CM. l1 s; SS"0 SS's 3 a a ^ E-, j3 hh| Eg I; I 3 3^ D- o o O rt ..J ^ C/2 :0 J o - ^ - — ^ 3 ^ £i O 3 2 '-' '-5^ so S'^ Jd ^ : a — ° 3-a -g-S Stgzo J eo r^ 00 oi O r-i HCMeoTfioeot--QO NATURAL RESOURCES 121 z o u z Oi. ai I— CO < 0£. O z z y X < o o >- S X ° z ~ 10 o z < < z o 1— < u CO CO < u i 5^ . 00O0C5000000OO0000O0 2 00000000 .a M CO M^-tOlCOCiiftcDCM CO CD ?-•= "S "^ £ c i c o_ «c lo ?! 1- CD 10 eo CO .5P 5 gj ^ E rt be aj M ifl CD CO »C ^ « s- ■^■5.2 a =« a 8 — CI lO CM OOCOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOO OOOOOOOM3 -rcor— cDcDcc>fi-r ~W s r-c-j^c-ic'iict-ajcr.cctotcocc— .ooootD ill —. "3 o> cr. DC. ai OT o_ 01 t* -*■__ «3 —_ to c>> to in «o ". e» CO — r~ CM »q a> 1^ r^ cr" r^" -r CT- to r-T -^ ^" 01 CO (O OS 00 M ■*!• t^ -r fOltOOCMOSOC — u> -J-coril^^coMOsjotoc^ccojt-oi — — — 0»eo eo •0 3 10 co" u 0000000000000000000 s 00000000 g Q. f2 2^ '^ CO — 01 CO — Ol eo ^ w U5 -''" -•" CO g ?J 0000000000000000000 00000000 —ZZ ■"00 -Tj" OS CD — -r CO CO ^ CO »o r* OS CO w 01 eo eo' '^ CM 0000000000000000000 00000000 s 0. OS 10 OS ci 3c — S -r — — — — oOMOcq CM I- — OS - CM - ^1 CO, CO. 00 « — CO — '" 00 0* t^ ^ -h" 0' OS §■ 0000000000000000000 00000000 2 w 1 w — -r CO to 0000000000000000000 00000000 Q — t— occD iTi -rr-— -hooco 10 CD -r — cj t- TJ CM OC'^J" T ^^lo^j- c^_rf-j. O; OS — CO -n- OS a iO" 0" CM — ' --" ■*■ cm' (-^ 01 .a 00 =3 2 0000000000000000000 00000000 S. Ocor^c^cocos-5 »o CO r- 00 cc CD 0; s !> eo CO »0 — r- t- — ^ CO — U3 OS 3 w ift ^' ^' co' oT w t^* s 0000000000000000000 00000000 CD — 0»0i«i0— -V CM 00 00 — 10 QC ?~ 10 CM — -r CM — U3 -r OS OS K !?" — cm' ci 00- cm" CO 0000000000000000000 00000000 aoioo»0-rcr. t— — 00 — lOoocMCM cm oj 10 t^ (- c-s — U5 0. CTioocvcO'y^^-riOcoeot-.oi 00 ^r t^ CM CM_ cs CO_ 0, S « W r-" CO — " — " CD 0" 01 fo' —" 0* r^ 10 CM ^ — 'T cm' cm" — OT — -r — CM -- CO CO CO 0000000000000000000 00000000 f~^ CIS r^ CM CO -TO CO = o_ CO CO — OS U3 tD_ w " eo' U3 co' CD CM 0000000000000000000 (3 00000000 wacMOOOicocRcor-OoiiOOi C30 ai>Oio — -r CO -r 00 f — r^ •0 CD w eot~^Os-^cDCO»racD<-> oscm i-i r^oocM ^ CO _-' _-" 05 --" C-l" «" —" CM 10" — '" cm' 'f> co' OSiOCMCO— •OOQC — co' eg CO tC M5 CM ?1 i 0000000000000000000 00000000 CO r- 01 CM eo CD — -r -V > CD ^- CD So CM OS 00" 00 CM eo 0000000000000000000 oooocooo — C-1 CTi CO- OS CO > OT — 00 — cs So M3 ■^' — CO r-i cm' oi 0000000000000000000 00000000 CO WS -r ■^ OS CM ua -23 =■> t^ > "' — ' 0' ci 0000000000000000000 00000000 CO eo -r ? CI — o_ r-T CO 06" 0' 0" r-." tei CO eo ^ — CM us S — 0000000000000000000 00000000 t~CDOOt— CO— -^ CM cs lO CM to us 1 Oi -^ 00 — -^ OS « CM — — CM OS CO > cm' id" CO us u ca MS 0000000000000000000 00000000 CMOOoiOr^oir- rcocMr-ocM-i-co — OS »0 ?0 « CD CO »0 OC" >0 en ID -^ 0" —i" 0" CD QO' 01" — C-l' OS CO* •^" cm' 0" 00 ess >• W5— CO coos _H — CMOS— CM s CM CO 0000000000000000000 00000000 -rCM-r CDOO^CD QOOOCOCM CD 00 CM 00 OS 00 3 CO CO — Tr»oo — eoo_co 10 10 CO CM « =0 OS 1 > oT — CM U3 CO CM CO CO 0000000000000000000 00000000 ,^ cncsf~-rco CMcnro r- -t-cm c» .2 — C-JOOOOS __ — (^ 00 ^00 u5 ^ S cc U3 > oT 0" r~" 01" — 0' cm' — Os' CO OS — " f '^ CO CM CO CD OS I* US 0000000000000000000 ooocoooo Q C lO •-• OS CI CM — r- -^ CM CO C ^ f ". 00 10 10 o_ -V ^ > us CO OS cc" ^' ^- ^ -^ CO US CO eo eo eo = ii; OOOOOOCiOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000000 COQO OC — — OS 0010 U3 COU5CMU3t-CSM30i us _& ** eo c« ci wi eo" eo' cm" o" cm" 0" ■» CM OC' 0000000000000000c 00000000 eooeo — -^O-^os 0' uf -1*" cm' co" t-" t^ — OS CO CD — •»•" co" CO cd" -r »o -r" rC CD co" CMCDt—'—t— -"J-Ot- <-'r~-» < p. 5 ca c s < s s a s! OSO- OJCO-T-iraOr-COOSO — CMCO^TMStOr- ODOsO — cMeo-ro |S§^ -rr>DiOiOiOiOW3'Di0iOiOl=>COCOCOCOCOCDCD tf> CO 1* 1* t- r- t^ t^ 122 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION O O O O O C5 t— »o Oi '^ m f >ra CTs — fC «o Oi oooooooo o o o o o C^ OS Ol (C GC m c-1 c^ c-j en o o o o o o o CR CO to -H »^ 03 r^ >0 c^_ -1^ Q0_ to C^_ in o' lO ^ o' r-T I o o o o o o OS OO U5 -^ 10 UJ t- Z o u z < Of o z 01 Q z < 00 < < u lO < O O O 1 o t- lO '— I o oa C-l Ci !-• O O O O O O O O O o o -- I CJ Oi ^•- O — CO — _ I MS >n vo r-. iM_ eo t— C'l •— CO o o o o lO 00 'T- — ■ O C-3 U5 I O O I — O O O O O I o o (M O W 00 I CO — • . o o o 1 CO CO O CO CI >-< 1 o o o 1 lo r- oo I-- I — H • o o o > O to Tp CO oo »o I o o I CO en 00 o 1 o o o o I Ci o o o I »0 t- (M I-- •^ Q0_ -- CO_ {>J ™ ^ en ■ o o o o o o ' a: ira oi eo CO CO lO to en O) « CM o r^ o o o o OO CO 1-- t^ • o o o o o o I 00 CM t- t» — tH -- CO Tf CTi CM o' c^ oi" — " — -^ r- r- lO oo 8 5 o o O E- - _ O M O I Jfc O O O - ' -s -S b ^ Q, t*i o a M _ »j mfc.OOC E- o E- o o E^ o o ^-«j sa •2 fe>" *3 ■£ 0.-T: CO o ^ J 1 •— CM CO CO - lO CD t— (M oo O) NATURAL KESOriiCES 123 ■c ^ .^ "2 ,2 S « S 7,620 8,600 84,S70 10.S30 1 61.700 8.450 3,150 18,690 2,600 740 100 60 g 32.770 129.060 35.680 960 20 17,370 16.930 44,190 ■ o ■ , ta > i U -J- C9 o o o o o j^ (:0 to CO OJ *". "^ '-I '^. ^ 40 im" im" oi — * O O C5 o o o o r^ — c :o — ■ o -■? CO o -r — o c^ t~. CO c-J (O C^" M -r o" • o o o o o 1 T^ r- — f^ ■ o o o s o o o cr = o CO O eo I o o o o I [^ cr. I— (— OC Cl O cc I C5 O O iO c^ -r ■ O O O O 1 --r eo ^ o> a> 00 ^^ t— to UJ I— Z o u z Of to < o z UJ X I— Z X o o o o oo CO CO oa F o o o I lO oo o «=>ccMrcO»0 — ■"■" -r CO i~ -r I- M a: o '.o ■ ^ c o o • to oi o> O W — »»" -r I -7" o OS "5 lO CO o o o o o CO -^ ao -^ CO CM CO -H CO -rf W3 CO — CO C-J CO C-1 x" ' o o o ' lO ?o o w o -^ ■ o o o o o . c; ao cr: •« cs O -r O »0 CD r-^ — ^ c^* — - o o o o o o CO CM t-- -^ o o rr CO CO ao CO •-" I O O C O O c o o o o o o CD OD c; o -^ o lo c: d ^- — >rt oo ■ o o o o o o . CM I :^ z < ^ < o 1 o o o I ^i" -r OS I ; 1 CD O O O I lO CO CO CO t- O CM CS z o I— < u to < I u ^ CM Oi o o o CM CO O CO CO — ■ . o o o o o I I^ O CM >o ^ CM t» (^ CI CS O c: C3 O O 1~. O O --■ CM in lo o -^ o o o o o CM »0 (^ Oi »0 00 lO r^ CO Oi o o o o o o o CO lO =D — m r- CO CM lO »0 CO OC CD CO i^ -r CO -r U3 CM -- o o o o ■ O QC t— so s o O (0 JJ o o S -2 -] "3)= o I S H ^ w M K 3 O g ^ : -a o i"^ o , ■•--g s. o E- >• H z o u i » 124 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION t ^ -° "I ^ s ^ a o o o O c^» eo M3 eo O • o o o o ■ r— — 00 en o t- o ?o 1 o o o o o o 1^ C^ Oi OO CO CO •— ■^' oo" CD oi «o o o o o o IM f t- O -f o o o o o o o oo o i^j 02 in ■—■»-■ t^ CO CO lO u I 2 o u z to < Of O Z z X 2,340 ^^ — o= o o '11 < :i CO < o Oi Of Z o I— < CO CO < ■ CO 00 — CO i-H o c o o o o CI in o CO -- t--. -»■ O CD t-~ CO O (M »o C'l r— 1 O o — o o o o o o o lo c^ o r- ro lo -t' CO oi Ol CO CO (^ U5 ^ .^ i.'j l~ UJ US tjj CM OD CO 1 f_ 03 CO ^ |-«.^ C^ WJ U5 .^ j^ < o o o o o CO »0 (T) C-J OO r-. co^ t-, o CO -■ '— wi (>j CO , o o o t "* O CO CD r- — -H I CO !-■ Oi 2 o o o . § o j:; CO CO CO ^ ^ o o o o o o OO U5 -n- o: C3 »o «o to <^^ t-^ e^_ »c 00 t— " CO O^ -3-" oo r-." W «" t-T ^ 2^5 oj ■— o O Z O O > "5 s > > s s > a (1 2 T3 W J s a cots! 3 o J as s a O n SO O >-< Z o o »0 W3 CD CO CO CO ►J ■< O Z o o 0(B W tH OT CQflH jJ-a ■< H Z O o i NATURAL RESOURCES I2r> z o u z Of < HI X I- O z z X I □ s s ^ •a z CO < o z g I— < to < .£ o o . o o o , , O O O ■ 1 Q o 1-s slfg al (O 1 o ^ O CO CO t 1 CO (o to iro in CO TJ oo CO bfl Q c^Jwi — o* « o" ■£-3 j3 -g ^ a =« s M CM '"' (0 o o o o o oooooooo o O O O O o o 1 i^s «3 00 U5 (M -f-COf^cDOOOOOl ec O) lO -r CO ojeooo^-c^^ototo "*. "^ o S S ^ o £ a s; o» !>-' -r 40' t~ 1-" cT C' Cl" -f" CO W3 — r oT — CM^ to us ^'S °° CO CI CO — — o> w — c» t-. K M •o -r" , . o o o p- o o. ' co_ co_^ § m — ^'co CO" M < 1 1 1 O 1 1 < o 1 i O • I o ^ . 1 1 1 -r 1 1 I •V t^ OS OS CO M '"' ■"^ s" • t O O O 1 O 1 o o Cj D, . 1 t~ ■'T CO 1 to 1 o CO oo ^. W «3 »-r — ■ oo" co'oo'rC QO" CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 o OS -tJ w eo" i 1 o o o o 1 1 O O O O O ' o 1 o o o ■ o o . to CO CO < 1 CO -f — QO ^ 1 CM 1 iM oo ^ . to ■^ CO r- CO ^ -T- r-._ CO o ■q w C,- M ^ r^ CN CO Ol _rt 3 1 ■ o o o -i3 a 1 w — — CO "" en to bO 'B . O 1 o o Oil o 1 1 o . o o lo 1 > 1 1 1 C4 1 1 CO co" ■ 1 o o o ■ t o o o . O 1 o 1 1 o o o o o . 1 o t^ t- ■ ' (30 cc c^ 1 OS 1 t^ o. *0 ffJ -^ t— o_ (Ji CI (C -V t^ CO »° o* s . 1 1 , o o o S t-T o o o o o o 1 o o c: = o > o o o o o o o o lo Oi oi 00 (^ . QO 00 Ol to to 1 IM ^ oo CJ CI 00 CO K r^_ CO c^ oo ^^ '^ ^- ^- "^ CO — ' of ■^" CO CO ^ CO . . . 1 o o o 1 > 1 1 C^) CM Q. OS > CO . . . O 1 . . 1 o o 00 to a OT o lO J > CJ 1 O ■ O 1 1 O C5 o o 1 oo 1 to 1 1 -r to -V 2 o > QO"0" ci CO to m "" o o o o o Oil o 1 . O 1 1 o o CO — ■ 1^ O ^ > — CO CO CO ^^ '"' CO *2 to 1 i . o o 1 1 O O O 1 o o o 1 1 o o o o o 1 . . to >o 1 1 t^ TT CD . — -. Oi 1 1 » Q. ■^ Ol o> t^ CO n "^ — CO « > cJ eo 00 CO CO C3S CO 00 o CO 1 . O o > 1 1 < o o o 1 1 I < CO CO 3 oq c» > ^ -^ o ►J3 1 O 1 O 1 ' o o o 1 '^ 1 C^ 1 1 Ti> Ol C-J g CM lO Tj. -5- •o Ci" o" ^ CO ,,J^ 2 (M .-. CO to CO to 1 O 1 i i 1 o o o 1 ^H 1 1 1 ' Oi CT ■T ^Ti OS > co" co" to" ( 1 . o o - 1 . o o o o 1 1 > to to 1 i 1 OS to t « > o CM o o o o o oooooooo o 1 o o o o o r^ OD OC to IM I^O-S-COtO^tOto 1 — to ^ CO CO CM OS OJ C-l 0» QC CO 0_ CO_ CO 031 to OT « > c-j w" '" t-T to CO CO oo co" to o" CO -r CO ■5' CM i ; i 1 ; : i 1 i ! n 3 1 1 *" 1 CO CQ y ! i : : a: >< 1 > > ' ^ J ^.£ - ■ ' 1 ^ .2 t o IJ JSf < >. ] 1 1 1 [ [ [ 1 < < m ^ 1 0) 5.S.S.§i >.KK.£o ■= i 5 H >■ o a 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 1 1 o o ;;;;;;; ; o o ;;;;;;; ; i >* o z: l-i s-e 2 ^31 z > j; J 'S ^ 55 ■< 13 S 1 o o 8 o < o O t~ CC O) o coioSweocococo sssss Young Walnut Orchard in Tehama County United States Bureau of Reclamation Photograph Meadow Hoy in Modoc County ^: m' Dcpartincvt of M'ater Resources Photoi'japh NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE 36 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF IRRIGATED LAND USE WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) 127 Hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Name North Coastal Drainage Basin Tule Lake Butte Valley - Klamath River Shasta Valley- -. Scott Valley- - Salmon River Upper Trinity River Lower Trinity River South Fork Trinity River Southern Trinity County Lake Pillsbury SUBTOTALS- Central Valley Drainage Basin Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Hat Creek Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunamuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown Stillwater Plains - Cow Creek Bear Creek Battle Creek Paynes Creek — Antelope Creek Mill Creek Deer Creek Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River East Branch Feather River Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River Challenge Wyandotte Anderson Corning Los Molinos Fruto --- Orland Durham Colusa ■- Gridley 1 Browns Valley Cortina Arbuckle Sutter MarysviUe Pleasant Grove West Yolo-- Capay Woodland East Yolo Alfalfa U,600 23,400 5,500 43,900 17,500 100 500 1,800 900 SUBTOTALS- 108,200 6,400 16„500 23,000 16,200 5,300 800 700 600 200 8,700 700 5,400 1,000 4,700 10,000 13,000 1,600 2.300 8,000 2,100 2,100 1,000 200 400 900 2,200 14,200 500 800 200 300 6,800 21.800 15.300 5,700 18,400 4,400 37,200 7.700 100 11,200 15,700 1.900 6,900 1,700 1,700 2,400 25,700 11,400 Pasture Improved Meadow 346,000 12,000 7,000 10,100 29,100 15,000 400 200 1,300 2,800 2,000 79.900 19,800 2,700 77,400 39,700 20,500 6,500 2.600 1,700 0,700 900 200 23,100 5,000 8,600 2,400 9,300 17,200 20,000 4,100 19,700 18,900 10,500 11,300 1,800 1,300 300 100 1,700 8,000 9,000 12,400 41,400 8.100 600 500 9.600 21.800 18,600 50,300 29.500 21.900 27.600 11.300 49.200 50.000 13.900 27.100 13.000 3,500 61,900 3.900 2.800 1.700 16.000 18.000 11.600 3.000 200 10.200 6,900 865,600 32.800 4.000 4.300 15.000 6.700 15.200 4.000 100 300 800 900 100 1.700 200 100 700 1,600 100 6.600 8,500 23,400 2,800 800 100 Grain and grain hay 98,000 56..300 18.600 2.700 15.100 12.400 200 900 800 107.000 2,800 5,700 19,300 5,600 2,900 400 200 3.500 700 1,800 600 2.500 5.300 3.000 1.800 2.900 2.000 1.300 400 300 600 2.000 9.100 400 200 300 1.800 15.200 5.300 9.400 12.100 4.000 22.600 7.900 300 5,800 6,000 1„500 0,500 1.000 700 600 4.300 1. 000 Truck 22,500 12,400 200 2,100 400 100 100 181,600 37.800 1.200 400 3.000 600 100 100 400 700 100 400 200 800 600 600 1,200 500 400 200 100 200 2,200 9,400 200 200 300 600 6,500 6,000 3.000 fi.700 2..500 56.300 12.000 100 fi.800 20.800 6.000 5.600 500 600 1.400 53.700 27,500 Field Crops 6,500 15,300 ,500 4,900 600 200 240,700 28.000 1.000 2.200 18.000 2.800 500 100 2.600 400 1.200 500 2,900 6,500 3,000 1,400 :,.500 1.600 900 500 1.700 24.600 19.000 5.700 24.900 19.000 55,100 20.300 100 8,900 26,300 3,000 11,600 2,000 900 1.800 45,100 40.400 Deciduous orchard 100 100 100 358.000 300 1,.300 400 200 3,900 1,500 900 300 600 4,000 28.700 1,900 2,800 7,500 1,900 3,500 200 100 300 8,100 800 1,800 200 200 300 1,300 1.400 1.900 21.900 23.000 3,900 12.000 20.000 62.500 35.000 700 11.900 14,600 35,000 32.100 500 1.400 2,900 7,600 13,800 Sul)- tropical orchard 300 300 3,600 600 1,800 7,000 8,000 2,000 1,400 3.100 1.000 1,400 400 1.100 374.800 32.000 8.700 23.000 202,600 92.200 14.300 17,600 36,000 6.000 18.200 34,700 Total irrigated 123,500 80.600 19,300 105.300 52.800 400 300 2.200 5.900 3.700 394.000 35.200 7,000 117,200 109.700 60.900 19,200 5,300 2,700 8,900 1,700 200 42,500 8,400 18,300 5,000 21.100 43.900 69.200 12.000 29.700 38.500 16.900 19.600 3.200 1.700 1.000 1,700 2,100 20,600 18.500 29.100 97..500 12.200 800 2.400 13.300 31.100 31.400 148,.30O lOO.IOO 51.000 113.500 85.200 485..50O 226..500 15.700 71,700 110.700 68..500 161.700 15.6(X) 8,100 10,800 170.600 146.800 453.300 2.950.000 128 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 36-Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF IRRIGATED LAND USE WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) Hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Refer- Name Alfalfa Pasture Grain and grain hay Truck Field Crops Deciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Total ence number Improved Meadow irrigat«d 68 Lahontan Drainage Basin 29.700 11.500 500 700 1.400 21,800 29,000 300 38,100 108,600 600 6,700 11.500 1 1 .000 27.300 6,100 10,800 5.100 3.400 3.200 2.100 9,200 800 2.300 12.400 17.800 100 200 1.700 13.800 18.300 1.000 100 5.000 4,000 6,100 700 14.000 16,300 98.100 69 143.000 70 4.600 71 Willow Creek - _ 10.800 70 17,500 73 75,400 74 95,700 75 Little Truckee River 8,700 SUBTOTALS 94,900 210.500 36.900 64.300 10,100 37,100 433,800 TOTALS, NORTH- EASTERN COUNTIES.-. 549,100 1.156.000 167.700 352.900 288.600 423.100 375,100 32.000 453.300 3,797,800 In some parts of tlie Sacramento Valley, climatic conditions are favorable for the production of sub- tropical orchards, such as citrus, olives and figs. This is most significant in the Oroville-Wyandotte area and in the vicinity of Orland and Corning. Rather extensive plantings of orange and olive orchards ex- ist at the present time in these areas and could be expected to expand considerably in the future. In the probable ultimate pattern, the various crop categories are comprised of the same crops as in the present pattern of land use. The future crop pattern may be influenced to some extent by Federal supports for certain commodities and acreage limitations imposed as a result of such price support plans. However, even though there may be considerable variances between j'cars in any given period of time due to economic and other factors, the ultimate crop pattern as projected appears reasonable ill view of foreseeable activities and adequate for pur- poses of determining the water requirements. Results of the probable ultimate crop pattern pro- jected for the Northeastern Counties are presented in Table .36, segregated by hydrographic units. Table 37 presents the results segregated bj' counties. Urban Lands Present urban lands include the developed areas of cities and towns, sawmills, small communities, indus- trial areas, and resorts. These urban areas are gross delineations of the presently developed area includ- ing homes, business districts, streets, vacant lots, in- dustrial areas, etc., and are not limited by municipal boundaries or any specific density of development. The delineation was made during the course of the field survej' of presently irrigated and irrigable land. The acreages of present urban lands for each hydro- graphic unit and county are tabulated in Tables 31 and 32. Although the ultimate urban water requirement was determined on a population basis, the area of land which is suitable for urban and suburban develop- ment was determined by the consulting firm of Pacific Planning and Research. As evidenced by present de- velopment, this use may occur on the best irrigable land, dredger tailings or steep slopes. The areas which would probably become urbanized were delineated on quadraugle maps after a review of the character, lo- cation and potential of each urban center. Included as urban and suburban areas would be those lands oc- cupied by commercial, industrial, and residential de- velopments, and, in addition, surrounding suburbs, although these latter may have low population densi- ties. They include individual homesites up to approxi- mately five acres. The areas are delineated on Plate A-3, Appendix A, "Future Population, Economic and Recreation Development of California's Northeastern Counties," and encroach to a limited extent on lauds classified as iri'igable. The areas of ultimate urban and suburban lands shown on Tables 38 and 39 represent only the areas that would be more compactly developed with popu- lation densities ranging from two to six persons per acre. Estimates of areas of ultimate urban and subur- , ban land were prepared from the population and urban land use data compiled by Pacific Planning , and Research. I NATURAL RESOURCES 129 TABLE 37 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF IRRIGATED LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (in acres) County and hydrographic unit Name Butte County Chico Creek Paradi se North Fork Feather River, Middle Fork Feather River. South Fork Feather River.. Challenge Wyandotte Los Molinos Durham Gridley - COUNTY TOTALS... Colusa County Stony Creek Clear Lake Fruto Colusa Gridley - Cortina Arbuckle COUNTY TOTALS... Glenn County Lake PiUsbury Stony Creek Fruto Orland Colusa Gridley Cortina COUNTY TOTALS... Lake County Lake PiUsbury Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown COUNTY TOTALS... Lassen County Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Hat Creek North Fork Feather River.. Surprise Valley Madeline Plains Eagle Lake Willow Creek Secret Valley Susan River Herlong COUNTY TOTALS.. Modoc County Tulelake Goose Lake Jess Valley ,'r. Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Surprise Valley COUNTY TOTALS.. Plumas County Chico Creek North Fork Feather River. East Branch Feather River. Irrigated lands 400 300 8,200 4,400 4,500 17,800 2,800 1,900 15,000 8,400 10,700 38,800 6,000 5,700 17,900 13,200 42,800 11,100 1,600 12,700 14.000 3,800 100 600 700 11,500 500 700 1,400 21,800 28,100 83,200 5.800 6,400 16..500 9,000 400 29.000 67.100 300 2.200 Pastu Improved 1.500 8,000 3,000 600 500 21,800 12,300 11.300 43.100 102,100 5.800 3.500 23,100 16,200 8,600 57,200 9,900 21,700 27,100 16,000 1,700 800 77,200 16.300 4,100 20,400 700 23,. 500 8.900 300 3,100 1.700 108.600 600 6.700 11.500 11,600 23,900 201,100 7,300 19,800 2,000 77,400 16,200 300 36,400 159,400 2,900 12.400 Meadow 100 100 500 500 400 400 1,100 4,500 3,800 4,700 600 5,100 3,400 3,200 2,100 9,200 800 38,500 6,300 4,000 3.200 15.000 2.200 2,400 10,200 43,300 1,900 8,.500 Grain and grain hay 300 300 3,.300 4.000 5.000 12.900 1.400 1.200 9.000 3.700 4,900 20,200 3,100 9.400 12,100 10,600 1,900 200 37,300 1,800 1,800 3,600 11.500 1.200 100 300 400 17.800 100 200 1.700 13.800 18,000 65,100 24,300 2,800 5,700 7,800 200 12,000 52,800 300 2,000 Truck 200 300 4,000 2,500 4,000 11,000 300 25,000 6,800 13,800 45,900 200 3,000 6,700 9,600 19,500 600 1,200 1.800 2,000 100 100 5,000 4,000 11,200 10,600 1,200 400 1.000 1.000 14,200 2,200 Field crops 14,000 19,000 17,000 50,000 1,300 800 25,000 6,000 16,700 49.800 4.600 5,700 24,500 12,600 1,300 48,700 2,200 1,400 3,600 11,000 400 100 700 14,000 16,000 42,200 1,100 1,000 2,200 7,000 400 6.000 17,700 Deciduous orchard 300 8,100 800 200 200 1,400 10,.500 20,000 13,000 54,500 800 500 28,500 7,600 12,300 49,700 3.100 3,900 12,000 16,200 35,200 28,200 1,900 30,100 1,800 Sub- tropical orclmrd 3,600 600 7,000 1,.500 1 .000 1.400 15,100 300 1,400 3,100 4,800 Rice 23.000 72,000 95,000 103,000 1,600 9,200 113,800 8.700 50.600 8.600 67.900 Total irrigated 1.900 20.600 4.400 800 700 31,100 .53,800 83,200 160,000 358,300 12,400 8,400 228,600 1,600 48,700 76,200 375,900 27,200 .■)0.800 112.100 128.800 13.. 500 1,000 333,400 60.600 12,000 72.600 1.800 66..;uo 18,200 500 8.700 3,.50O 143.000 4.600 10.800 17.500 75.400 90.800 441.300 53.400 35,200 5.200 117,200 43,200 3,700 94,600 354,300 5,g0 29,100 5—16762 130 NORTPIEASTEEN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 37— Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF IRRIGATED LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) County and hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Refer- ence number 44 45 46 47 73 74 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 33 34 35 38 42 50 44 45 47 74 75 3 4 5 6 15 16 19 20 56 57 61 62 63 67 24 26 27 2S 29 35 36 37 38 39 40 Name Alfalfa PastTire Improved Meadow Grain and grain hay Field crops Deciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Plumas County — Continued Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River Susan River Herlong COUNTY TOTALS Shasta County McArthur Hat Creek Montgomery Creek McCloud River- Dunsmuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda Stillwater Plains Cow Creek Bear Creek Battle Creek.- -- --- MiU Creek... --- North Fork Feather River Anderson COUNTY TOTALS Sierra County Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River North Yuba River Herlong Little Truckee River COUNTY TOTALS Siskiyou County Tulelake Butte Valley. Ivlamath River Shasta Valley Scott Valley Salmon River Big Valley McArthur McCloud River Dunsmuir COUNTY TOTALS Sutter County Colusa Gridley Sutter Marysville Pleasant Grove East Yolo.- COUNTY TOTALS Tehama County Cottonwood Red Bank Creek Elder Creek Thoraes Creek Stony Creek- Battle Creek Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Mill Creek Deer Creek Chico Creek 8,900 500 11,900 12,000 5,200 800 300 100 200 1,400 700 2,300 8,000 2,100 600 4,600 38,300 5,300 800 900 300 7,300 8,800 23,400 5,500 43,900 17,500 400 500 100,000 8,000 3,200 1,900 1,100 1,700 3,000 18,900 7,300 5,400 1,000 4,700 1,200 1,500 1,000 200 29,000 7,500 100 10,300 2,800 5,800 400 7,900 200 51,900 11,100 6,200 2,600 500 700 900 200 11,600 5,000 19,700 18,900 10,500 5,100 13,400 23,500 7,.500 4,000 100 100 600 8,500 4,200 2,800 400 1,400 700 2,900 2,000 1,300 400 900 10,300 1,800 500 2,000 500 100 1,300 100 100 400 400 200 400 900 3,200 100 400 1,500 500 1,500 2,800 400 1,600 7,500 200 900 1,900 100 500 1,200 300 1,000 1,400 106,400 12,400 3,400 6,100 12,300 13,100 800 2,300 17,000 3,300 300 3,100 1,500 9,400 300 21,900 4,700 7,000 10.100 29,100 15,000 400 200 1,200 6,000 16,200 5,300 3,900 200 10.200 6,900 1,500 300 800 3,600 32,000 18,600 2,700 15,100 12,400 200 1,500 11,900 12.400 200 2,100 400 300 5,400 15.300 500 4.900 600 100 73,700 5,200 5,200 3,500 4,900 3,900 4,100 29,100 81,000 3.000 1.000 1.500 1,000 1,000 1,000 27,000 20,000 8,000 6,000 500 500 5,000 26,700 10,000 2,000 3,000 1,.500 2,000 5,000 100 15,000 22,000 35,000 8,000 500 8,000 26,800 11,. 500 8,600 2,400 9.300 1.500 6.200 1.800 1.300 300 100 200 1,100 200 100 700 1,600 8,500 2,100 1,800 600 2,500 800 40,000 300 400 200 800 100 23,500 1,700 1,200 500 2,900 600 88,500 700 900 300 600 100 2,300 200 100 300 34,000 10,000 17,600 6,000 6.000 12,000 85,600 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE 37-Continued OF IRRIGATED LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) 131 County and hydrographic unit IrriKated lands Rcf.T- Name AUalla Pasture Grain and grain liay Trucl< Field Crops Deciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Total irrigated Improved Meadow 50 ■jl 52 53 54 8 9 10 30 56 59 60 64 65 66 67 Tehama County — Continued Anderson - 2,200 21,800 7,100 500 5,200 50,300 17,200 200 500 900 15,200 2,000 300 6.500 2,000 700 24,000 5,000 400 500 21,900 12,500 8.000 500 9,800 Los MoUnos _ - 148,300 Fruto 40,300 Orland 200 COUNTY TOTALS 1,400 53,900 100 500 1,800 900 110,600 200 1,300 2,800 2,000 3,700 25,900 200 900 800 10,600 100 100 37,000 200 40,100 100 100 8,800 Trinity County 297,200 Lower Trinity River 300 South Forlc Trinity River 2.200 Southern Trinity County 5,900 COUNTY TOTALS 3,700 3,300 1,000 2,800 5,000 1,700 2,400 25,700 8,400 6,300 200 4,900 10,100 4,400 2,800 1,700 16,000 13,900 1,900 1,900 1,100 700 600 4,300 200 1,700 7,000 600 1,400 53,700 22,500 200 7,500 2,900 9,000 900 1,800 45,100 35,400 200 2,800 4,300 2,300 1,400 2,900 7,600 5,800 15,000 5,100 18,200 22,700 Yolo County Clear Lake- -- 200 Cortina - - 32,900 West Yolo - . . 34,.500 10.800 East Yolo.. COUNTY TOTALS- 47,000 200 100 5,800 54,000 500 9,600 13.900 57,000 100 8,600 200 300 5,500 86,900 200 100 5,100 103,200 100 10,100 27,100 300 1,300 700 24,100 1,800 400 1,100 61,000 30,000 46 47 Yuba County South Forlt Feather River.. _ North Yuba River . 4g 13.300 15,700 138,700 58 Brown Valley 62 COUNTY TOTALS 6,100 81,000 100 6,000 5,400 10,200 26,400 3,300 30,000 168,500 TOTALS, NORTH- EASTERN COUNTIES... 549,100 1,1.56,000 167,700 352.900 288,600 423,100 375,100 32,000 453.300 3,797,800 Urban and Suburban Areas Department of Water Resources Photographs NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE 38 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN, AND RECREATIONAL LAND USE WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (in acres) 133 Hydrographic unit Name Urban and suburban areas High intensity recreational areas Medium intensity recreational areas Low intensity recroationul areas Principal reservoirs Swamp and marsh lands 3 4 5 fi 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 North Coastal Drainage Basin Tule Lake Butte Valley Klamath River Shasta Valley Scott Valley Salmon River Upper Trinity River Lower Trinity River South Fork Trinity River Southern Trinity County Lake Pillsbury SUBTOTALS- Central Valley Drainage Basin Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley - McArthur Hat Creek Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunsinuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown Stillwater Plains Cow Creek -. Bear Creek Battle Creek _ _-. Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Mill Creek DeerCreek --. Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River East Branch Feather River Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River Challenge Wyandotte Anderson Corning Los Molinos Fruto Orland , Durham Colusa 1 Gridley Brown's Valley Cortina Arbuckle Sutter - Marysville Pleasant Grove West Yolo Capay Woodland East Yolo 1,200 900 i.fion 7.800 2,400 200 500 2,000 700 17,300 200 100 800 000 400 400 .'iOO 000 200 400 200 900 200 100 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,200 ,200 ,200 ,600 ,400 ,200 000 ,700 ,600 ,000 100 ,000 ,600 ,500 ,000 000 400 400 ,300 ,300 400 123,400 48.100 163,400 59,600 02,400 58,000 149,400 225,700 192,900 120,600 120,900 1,300 2,800 223,500 27,200 70,500 128,800 133,600 174,500 60,800 34,000 8,000 1,3.54,400 96,300 46,700 120,800 207,100 120,400 232,900 117,600 149,200 141,000 256,300 124,500 23,900 218,400 5,700 26,900 45,400 92,500 239,400 468,000 88,600 2,400 178,600 35,100 172,400 58,800 127.100 76.600 1 58,500 114,900 22,100 528,500 456,000 1,58,300 370,100 97,800 351.100 118,100 15.000 37.800 9.900 62.100 3,300 800 73.900 20.800 18.600 53.600 400 8.100 60.900 1.400 20.700 51.600 18.100 32.000 865.000 20.200 16,100 46,500 28,000 7,100 39„500 61,800 1,400 16,100 47,400 8.300 33..300 24.700 10,500 97,900 32,600 51,300 1,200 4,600 981,800 279,500 17,200 171,000 29,900 47,100 51.300 4.59.200 334.000 227.700 265.100 51.900 64.400 15,800 400 400 2,57,100 13.200 69.600 14.400 74.400 20.000 9.400 10.100 31.700 47.600 20.000 15.200 2.000 34,500 20,500 11,300 4,700 98,300 600 2,000 152,900 17.200 30.700 99.800 3.000 11.100 3.300 27,200 3.200 7.700 31.700 SB.fiOO 8.200 3.400 100 31.300 5.200 1,300 1.800 100 3.800 13.100 26.500 6.400 6.000 1.600 200 4.400 14.300 7.800 5.800 1,200 1.200 2.900 300 27,500 5,900 600 17.600 1.700 4.000 1.000 14.300 53.100 2.700 4,800 700 1,500 200 2,000 1,400 3.200 45.200 12.000 2.400 7.500 3,700 3,600 2,300 300 17,100 5,200 300 100 1,100 2,000 5,100 500 9.700 100 1.300 700 600 100 1,000 A 100 1,400 6.000 9,600 100 700 SUBTOTALS- 6.337.000 548.500 2,661.700 288.700 21,700 'Represents less than 50 acres. 134 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 38— Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN, AND RECREATIONAL LAND USE WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) Hydrographic unit Urban and suburban areas High intensity recreational areas Medium intensity recreational areas Low intensity recreational areas Principal reservoirs Refer- ence number Name Swamp and marsh lands 68 Lahontan Drainage Basin 2,400 10,900 1,900 107,300 24,400 142,000 40,700 20,100 120.100 94,500 49.300 31,900 12,300 1,700 2,400 90,300 290,800 99,400 50,400 402,000 183,400 66,200 300 1,500 8,200 900 600 5,100 3,100 500 69 70 200 71 Willow Creek - 400 70 Serret Vallev a 73 1,000 74 ft 75 Little Truckee River - - -- 100 SUBTOTALS 15,200 658.400 48,300 1,194,500 19,700 2.200 TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES. __ 2.54,000 8.349.S0O 1,461,800 5,335,600 444,100 33.600 ' Represents less than 50 acres. NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE 39 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN, AND RECREATIONAL LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) 135 County and hydrographic unit Urban and suburban areas Ilich intensity recreational areas Medium intensity recreational areas Low intensit.v recreational areas Principal reservoirs Refer- ence number Name Swamp and marsh lands 40 Butte County 1.000 7,000 1.000 600 1.300 12.000 2.200 10.600 1.800 07.200 22.100 155.800 91,900 60,400 2,500 15,000 4.000 800 11,300 (1 n 9,600 1,400 3,200 8,700 4,100 3,000 300 100 ■41 42 North Fork Feather River - t 43 46 South Fork Feather River 48 49 52 55 1.400 4.100 57 Gridley - -- COUNTY TOTALS - - - 37.500 5.700 3.800 437,600 55,.500 52. .500 18.800 39,200 13.300 4.200 9.600 11.800 0.400 93,100 1,500 09.400 20,800 1,500 a 2,000 5.500 29 Colusa County 30 53 50 2,600 100 57 59 fiO COUNTY TOTALS 9.500 100 6,000 2,000 200 106.000 28,300 143,300 3,300 1S.500 500 17.500 7.400 32.400 1.200 400 183.200 32.700 3.500 6,900 300 '700 11 Glenn County 29 100 53 54 OrKnd - - -- 100 50 2.900 57 Gridley - - - - - 1,400 59 COUNTY TOTALS 8.300 8.400 1.200 193.900 92.000 7.400 388.000 88,600 41.400 000 32,700 29,900 7.200 1,600 53.100 2.700 4 500 11 Lake County Lake Pillsbury - __. __ 29 30 Clear Lake 1.000 31 9.600 2.200 600 10,900 1,900 570.000 31,400 1..500 03.100 44.800 42.800 50,700 14,000 24.400 142,000 40,700 20,100 117,800 87,000 000 5,.500 7.000 12.300 1.700 800 29.900 27.900 168.400 149,800 01„W0 24,-00 41,100 296,800 99,400 .50,400 402.000 183.100 65.100 ,57,400 2,100 1,200 800 2,200 4,800 1,.500 8,200 900 600 3,100 1 000 13 U 15 200 10 Mc\rthur -- -- 300 17 Hat Creek ..... 42 68 69 70 200 71 400 72 Secret Valley - A 73 1.000 74 * COUNTY TOTALS .-. .- .. 15,600 200 4,100 600 2,400 886.900 37.000 96„300 15,300 119.300 144.000 12.000 133,300 27,900 1,300 20.200 10.100 31.900 1.570,200 741.900 47.100 23.400 459.200 1.58..500 3,800 55.200 27.400 22,200 200 2,300 13,000 7,100 300 2.100 1 Modoc County 100 12 13 14 100 15 Big Valley 1.100 10 A OS 500 COUNTY TOTALS 7,300 577,200 O9.,500 1.489,100 45,100 1.800 136 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 39— Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN, AND RECREATIONAL LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) County and hydrographic unit Urban and suburban areas 1 High intensity recreational areas Medium intensity recreational areas Low intensity recreational areas Principal reservoirs Refer- ence number Name Swamp and marsh lands 40 Plumas County Chico Creek 3.000 3,200 600 2,000 300 200 1,000 303,300 456,000 39,800 277,800 31,000 10,000 2,300 1,600 2,900 97,900 32,600 51,300 1,600 9.800 20.500 11.300 300 1,100 31,800 12,000 1,500 3,400 700 42 North Fork Feather River 43 44 45 46 South Fork Feather River 47 73 74 COUNTY TOTALS ..- .. 9,900 1,200 2,400 8,900 1,200 12.700 1,122,800 33,200 190,100 117,600 54,100 73,100 256,300 124,500 23,900 66,200 5,700 2,400 178,600 35,100 58,300 3,000 12,700 9,100 186,300 42,000 22,500 2,000 16,800 16,000 43,000 17,800 203,600 51,900 3,500 3,100 400 400 127,300 13,200 10,100 31,700 19,700 800 49,400 3,700 1,300 1,200 1,700 27,500 5,900 600 2,400 1,700 a 4,800 400 6,000 16 Shasta County 400 17 600 18 » 19 20 21 22 ClearCreek - 23 24 25 Ohnda -- - 32 Stillwater Plains - - 33 ft 34 Bear Creek -- - 35 • 38 MiU Creek 42 50 B COUNTY TOTALS 26.400 2,600 1,200 1,243,900 118,500 400 292,600 5,300 49,300 99,300 483,500 57,200 800 700 3,000 1,000 44 Sierra County 45 47 74 75 Little Truckee River 100 COUNTY TOTALS 3.800 1.200 900 1.600 7,800 2,400 200 1,200 400 4.500 466,100 86,400 48,100 163,400 59,600 92,400 58,000 30,400 95,100 67.900 2,800 223,500 27.200 70.500 128.800 4,500 5,100 22,700 239,900 279, .500 17.200 171,000 7,100 56,300 60,900 12,700 4,500 14,300 3,400 31.300 5.200 1.800 3.800 1.200 300 100 1 Siskiyou County 8,100 9 Butte Valley - 100 3 4 Shasta Valley - 1,300 5 Scott Valley 100 6 IS Big Vallev 16 19 McCloud River 20 COUNTY TOTALS.. 20,200 600 13.400 1,300 1.600 701,300 35,800 9,. 500 8.100 2.000 1,400 6,400 485,100 844,600 27,100 6,100 3,000 1,300 3,300 6,500 61.300 9,600 56 Sutter County 500 57 Gridley 4,000 61 100 62 63 67 East Yolo K COUNTY TOTALS 16.900 3,000 200 100 63,800 152,200 26,900 45,400 92,500 33.200 114.100 58.800 45,800 1.400 16.100 1.700 47,300 129,800 09,000 14,400 74,400 8.200 27.900 20,000 15.100 4.000 1,000 5,900 300 1,500 4,600 24 Tehama County 26 27 Elder Creek 28 Thomes Creek 29 35 Battle Creek - 30 Paynes Creek NATURAL RESOURCES 137 TABLE 39— Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN, AND RECREATIONAL LAND USE WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acres) County and hydrographic unit Urban and suburban areas High intensity recreational areas Medium intensity recreational areas Low intensity recreational areas Principal reservoirs Refer- ence number Name Swamp and marsh lands 37 Tehama County — Continued 6,600 3,800 127,100 73,600 158,500 46,700 28,700 9,900 57,. 500 8,300 33,300 24,700 15,200 2,000 3,900 98,300 600 2,000 300 2,000 11,100 5,200 38 Mill Creek 39 40 Chico Creek. - ...... ... . . 50 * 51 A 52 S3 Fruto ...... 54 COUNTY TOTALS - 13.700 500 2.000 700 1,025,100 149,400 225,700 192,900 120.600 131,300 133,600 174,500 60,800 34,000 466,300 46,400 13,100 26„500 6,400 6.000 a 7 Trinity County 8 9 South Fork Trinity River 10 Southern Trinity County COUNTY TOTALS 3,200 200 2,600 49,300 5,800 088.600 27.. 500 800 13.900 400 20.700 51.600 18,100 25,600 402,900 ° 30,100 27,200 3,200 7,700 25,200 52,000 500 30 Yolo County 56 59 GO 64 65 66 67 East Yolo ... ■ COUNTY TOTALS 57,900 1,200 3,000 10,000 158,600 400 48,500 115,600 18,600 58,300 93,700 30,700 9,800 500 2,900 2,300 1,100 5,100 • 46 Yuba County 47 48 58 62 700 COUNTY TOTALS — . 14,200 241,400 40,500 11,400 700 TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 254.000 8,349,800 1,461,800 5,335,600 444,100 33,600 ' Kepri'^ents less than 50 acres. Foresi Lands Recent surveys and appraisals of the forest-area and timber-volume show that 46 per cent of the en- tire area of the State of California is classed as tim- ber cropland and other forest land. About 17 million acres comprise commercial forest lands capable of producing lumber and other forest products. About I 9,300,000 acres of the commercial forest lands are [ located within the Northeastern Counties. These coun- 1 ties also contain about 6,500,000 acres of non-com- mercial forest, comprised of lands withdrawn for ' parks and primitive areas, as well as forest lands incapable of yielding usable wood products. The eom- 1 mercial forest lands, which are predominantly pine. Douglas fir, and fir, are found principally in the mountainous parts of the Northeastern Counties lying ' in the North Coastal Drainage Basin, and above 3,000 feet on the westerly slopes of the Sierra Nevada in the Central Valley Drainage Basin, The location of the principal forest lands are shown on Plate 5. As the result of this bountiful natural resource, and the development of the forest products industry during the pa.st century, the production of lumber and other forest products is the leading industry in most of the Northeastern Counties. Lumber produc- tion has increased from 1.1 billion board feet, pro- duced by 128 mills in 1040 to L9 billion board feet, produced by 208 mills in 1951. The greatest lumber production is found in Siskiyou County, followed by Shasta, Lassen, and Plumas Counties. The production in these four counties accounts for more than one-half of the total for the 15 counties. Until recent years, forest products from this area have consisted of sawlogs and rough lumber exported Logging Operation in Siskiyou County Yreka Studio & Camera Shop, Yreka, Photograph Sawmill in Plumas County Department of Water Resources Photograph NATURAL RESOURCES 139 for re-mauufaeture, and some finislied lumber for local u.se and export. In several areas box shook has Deen an important item, but its production is now Deing reduced by the growing preference for fiber- board boxes. There is now a trend toward more re- manufacturing of lumber within the area and increased production of plywood and veneer. Only recently have fiberboard plants begun operating within the Northeastern Counties. "Wood chips for pulp are produced from salvaged waste and shipped elsewhere for processing. It has been estimated by the United States Forest Service, upon request by the Department of Water Resources, that the ultimate sustained yield capacity of the commercial forest lands within the Northeast- ern Counties would be about 2,267 million board feet (International Scale) per year. This is based on the assumption that management would obtain and main- tain at least 80 per cent stocking on total commercial forest lands, both private and public lands including present de-forested areas. Based on further informa- tion from the Fore,st Service and from the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, the estimate of sustained yield was converted to estimates of an- nual production for major forest products. These esti- mates for the 15 Northeastern Counties include : 1. Lumber — 2,186 million board feet (lumber tally) 2. Plywood — 357,200 thousand square feet (f-inch basis) 3. Pulp— 1,097 thousand tons 4. Fiberboard and paper products — 701 thousand tons The amount of possible production for each item was determined for each of the 15 counties. Produc- tion was further broken down to the amounts for each hydrographie unit. The area of commercial forest TABLE 40 ESTIAAATED SUSTAINED YIELD CAPACITY OF COMMER- CIAL FOREST LANDS OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES TABLE 41 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF MAJOR FOREST PRODUCTS AT SUSTAINED YIELD WITHIN THE NORTH- EASTERN COUNTIES County Commercial forest lands, in thousands of acres Annual yield per acre, in board feet Total annual yield in million board feet Butte 356 27 113 175 829 .675 1,228 1,263 393 2,323 436 1,357 116 380 240 240 240 160 140 240 240 .■3.50 240 380 240 385 135 6 Glenn _. 27 Lake 42 Lassen 133 Modoc 94 295 Shasta 303 138 558 Sutter -_ , Tehama.. 166 Trinity 326 Yolo 44 TOTALS-. 9,291 2,267 County Lumber, in million board feet Plywood, in thousand square feet* I'ulp, in thousand tons Fiberboard and paper products, in thousand tona Butte 286 6 27 42 134 95 149 417 140 .566 108 111 45 21,840 985 4,360 6,790 21,520 15,195 47,7.30 66,610 11,150 90,285 44,440 8,000 18,290 244 431 106 213 103 156 Glenn Lake Lassen Modoc -- Shasta _. 276 Siskiyou.- 08 Tehama 135 Trinity Yuba 66 TOTALS 2,186 357,200 1.097 701 * §-incli basis. lands within each hydrographie unit was used as a basis of apportioning the production to the various hydrographie units. Estimated sustained yield capacity of commercial forest lands, and the estimated annual production of major forest products for each county of the North- eastern Counties are presented in Tables 40 and 41, respectively. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES The northeastern part of the State of California has an exceedingly colorful history woven from its streams and rivers, gold and silver mines, and vast stands of pine and fir. Indians, Chinese, and Yankees, miners, woodsmen, trappers, and cattlemen all have played a part in the fascinating drama of northern California, The Chinese temple in Weavervillc. the lava trenches of the Modoc "War, Susanville's Fort Defiance are historic reminders of this not so distant past. Historical romance intrigues the historian and the tourist, but the modern-day resident of the area — the farmer, the lumber mill worker, the commercial and industrial employee, and the small entrepreneur can- not live on the memories of the past. The economic life of individuals and business operations depends upon a stable, prosperous future. The declining economy in a number of the counties within this area indicate a need to evaluate the potential return from full development of the natural resources of the area. Historically, the economic life of the northern mountain counties has been based upon timber, min- ing, agricultural operations, and related service indu.s- tries. In recent years, however, recreational activity Recreation at Bucks Lake, a Pacific Gas and Electric Company Reservoir DepartDiem of Water Resources Photograph Moulin Studios, San Francisco, Photograph NATURAL RESOURCES 141 has increased rapidlj^ to a position of major impor- tance in the region's economy. There is now every reason to believe that future recreational activity will substantially increase. It appears that the Northeastern Counties are on the threshold of a large growth in the development and use of their recreational resources. These counties have, within their borders, some of the finest moun- tainous terrain in the State. All or parts of eight national forests, one national park, and one national monument are included within their boundaries. The pressure of population upon the older and more in- tensively developed recreational areas of the State is contributing to the influx of visitors into the North- eastern Counties each year in search of recreational opportunities. Higher incomes, more leisure, and im- proved transportation tend to increase the mobility of the population and its ability to enjoy the recreational resources of the Northeastern Counties. According to the United States Forest Service there were 8,351,600 visitor-days use of national forest recreational areas in the Northeastern Counties in 1955, compared with 2,958,500 only five years earlier. This increase, amounting to 182 per cent, in recrea- tional use occurred during a period when the State population was increasing by 23 per cent, and popu- lation of the Northeastern County area increased only 10 per cent. It is clear that per capita use of i-ecrea- ! tional resources has increased substantially in recent ■ years. The increase in recreational use reflects an increas- , ing national propensity to spend more time in leisure and recreational activities. It has been estimated by the National Association of Travel Organizations that, in 1955, tourists in the United States sjient $24,000,- 000,000 for recreational purposes, about 7-i per cent of the national income. Persons visiting the national parks and forests, for varying periods of time in 1955 totalled 96,000,000, an increase of 140 per cent over 1946. On a per capita basis, these visits more than doubled between 1946 and 1955. In California, visitor-days use of the national parks and national forests increased from 23,085,000 in 1946 to 35,614,000 in 1955, an increase of 54 per cent. State population increased 36 per cent during this period. Present development of hotels, resorts, camp- grounds, and other facilities in the Northeastern Counties is relatively minor. Despite the historic antiquity of the area, exploitation of its recreational resources is in its early stages. Therefore, the rate of development from this time forward to probable ulti- mate development can be expected to be rapid, and to J exceed the rate of population growth in the state by i a considerable degree. While State population is ex- I pected to increase three or more times between now I and ultimate development, recreational use in the Northeastern County area may increase by 10 times or more. Potential recreational areas, which may ultimately be developed or utilized, were determined by the firm of Pacific Planning and Research, retained by the De- partment of Water Resources to conduct studies on this phase of the investigation. These areas were then delineated on United States Geological Survey map quadrangles. After a field inspection of the North- eastern Counties, the recreational areas were segre- gated by use categories. Tlie categories used are based upon accessibility and probable use and are described as high, medium, and low intensity recreational areas. High intensity recreational areas are lands of jjrime recreational potential that are accessible by motor ve- hicle during the entire vacation season. They include readily accessible rivers, streams, lakes, mountainous areas, and desirable highway frontage. These lands have scenic, climatic, topographic, location, and other resource values which will attract public and private recreational development. Most of the future develop- ment is expected to occur in these areas. Medium intensity recreational areas are lands of prime recreational value but which are not readily accessible by motor vehicle. They include mountainous areas, and lands along streams having physical at- tributes conducive to recreational develo]nnent. These areas will be developed to some extent but their greatest use will probably be for fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, etc. Low intensity recreational areas are lands with gen- erally inferior scenic and topographic qualities, but which may be important for hunting. Each of these categories will be subject, in varying degrees, to de- velopment for permanent and summer liomes, com- mercial resorts and motels, organization and group camps, and camping and picnic areas. For purposes of evaluating present and ultimate water requirements, certain additional land areas were classed as a part of the recreational resource. These land areas are the swamp and marsh lands which are covered by water for most of the year and which support a rather dense vegetative growth. The lands do not have agricultural value but, in most instances, are important to the economy since they provide habitat for waterfowl. The water surface area of existing reservoirs, as well as natural lakes which are controlled by dams and operated for water supph' purposes, are also in- cluded in this category. Acreages shown are those at the spillway crest elevation, or at the maximum op- erating elevation, whichever is applicable. Table 31, previously presented, summarizes, for each hydrographic unit, the extent of lands presently occupied bj^ swamp and marsh lands and by princi- pal reservoirs. Table 32 summarizes these data for counties. 142 NOETHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION For conditions of ultimate development, it was as- sumed that existing swamp and marsh lands that pro- vide habitat for migratory waterfowl would be main- tained in their present state rather than be drained and reclaimed. In addition to the present swamp and marsh lands, an area of about 6,000 acres in Lower Klamath Lake was considered to be converted from its present use as winter-irrigated grain land to con- trolled marsh for waterfowl habitat. In the ultimate pattern of land use, the water sur- face areas of the principal reservoirs required for full development were also considered because of their potential recreational value. The reservoir areas so classified were the average water surface area for both presently existing reservoirs and for reservoirs proposed under The California Water Plan. Natural lakes were included when controlled by dams and regulating structures. Natural lakes not developed for use as operating reservoirs were not included in this grouping. In Table 38, the areas of high, medium, and low intensity recreational areas, as well as the areas of swamp and marsh lands and principal reservoirs, are tabulated for each of the hydrographic units of the Northeastern Counties. The same information segre- gated by counties is shown in Table 39. The land areas included in these tables, in some instances, coin- cide with lands presently irrigated and lands classi- fied as irrigable. The potential recreational development in Cali- fornia's Northeastern Counties, predicated upon full development of the natural resources, is discussed and presented in greater detail in Appendix A "Future Population, Economic and Recreation De- velopment of California's Northeastern Counties". Included within this appendix report are plates de- picting the location of lands estimated to have ulti- mate recreational value and use. Fish and WMlfe Fish and wildlife are an important renewable re- source of the State of California. Surveys indicate that Californians devote nearly twice as much time to outdoor sports and recreation as do the people of the nation as a whole. Angling license sales in California in 1955 were more than 1,303,000, the second largest number sold in any state in the nation that year. California ranked sixth in number of hunting licenses sold in 1952-53, about 588,000. By 1954-55 licenses issued had increased to nearly 621,000. A survey in 1955, by the State Department of Fish and Game, indicated that the average angler spent 15 days fishing in fresh water and 11 days fishing in salt water, while the average hunter spent 14 days pur- suing game. This amounted to a total of over 31,000,000 man-days spent in such recreational activi- ties in 1955. The Sacramento River is probably the outstanding example of the effects of stream flow maintenance on fish and fisheries. Prior to the construction of Shasta Dam, summer flows were small and water tempera- tures were above the tolerable level for salmon. Steel- head trout were rare. However, operation of the Cen- tral Valley Project has maintained large continuous flows of cold water in the river and steelhead and salmon population have increased greatly. The De- partment of Fish and Game now estimates that the average run of steelhead is about 27,000 fish, while in 1953 the king salmon run amounted to at least 300,000 fish. Silver salmon have been introduced into the upper Sacramento River tributaries. They require a year's residence in the stream before migrating to the sea, and therefore are dependent upon a river habitat for the fir.st year of their life. The Sacramento River below the Balls Ferry Bridge was recently opened for year-round fishing. Smaller streams in the Northeastern Counties are important to fish and game resources. Many thou- sands of miles of stream support trout populations of sufficient size to afford angling. It has been estimated that there are about 6,000 miles of stream which are normally fishable, with many thousand of miles of other streams fishable on an intermittent basis. The deer herds of the Northeastern Counties pro- vide another substantial recreational resource. Thou- sands of hunters visit the mountains during deer hunting season. During the five years 1952-56, deer hunters took an average of 24.678 deer annually in the Northeastern Counties. Using the statewide hunter success ratio of about 20 per cent, this harvest indicates an average of about 125,000 deer hunters each year. The State Department of Fish and Game has esti- mated that hunters harvest approximately 7 per cent of the deer herd in a typical year. It is estimated by that Department that approximately 20 per cent of the deer herd could be harvested annually with no harm to the deer population. It is probable, therefore, that about three times the present number of hunters could utilize this resource. The greatest consumptive water requirement for game in the Northeastern Counties will continue to be for the maintenance of waterfowl areas. The ex- tensive areas of swamps, marshes, water surfaces, and rice lands provide protection and food for great flocks of migratory waterfowl. The economic and rec- reational importance of these waterfowl is such that they are protected from over-harvesting by interna- tional treaties between the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. To grasp the significance of California's waterfowl resources, it is first necessary to become familiar with the flyway concept and its implications. There are four major flyways on the North American Conti- nent: The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific. NATURAL RESOURCES 143 The Pacific Flyway covers California, Oregon, Wash- ington, Idaho, ^Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and is shown on the following illustration. Pacific Migrafory Waterfowl Flyway, Showing Principal Fall Migration Routes Dneks and geese using the Pacific Flyway nest and breed, for the most part, in Alberta and Sas- katchewan. They also originate in British Columbia, Alaska, and Siberia. These breeding areas have only slightly been affected by man's activities, while win- tering areas to the south are continnallj^ being reduced as a result of increases in population and accompany- ing increases in land use. Consequently, the two areas are seriously out of balance, with waterfowl popula- tions being limited bj' insufficient wintering areas. Throughout recorded history, California has been the principal wintering ground for migratory water- fowl of the Pacific Flyway. An estimated GO per cent of Pacific Flyway waterfowl winter in California. Extensive marsh areas in the great valleys of the State were formerlj' utilized by hordes of ducks and geese. Today these same valleys have a much reduced marsh and water acreage, and are crowded with waterfow-1 during the w'inter season. As indicated on the illustration, there are several major routes within the fiyway; also a complex of branching routes, concentrations or funneling points, and interchanges between subflyvvays. As an example, at least seven migration routes converge at Tule Lake-I;ower Klamath concentration area, one of the largest in the nation. From there comes the tremen- dous movement down the Central Valley of Cali- fornia. A major prol)lein in the management of waterfowl has been that of crop depredation. Large concentra- tions of Baldpate duck annually flock to green crops in the Imperial ^^alley and other area of intensive winter vegetable farming. Coots and geese feed on permanent pasture lands throughout the Central Val- ley, many of them late into tlie sjjring. Pintail and Mallard ducks feed heavily on rice in the Central Valley. These problems have been partially resolved by holding waterfowl on large management areas until after harvest, and by special hunts, herding, and other methods. Present land use in the valley includes large acre- age of rice, with attendant high water requirement and with high correlative value as waterfowl area. Inerea.sed rice culture would accommodate larger pop- ulations of waterfowl. Conversely, decreased rice cul- ture might iniiuence governmental agencies to acquire and manage more areas for waterfowl. In either even- tuality, total water requirement in these areas would not be increased, but the requirement nominally chargeable to waterfowl might be increased. Recreational Use of Reservoirs Reservoirs used for recreation provide an impor- tant resource for the Northeastern Counties. The at- tractions of natural sites would be multiplied many times with the large bodies of water created by stor- age dams. Recreational use of Shasta Reservoir and its surrounding area is an outstanding example. Vis- itor-days to that facility in 1954 were about •22:1,000. In 1955 they had increased to 42(3,000 and in 195G to 629,000 visitor-days. Future reci-eational use includes the activities of the vacationer and tourist, the hunter and fisherman. It al.so includes the establishment of permanent homes, as well as summer homes by those in retirement or semi-retirement. Many, who have their place of work or business elsewhere, are attracted to such areas for relaxation and liealtliful living. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Population data and projections for each of the 15 Northeastern Counties were prepared for the De- liartment of Water Resources by the consulting firm of Pacific Planning and Research. A complete report on these studies is presented in Appendix A, "Future Population, Economic and Recreation Development of California's Northeastern Counties". I Agriculfure Creates Large Industries io Process and Transport Products United States Bureau of Reclamation Photographs NATURAL RESOURCES 145 Estimates of present (1956) population were made by the State Department of Finance. These estimates were segregated into urban, rural-farm, and rural- non-farm populations for each county in accordance with percentages in each category derived from the 1950 census. During the course of the land use studies for this investigation, areas of present urban develop- ment, including all developments of size sufficient to be mapped, were classified for each hydrographic unit. The extent of urban areas so detei-mined was used to estimate distribution of present urban popu- lation and rural-non-farm population throughout the hydrographic units. The county totals of rural-farm population were distributed among the hydrographic units in proportion to the irrigated acreage in each unit. The population of the Northeastern Counties, as shown by the 1956 estimates, was 365,100. This esti- mate is slightly greater than the 1950 census enumer- ation, which totaled 330,400 for the Northeastern Counties. Estimates of ultimate population b.y Pacific Plan- ning and Research, subdivided into the three cate- gories of urban and suburban, rural-farm, and rural- non-farm, were based, for statistical purposes, on a time in the future (years 2020-2050) when the popu- lation of the United States would be about 375,000,- 000. Correspondingly, the population of California would be about 45,000,000, and the population within the Northeastern Counties would be 1,750,000. These estimates were substantiated by analysis of the Northeastern Counties with respect to their ca- pacity to sustain the estimated ultimate population through development of their natural resources. At such a time the following conditions were assumed to prevail : the area of irrigated land in the North- eastern Counties would increase to about three times the acreage irrigated in 1954 ; the number of farms and the farm population would bo about twice that in 1950, and agricultural employment would also be double that in 1950; employment in the forest prod- ucts industries, based on sustained yield production, would be about twice that in 1950, but total nianufac- turing employment would rise to nearly six times the present level. The largest category of employment would include such items as construction, distribution of products and service activities, while anticipated development of recreational areas would iirovide for a substantial i)ortii>n of the .service activities. It was estimated that urban and suburban residents w^ould comprise about 70 per cent of the total j)opu- lation, as compared with 35 per cent in 1950. The remaining population would include both rural-farm and rural-non-farm. The latter classification would consist of permanent residents living outside of urban and suburban areas, widely scattered throughout the desirable habitable areas. While some would be em- ployed in the forest provides indu.stry, or in rec- reational services, many would have incomes from outside sources. Much of the urban and suburban poi^ulation would live under similar circumstances, since the urban areas would include extensive sub- urban developments with low jjopulation densities. Geographical locations and patterns of ultimate growth would generally follow those of present de- velopment. The largest concentrations of urban popu- lation and industrial and commei'cial activities are expected in those counties which now have the largest proportions of urban population. These are at present Butte, Shasta, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. Estimated present and probable ultimate popula- tions segregated by urban, urban and suburban, rural- farm, and rural-non-farm categories for each of the fifteen counties are presented in Table 42. TABLE 42 ESTIMATED PRESENT (1956) AND ULTIMATE POPULATION WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Estimated present population (1956) Estimated ultimate population County Urban Rural farm Rural- non-farm Totals L'rban and suburban Rural farm Rural- non-farm Totals Butte - - - 29,400 3,100 3,200 7,500 2,700 13,000 6,100 8,700 8.000 29.200 18.300 10.200 2.900 6.800 2.800 1,400 2,900 500 5,100 200 4,500 9,700 6.800 900 9.000 3.600 30,600 5,700 6,600 8,500 6,600 3.700 11.400 27.900 2.200 20.900 10.700 5.900 6.000 15.700 6,200 70,200 11.700 16.600 11.300 15,500 9,300 11.900 46.000 2.400 31,500 29,100 20,700 6,900 53,900 28.100 210,200 40.100 48.400 29,200 40,500 29,600 22,400 140,400 7,200 76,300 90,200 71,500 9,900 312,000 75,600 15.800 10.700 16.000 4..300 7.800 7,400 1,500 8,200 800 9,900 12,400 11,000 700 16,000 6,000 58.000 17.200 20,600 31,500 19,200 14,100 20,800 46,400 8,000 41,000 . 19,200 22,600 11,400 62,000 23.400 284,000 68.000 Glenn 85,000 Lake- 65,000 67,500 51,100 44,700 Shasta 195,000 16,000 Siskiyou . . 127.200 Sutter ._. . . .._ 121.800 105.100 Trinity 22.000 Yolo..- 390.000 Yuba 105.000 TOTALS 129,200 67.300 168,600 365,100 1,203.500 128,i;00 415,400 1,747.000 p CHAPTER WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS The Legislative directive, under which this invest- igation has been conducted, states that the deter- mination of the ultimate water needs of the 15 North- eastern Counties shall be predicated upon full devel- opment of all the natural resources of these counties. Considering, then, the availal)ility of natural resources as the basis for estimates, and assuming that full development would occur, both consumptive use of water and requirements for water were evaluated. The results are presented in the following sections : unit values of water iise, consumptive use of applied water, probable ultimate requirements to meet con- sumptive uses, and limited seasonal water require- ments. Definitions. In connection with the discussion of the nature and extent of water utilization and re- quirements in the Northeastern Counties, both at the present time and under probable conditions of ulti- mate development, the following terms are used as defined : Water Utilization — This term is used in a broad sense to include any employments of water by nature or man, either consumptive or nonconsumptive, as well as irrecoverable losses of water incidental to such employment, and is synonymous with the term "water use". Water Eequirement — The amount of water needed to provide for all beneficial iises, and for irrecoverable losses incidental to such uses. Limited Wafer Requirement — The amount of water that would be available to provide for all beneficial uses, and for irrecovei-able losses incidental to such uses, giving consideration to the physical and eco- nomic limitations of developing local and imported supplies. Consumptive Use of Water — This refers to water consumed by vegetative growth in transpiration and building of plant tissue, and to water evaporated from adjacent soil, from water surfaces, and from foliage. It also refers to water similarly consumed and evaporated by urban and nonvegetative types of land use. Applied Water — The water delivered to a farmer's headgate in the case of irrigation use, or to an in- dividual's meter in the case of urban use, or its equivalent. It does -not include direct precipitation. Effective Precipitation — That portion of the direct precipitation which is consumptively used and which does not run off or percolate to the ground. Irrigation Efficiency — The ratio of consumptive use of applied irrigation water to the total amount of such applied water, commonly expressed as a per- centage. Water Service Area Efficiency — The ratio of con- sumptive use of applied water in a given service area to the amount of water delivered to tlie area, com- monly expressed as a percentage. Present — This is used generally in reference to land use and water supply conditions prevailing dur- ing the period from 1954 to 1956. Vlfiiiiatr — Tills refers to conditions after an un- specified but long period of years in the future when development of natural resources will be at a maxi- mum and essentially stablized. Its use is related to long-range resources planning and development, that is not only physically possible on the basis of land and water resources, but is also practicable and reasonable on the basis of foreseeable economic condi- tions. It is realized that any present forecasts of the nature and extent of sucli ultimate develoi)ment, and resultant water utilization, are inherently subject to possible large errors in detail and appreciable error in the aggregate. However, such forecasts, when ba.sed upon best available data and ])resent judgment, are of value in establishing long-range objectives for de- velopment of water resources. They are so used herein, with full knowledge that their re-evaluation after the experience of a period of years may result in considerable revision. Some enlargement on the explanation of hydrologic concepts contained in the foregoing definitions is probabl.y desirable in order to provide for better understanding of the analyses used in the present investigation for evaluating water utilization and re- quirements. Prior to the time the first immigrants entered Cali- fornia and made the first employments of water, the land pattern of the river basins, as well as the regi- men of stream flows, were in a state connnonly termed "natural conditions". This point in time provides a convenient beginning to consider later changes on the quantity, quality, and regimen of stream flow caused by water development. Changes in natural conditions occur when man stores water in a reservoir, irrigates land to produce crops, diverts stream flow for municipal or industrial purposes, conveys water to a hydroelectric plant to generate power, or otherwise develops the land and water resources. By such uses he either changes the amount of water available in the stream for other purposes, or imposes a change on the natural char- acteristics of stream flow. A general expression for such employments of water is the term "water utili- zation''. ( 147 ) 148 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Other terms are needed, however, to express more precisely the factors that pertain to the various bene- ficial employments of water. In that "requirement" is a general term that expresses need for beneficial use of water, it is customary to employ with it certain modifying words that by implication define the exact nature of the requirement. For example, "divei'sion requirement" is the amount of water needed at the point of diversion on a stream system to provide for losses in conve3'ance of water to places of use, for the necessaiy irrigation head to distribute the water in the fields, for the wetting of the soil volume, and for deep percolation, taking into account the re-use of return flows from irrigation or other employments of the water. A "service area requirement" accounts for all the foregoing uses of water in a specified service area, measured, however, at the point or points of entrance of the water to the area, or the equivalent, rather than at a point of diversion on a stream system. Consumi^tive water requirements refer to the net loss of water in a given area or stream basin occa- sioned by water utilization. Requirements for water that cause an impairment in either the quantity or quality of the water supply remaining available for other purposes are herein referred to as "consump- tive requirements". In general, thej- include irriga- tion, municipal, and industrial requirements. Only a part of the water which is applied to irri- gated land is dissipated through transpiration by crops and evaporation from the land surfaces that have been artificially wetted. For practical purposes, these two losses of irrigation water, known as "con- sumptive use", are the only actual phj'sical losses to the total quantity of water in a stream basin. For convenience, similar physical losses caused by other employments of water are also termed "consumptive use", although they may be entirely evaporative in character, such as losses from reservoir surfaces, or occasioned by changes in water quality to such a de- gree that further use of the water would be imprac- ticable. Nonconsumptive requirements refer to the use of water for fi.sh propagation, power production, or for aesthetic purposes, in which the water is put to bene- ficial use and then returned to the natural channels. In most instances the regimen is affected, but not the quantity or quality of the water. Methods fairly reliable, but still subject to much improvement, have been developed for estimating unit values of consumptive use of water by irrigated crops. The quantity of water used is largely independent of the amount of water applied, provided a sufficient quantity is available to the crops at the proper time to maintain good growing conditions. Although this basic use of the water can be reasonably estimated, the quantities involved in conveyance and application losses, re-use of return flow. etc. are difficult to evalu- ate accurately, for they depend upon the details of works and operation of projects. Irrigation heads will vary with topography and soil characteristics. The amount of return flow will also depend iipon topog- raphy and soils, and on the method of irrigation. For these reasons, only an approximation can be made of either the diversion requirement or the service area requirement prior to construction and operation of a project. One phase of the hydrologic anal.ysis of a stream basin is an evaluation of future change in runoff re- sulting from future uses of the land and water. The change ma.y be either an increase or a decrease in quantity of flow, although it usually results in a stream depletion. The reclamation of a native marsh and its transformation into a Avell managed irrigated pasture may cause a decrease in the consumptive use of water and an increase in the water supply avail- able for other purposes. Conversely, a change in agri- cultural practice from grain production to irrigated pasture may result in greater consumptive use of water on the particular area, and a decrease in the water supply available for other purposes. Normall.y, as native lands are brought under irri- gation, the regimen of downstream flows is influenced and changed. For the most part, the amount of the change of downstream flow is measured by the differ- ence both in consumptive use of water and irrecover- able losses between any two stages of development. The actual effect on the water supply, as related to potential users below the river basin, is the amount of applied water consumptively used and the irrecover- able losses resulting from such use. In general, the present and probable ultimate con- sumptive uses of applied water in the Northeastern Counties were determined by application of appropri- ate unit values of consumptive use of water to the present and probable ultimate patterns of land use. In determining the probable ultimate patterns of land use, due consideration was given to the nature and extent of the present agricultural, urban, and industrial development, to indications of trends in such development, to the availability of the water sup- ply, and to those natural features of the basin such as climate, topography, and soils as they affect the use and re-nse of water. Evaluations of ultimate water service area requirements were made by considering efficiencies in use of the water which are presently or would ultimately be achieved by operating agencies. Certain possible nonconsumptive requirements for water in the Northeastern Counties, such as those for hydroelectric power generation, conservation of fish and wildlife, recreation, etc., may be of varying sig- nificance in the design of water resource development works. In most instances, the magnitudes of such non- consumptive requirements would be dependent upon allocations made in the planning of future projects after consideration of such factors as multipurpose uses, public interest, economics, etc. WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 149 UNIT VALUES OF WATER USE An evaluation of available natural resonrces has been presented in the previous chapter as the basis of determining present and future water needs. Equally important in this determination are estimates of unit values of water use to compute the seasonal amounts of consumptive use and water requirements. Ideally, unit values of water use for irrigated afrriculture, urban areas, industrial production, and recreational development would be based upon measured values. Such data should be measured within the area under consideration to reflect the varying: climatic and oper- ational influences, and should be extensive euougli to reflect season-to-season variations. In the absence of adequate data, it was necessary to use the available water use measurements conjunctively with supple- mentary data which express some of the physical con- ditions that aiifect consumptive use of water, and from this data, and utilizing judgment to an extent, esti- mate unit values of water use. Analyses of all available data were made and tabu- lated. Extensive studies were initiated to collect new data on water iise by irrigated lands, urban and do- mestic areas, the forest products industry, recreational activities, and evaporation from reservoir surfaces and swamp and marsh lands. Then mean seasonal \:nit values applicable to the entire Northeastern Counties area were estimated for each of these types of water use. The procedures and results of these studies for the various categories of water use are presented in the following sections. Irrigation Wafer Use Mean seasonal unit values of consumptive iise of applied water for irrigated crops within the North- eastern Counties were detei-mined by an empirical method which makes use of measured values of con- sumptive use and related climatological factors. It has been stated that the most desirable method of determining unit values of eonsiimptive use of water by irrigated crops would be actual measure- ment and observation. Past studies show that the most reliable methods of measuring consumptive use of water bj^ growing plants are soil moisture sampling from field plots, and by measuring the use of water by plants grown in tanks simulating field conditions. There is a general lack of this type of basic informa- tion. A limited amount of research and experimenta- tion has been carried on for the past 40 years by the United States Department of Agriculture and the University of California. Furthermore, little of the available data, outside of that collected by the Uni- versity of California at Davis, is applicable to the Northeastern Counties area. A considerable amount of data regarding diver- sions, delivery, and application of water to irrigated lands, as well as return flows and stream flow, are available from records of the Sacramento-San Joaqniti Water Supervi.sor, various public and private irriga- tion water service agencies and the United States Geological Survey. While these data are not often suitable for estimating unit values of consumptive use of water on irrigated lands, they are of value for checking the estimates made by other methods. Some measurements of consumptive use of water in the area were made by soil moisture sampling pro- cedures during this investigation and during past in- vestigations of the Department of Water Resources. Field work started in 1954 included, in addition to soil moisture depletion from field plots, the installa- tion and maintenance of atmometer stations, evapora- tion pans and other instruments. Analyses of these and other data furnished by the University of Cali- fornia indicated that raea.sured values of consumptive use correlate well with records of evaporation from atmometers. An atmometer is an evaporation measur- ing instrument which has a spherical ceramic evapor- ation surface. The instruments are used in pairs, one of which has a white and the other a black evaporation surface. The evaporation from atmometers is influ- enced by solar energy, temperature, wind movement and humidity which are the same principal factors influencing transpiration from growing plants. Al- though much valuable data was gathered during the three-year investigation period, it was not adequate to provide the basis for new estimates of unit values of consumptive use throughout the Northeastern Counties. The basic data collected during this study will, however, be of great value when supplemented by data of future programs of collection and analysis. A comprehensive study was made of available ex- perimental data on consumptive use of irrigation water, existing records of irrigation deliveries, and return flows from irrigation during the Statewide Water Resources Investigation. The results of this investigation are published in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2, "Water Utilization and Re- quirements of California", 1955. The method used for determining unit values of consumptive use of irrigation water provided an acceptable standard over a wide range of climatic conditions. Tliis method, generally applicable throughout California, correlates measured values of consumptive use with climatolog- ical influence as reflected by mean temperature and the duration of siuishine hours. The derived values are those which would occur under mean conditions of water supply and climate, and represent the aver- age consumptive use of water when an adequate water suppl.v is available to produce optimum crop yields. The basic method was first developed by Harry F. Blaney and Wayne D. Criddle of the Soil Conserva- tion Service, United States Department of Agricul- ture. However, the basic method was modified to some extent to meet the special needs of this investigation. 150 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Tlip method expresses the relationship among' eou- snmptive use of water, average temperature, and day- light hours in a given area. Consumptive use is estab- lished from experimental data, or from measured values of use of water. Monthly mean temperatures and monthly per cent of annual daylight hours are secured from published data of the United States Weather Bureau. Other factors, such as humidity, soil depth and quality, and wind movement, which are known to affect water use, are neglected in the correlation, due to the lack of adequate data cover- age. The effects of such unevaluated items, however, are contained in an empirical coefficient used in the formula derived from the method. The first step in estimating the seasonal consump- tive use of water by each crop is to divide the season into two periods, termed the "cultural period" and the "noncultural period." The former period varies with each crop, and generall3' comj^rises the irrigation season and the growing season of the crop. The non- cultural period comprises the remainder of the season. Generally, during this latter period the annual crops have been removed and the land is without vegeta- tion, although iu many eases, preparation of the laud for the next season is accomplished. Deciduous or- chards and perennial forage crops, in most areas, are in a dormant stage during the noncultural period. Generally, the characteristics of consumptive use of water in a given locality are completely different iu the cultural period from those in the noncultural period. The consumptive use of water by a given crop in a given area during the cultural period is expressed by the formula Z7 = KF, where : U = consumptive use of water by the crop, in inches of depth F = sum of the monthly consumptive use factors (/), for the cultural period K = an empirical coefficient integrating unevalu- ated effects The monthly consumptive use factor, "f, " for a given area was derived as the product of mean monthly temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and the monthly total of daj^time hours expressed as a per- centage of the total for the year. The empirical coefficient, "K," for each crop is derived by utilizing values of consumptive use of water from data obtained from tank experiments, measurements of field delivery of irrigation water, studies of inflow and outflow of water from irrigated areas, studies of soil moisture depletion on irrigated plots, and from estimates based on the experience and judgment of qualified experts. The "/C" coefficient is determined by using measured or estimated consump- tive use values and corresponding values of the con- sumptive use factor, "F," in the basic formula. To account for variations in the value of "K" because of climatic conditions, the coefficients were analyzed for zones of like climatic conditions. Four major zones for this purpose were selected and are termed Sacramento Valley Floor, East Side Sacra- mento Valley, West Side Sacremento Valley, all in the Central Valley Drainage Basin, and Mountain Valleys, which latter zone includes areas lying in both the North Coastal and Lahontan Drainage Basins. The consumptive use coefficients determined for each crop within each of these zones are given in Table 43. The consumptive use of water during the noncul- tural period supplied by precipitation is determined from appropriate values of unit consumptive use of water, which are based on experimental and investiga- tional data, experience, and judgment. The values used in the current investigation, when not limited by available precipitation, were : (a) 1-ineh of depth of water per month for annual crops or for land without vegetation. TABLE 43 VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE COEFFICIENT "K" FOR USE IN FORMULA U=:KF WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Sacramento Valley Floor East Side Sacramento Valley West Side Sacramento Valley Mountain Valleys Normal growing season "X" Normal growing season "A"' Normal growing season "A- Normal growing season "A- Alfalfa 4/1-10/31 4/1-10/31 4/1-10/31 4/1-10/31 .5/1- 9/30 5/1- 9/30 5/1-10/31 11/1- 6/30 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.45 0.50 1 I 5/1- 9/30 5/1- 9/30 5/1- 9/30 5/1- 9/30 5/1- 8/31 5/1- 8/31 5/1- 8/31 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.50 5/1-10/31 5/1-10/31 .Vl-10/31 5/1- 8/31 .VI- 8/31 4/1- 7/31 0.80 0.80 0.60 0..55 O.GO 0.50 ,5/1- 9/30 .5/1- 9/30 5/1- 9/30 6/1- 8/31 6/1- 8/31 6/1- 9/.30 85 65 Subtropical orchard Truck 60 Rice 70 1 Special moHiod used to evaluate consumptive use units, see text. "WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS Ml (b) 1.5-inches of depth of water per month for land devoted to orchards or vineyards. (c) 2-inehes of depth of water per month for forage or cover crops. Whenever available precipitation was not sufficient to pi'ovide the quantity of water believed to be neces- sary, the total precipitation during the deficient mouth was considered to have been consumptively used. The total seasonal unit value of consumptive use of water, regardless of source of water, is the sum of the values applicable to the cultural and noncultural periods. To determine the seasonal unit value of con- sumptive use of applied water, that is, the water pro- vided by means other than precipitation, an estimate of effective precipitation is necessary. Effective precipitation is that portion of precipita- tion that is consumptively used and does not run off the surface or percolate to ground water. The dif- ference between total seasonal unit value of consump- tive use of water and seasonal effective precipitation represents that portion of the seasonal consumptive use which must be provided by deliberate application of water to the irrigated area. Effective precipitation is segregated into three portions for the purposes of evaluation : (a) Precipitation occurring and consumptively used during the cultural period. In California this is generally minor in amount. (b) Precipitation occurring during the noncultural period and consumptively used during that period. The amount is limited by the previously stated criteria governing consumptive use of water during this period. (c) Precipitation occurring during the noncultural period and percolating to the root zone of the crop where it is retained for consumptive use during the following cultural period. In item (c) above, the amount of moisture stored in the root zone of the crop for consumptive use dur- ing the following cultural period is based upon as- sumptions of the depth of tlie root zone, the moisture holding capacity of the soil, the moisture deficiency in the soil at the end of the cultural period and the amount of precipitation available, in addition to that consumptively iised during the noncultural period. The sum of the above three items of effective precipi- tation which is consumptively used during both the cultural and noncultural period is then subtracted from the total seasonal consumptive use to determine the unit value of consumptive use of applied water. Only the total seasonal amounts of consumptive use of applied water are presented in this bulletin. These amounts, in turn, were iised to evaluate water require- ments. Special cultural and irrigation methods in pro- ducing rice and winter grown irrigated grain required that consumptive use of these crops be determined differently than by previously described procedures. Irrigation practice in rice culture varies consider- ably from that followed in the production of other crops. Fields are kept flooded from the time of plant- ing to the time the crop matures, when fields are drained to enable harvesting the yield. Planting usu- ally takes place between April 15 and May 15. The fields are drained the following September and har- vested during October. The period used for determi- nation of the consumptive use of applied water was the five-month period from May through September. The volume of irrigation water applied varies con- siderably and is dependent to a large extent upon soil type and availability of water. The gross amount of irrigation water applied is frequently greatly in excess of the consumptive use, since the maintenance of a small flow through the ponds facilitates the con- trol of fungus and water plants and enhances the crop yield. Existing cultural practices indicate that satisfactory yields are produced when the return flow, or difference between applied water and consumptive use of applied water, amounts to about one foot in depth on the cropped area per season. Available data for rice farming areas in the Sacra- mento Valley indicate that the total water applied during the growing season amounts to about 5.4 feet in depth, and that the return flow is about one foot in depth. Reliable estimates of deep percolation below the root zone indicate that about 0..3 foot of water is disposed of in this manner. The unit seasonal value of consumptive use of applied water is, therefore, about 4.1 feet in depth, and that value has been used in estimates of water requirements for the present study. Winter grown hay and grains, such as barley, oats, and wheat, threshed for grain or cut for hay, are grown extensively throughout the Sacramento Valley. Unit values of water use by irrigated crops of this type during the summer months were estimated by the previoiisly described general method. These crops, however, are also grown during winter mouths by specialized cultural practices. Winter-grown grain is planted in the fall, matures during the winter months, and is harvested in June and July. Experience indi- cates that, in general, when the depth of seasonal precipitation is approximately 17 inches or more, normally distributed throughout the season, these crops can be satisfactorilj' grown without irrigation. In some areas, however, precipitation is not sufficient for this purpose, and the available winter moisture must be supplemented by irrigation. From monthly precipitation records in a zone of 17-inch depth of mean annual rainfall, it was deter- mined that the precipitation falling during the Labor Is Essenfial in Processing Agriculfural Products United States Bureau of Recla?>iation Photographs I "WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 153 months from November through April, the cultural period for winter hay and grain, averages about 15 inches in depth. It was assumed that all of this winter precipitation would be consumptively used in ma- turing the crop, and that it would be adequate in amount for that purpose. The remaining two-inch depth of seasonal precipitation was considered to be consumed by weed growth or evaporated from soil during the noncultural period. It was further as- sumed that in areas where the normal seasonal depth of precipitation is less than 17 inches, the sup- plemental irrigation required for maturing winter- grown small grain and hay would be the difference between the actual November-through-April precipi- tation and the consumptive use requirement, esti- mated to be equivalent to a depth of 15 inches. In the northern mountain valleys, extensive areas are cropped to meadow pasture and meadow hay. These areas generally consist of native grasses and receive abundant water supplies from widely preva- lent high-water tables and from natural and artificial flooding. Available information indicated that the consumptive use of applied water for such ci'ops was about 25 per cent greater than that required for im- proved pastures. It should be recognized that the application of the foregoing empirical methods, based on natural phe- nomena, to practical engineering problems results in derived mean values of consumptive use of water. Consequently, the computed mean value is not abso- lute, but merely represents the mean of a range of values which vary from season-to-season and in acord- ance with land characteristics and agricultural prac- tices. Seasonal climatic variations will eaiise wide variations in the total amount of water that can be evaporated and transpired from irrigated land. Addi- tionally', the quantity of precipitation .stored in the soil during the noncultural period, and the amount of precipitation occurring during the cultural period, will have a definite effect on the volume of applied irrigation water necessary to meet the consumptive requirements of crops. Values used in this investigation were based on the assumption that sulfieient water would be available at all times to meet the normal demand of growing plants for water. However, those familiar with the operation of water service agencies will recognize that agricultural practices, as well as a number of economic factors, will affect the demand for irriga- tion water and, in turn, the amount of water con- sumptively used. Estimated mean seasonal unit values of consumptive use of applied water on irrigated lands are presented in Table 44. Urban and Suburban, and Rural Domesfic Wafer Use Estimates of unit values of water use for present urban, and ultimate urban and suburban areas of the Northeastern Counties were determined on a per cap- ita basis rather than on a unit area basis. Information relative to population and water use for various types of urban development are more readily available and reliable than data on the extent, density, and water use of land areas occupied by urban development. Furthermore, ultimate population is more readily adaptable to determination under conditions which would exist with full development of the natural re- sources of the Northeastern Counties than is the future utilization of urban and suburban lands. Urban water use was analyzed for cities and towns within the Northeastern Counties from data submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission by public utility companies, and to the State Controller's Office by municipal water agencies. Records of water use considered were those for the period 1949 through 1955, or for such years as were available when the entire period was not covered. After determination of the average daily rate of per capita water use in all localities for which data were available, it was found that communities in the Sacramento Valley generally had higher per capita rates of water use than those in the mountainous areas. Data from a number of communities where rates of water consumption deviated widely from the mean range were given little Aveiglit or were not in- cluded with the records under consideration. Based on records from eight representative towns in the mountainous area, the present average rate of water consumption in upland communities was deter- mined to be 160 gallons i^er capita per day. Records from 10 towns and cities within the Sacramento Val- ley area resulted in an estimated present average rate of water consumption of about 250 gallons per capita per da.y. From the same data, it was estimated that the present average rate of per capita water use for rural domestic developments, including both farm and nonfarm classifications, would be 130 gallons per capita per day in ui^land areas, and 200 gallons per capita per day in valley areas. In the estimation of per capita rates of water use under ultimate conditions of development, considera- tion was given to the following: (a) Per capita water use increases as the size and level of development of urban centers increase. (b) Per capita water use increases as the standard of living increases. (c) Per capita water use is expected to increase in the future due to an expected increase in the use of air conditioning. It was assumed that past increases in use of water for urban purposes would not form a completely sat- isfactory base to pro.ieet the level of future use. After thorough research and study of water use trends, it was estimated that urban use in upland communities 154 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 44 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL UNIT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON IRRIGATED CROPS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In feet of depth) Hydrographic unit Crops Refer- ence number Name Alfalfa Improved pasture Meadow pasture Grain and grain hay Truck crops Field crops Deciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vineyard 1 Tule Lake 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 I'i 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2^4 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.5 2"5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.4 2"5 2"3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.9 2'8 2.8 2.8 2.8 I'g 1.9 1.9 2,1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.5 3.4 3.1 3'4 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.8 __ 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 11.7 I'o 0'7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 o'i 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0^3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8 I's 1.2 0.5 o"4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 o's 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 o'g 0.8 0.8 I'o 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 o'g 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 o"9 o'e 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 o'.'e o'g o"9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 l"l 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I'.b 1.1 1.4 1.1 r2 1.2 .. o's o'o 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.7 o'i 1.7 1.8 1.6 l"7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.8 l"7 2.2 1.8 1.6 I's 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4'l 4.1 2 Butte Valley - 3 4 Shasta Valley 5 Scott Valley 6 Salmon River . 7 8 Lower Trinity River 9 10 South Forlc Trinity River_ . _ Southern Trinity County -- 11 12 13 14 15 Big Valley ,_. 16 Mc Arthur 17 Hat Creek IS Montgomerv Creek 19 McCloud River 20 Dunsmuir 21 22 Clear Creek 23 Keswick 24 25 Ohnda 26 Redbank Creek.. 27 Elder Creek 2S Tliomes Creek 29 Stony Creek 30 1.4 31 Middletown .... 32 Stillwater Plains 33 Cow Creek 34 Bear Creek 35 Battle Creek.. . . 36 37 Antelope Creek 38 MiU Creek 39 Deer Creek "- 40 Chico Creek "" 41 42 43 44 North Fork Featlier River. __ East Branch Featlier River Sierra Valley ._ 45 46 47 Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River — 48 Challenge.. "" 49 Wyandotte.. . . 50 51 Anderson 0.9 52 Los Molinos. ._ 53 Fruto .. 54 Orland-. 55 Durham .. I I 56 Colusa 1 3 57 Gridley 58 Browns Valley .. 1 2 59 Cortina 60 Arbuckle 1 '' WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 155 TABLE 44— Continued ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL UNIT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON IRRIGATED CROPS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In feet of depth) ^ ■ ^ Hydrographic unit Crops Refer- ence number Name Alfalfa Improved pasture Meadow pasture Grain and grain hay Truck crops Field crops Deciduous orchard Sub- tropical orchard Rice Vineyard 61 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.6 3.3 3.3 3"i 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 1.1 62 1.1 63 1.1 64 West Yolo __ 65 1.1 66 Woodland 1.2 67 East Yolo - - 1.1 68 69 ._ 70 ._ 71 WiUow Creek _- - 72 Secret Vallev . __ 73 ._ 74 __ 75 Little Truckee River _ __ would increase to about the present level of use in the vallej' areas of 250 gallons per capita per day. It was then assumed that ultimate use in valley communities would increase a proportionate amount and would approximate 390 gallons per capita per day. This estimate is about 60 per cent greater than the present average per capita use in the City of Sacramento. The values of water use estimated for rural domes- tic use under ultimate conditions for both rural-farm and rural-non-farm classifications were 300 gallons per capita per day in the valley areas and 200 gallons per capita per daj^ in upland areas. The values dis- cussed above and presented in Table 45 refer to urban and domestic delivery requirements at the point of use. Con.sumptive use was estimated as 50 per cent of the delivery requirement. Forest Products Water Use The estimates of water use for urban areas include amounts sufficient to provide for light manufacturing and other industries normally found in urban areas. Separate estimates were made of potential water use by the forest products industries, since these amounts may be a significant item in the future requirements of a community. The ultimate output of the forest products industry, based upon United States Forest Service estimates of the sustained yield of commer- cial forests lands within the Northeastern Counties, was estimated by the consulting firm of Pacific Planning and Research as a step in evaluating the ultimate population of the area. The major categories into which the products were grouped are lumber, plywood, fiberboard and paper products, and pulp. Unit values of water use for these items were obtained from information made available by the United States Forest Service and various private companies. TABLE 45 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF WATER DELIVERY REQUIRE- MENT FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENTS, AND FOR RURAL DOMESTIC USES WITHIN THE NORTH- EASTERN COUNTIES (In gallons per capita per day) Item Present Ultimate Urban and suburban 250 160 200 130 390 250 Rural domestic 300 200 Consumptive use of processing water in the produc- tion of fiberboard and paper products, and pulp was assumed to be 10 per cent of the gross requirement. The values used in this report to determine consump- tive use and total water requirements are shown in Table 46. TABLE 46 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF WATER REQUIREMENT AND CONSUMPTIVE USE FOR THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUS- TRY WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Item Unit Requirement Consumptive use Gallons per board foot of product Gallons per board foot of logs used Gallons per ton of chips Gallons per ton of chips 1.0 1.0 10,000 60,000 1.0 1.0 Fiberboard and paper products Pulp - -- 1,000 GOOO 156 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Use of Water for Recreafional Development Included in the ultimate consumptive use and re- quirements for water are estimates of water needed for recreational activities. These estimates were based on user-days as determined b.y the firm of Pacific Planning and Research and tabulated in Appendix A, "Future Population, Economic and Recreation De- velopment of California's Northeastern Counties." The categories comprised permanent and summer residences, commercial resorts and motels, organiza- tional camps, and camping and picnic areas. The unit values of water use, largely estimated from experi- ence and judgment, represent both delivery require- ment and consumptive use, and are shown in Table 47. TABLE 47 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In gallons per user-day) Type of use Unit value of delivery and consumptive use of water Permanent and summer residences Commercial re.sorts and motels Organizational camps 150 100 50 Camping and picnic areas ,. ._ 10 Net Reservoir Evaporation Unit values of net seasonal reservoir evaporation were evaluated or were considered equivalent to the sum of the amount of monthly reservoir surface evap- oration that would be in excess of monthly precipita- tion. In general, net seasonal reservoir evaporation is the sum of the monthly reservoir surface evaporation during the period, March through October, less the precipitation during the same period. The difference represents an increase in water loss from the reservoir area, since it is assumed that all of the precipitation occurring during this period was consumptiveh- used by native veaetation prior to construction of the stor- age works. Evaporation during the period November through February is not included in the net seasonal reservoir evaporation total, since approximately the same amount of water would have been lost to con- sumptive use by native vegetation as would be lost by evaporation. In most instances additional runoff would occur at the dam site after con.struction, since part of the winter rainfall on the reservoir area would have been stored in the soil to be released and consump- tively used during the summer period. Estimates of net reservoir evaporation, however, have not been re- duced by the amount of this additional runoff. Estimates of unit values of net seasonal evapora- tion from existing reservoirs were made on a monthly basis as explained above. Monthly evaporation from each reservoir was determined by relating elevation to available pan evaporation records adjusted for evapo- ration from large water surface areas. ]\Iean seasonal precipitation on the reservoir was determined from an isohyetal map and reduced to monthly values in proportion to the monthly distribution of the precipi- tation at a nearb.y representative station. Estimates of unit values of net seasonal evapora- tion from future reservoirs were determined from a relationship derived by correlating net seasonal evap- oration from existing reservoirs with both elevation and precipitation at future reservoir sites. Based on a review of available data pertaining to use of water by swamp and marsh lands, mean sea- sonal unit values of consumptive use of water were estimated as 30 per cent greater than mean seasonal water surface evaporation. The unit of water use on these lands, comparable to consumptive use of applied water, was determined by subtracting the mean sea- sonal precipitation. CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER Estimates were made of the amount of water con- sumptively used in the Northeastern Counties under present and probable iiltimate conditions. In general, these estimates were derived by applying the appro- priate unit values of water use to the present and estimated ultimate patterns of land use. Present Use of Applied Water Present consumptive use of applied water on irri- gated lands, swamp and marsh lands, and principal reservoirs was estimated by miUtiplying the esti- mated acreage of each type of land use by its respec- tive mean unit value of consumptive use of applied water. Total consumptive use of water in urban and rural domestic development was estimated as the product of the population for each category times the appropriate value of per capita water use. The esti- mate of consumptive use for present urban and rural domestic purposes includes water use for industrial and recreational purposes. Unit values of consumptive use of applied water for irrigated crops were determined on the ba.sis of a full water supply, sufficient to meet the optimum moisture needs of the crop. In many areas of the Northeastern Counties full seasonal water supplies are not presently available, and crops are subject to a deficient irrigation supjDly during summer and fall months. Where this condition exists, the computed values of consumptive use of applied water were re- duced to approximate consumptive use under present water supply conditions. The ratio of actual consump- tive use to ojitimum consumptive use, expressed as a Furrow Irrigation in the Sacramento Valley Dcpiirni!e?it of Water Resources Photograpb DepariDient of Water Resources Photograph 158 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 48 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON PRESENT SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) Hydrographic unit Reference number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Name North Coastal Drainage Basin Tulelake... - Butte Valley Klamath River Shasta Valley Scott Valley _ Salmon River Upper Trinity River — Lower Trinity River_ __ South Fork Trinity River Southern Trinity County... Lake Pillsbury SUBTOTALS Central Valley Drainage Basin Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Hate reek Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunsmuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda... -- Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Clear Lake M iddletown Stillwater Plains Cow Creek --- Bear Creek Battle Creek -- Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Mill Creek Deer Creek Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River East Branch Featlier River Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River. Challenge Wyandotte Anderson Corning LosMolinos Fruto. - - Orland. Durham Colusa Gridley Browns Valley Cortina Arbuckle Sutter.. Marysville Pleasant Grove West Yolo Capay Woodland East Yolo SUBTOTALS Irrigated lands 91,400 18,400 8.800 56,300 44.300 200 3,400 600 1.400 300 225,100 19..500 9,000 58,200 37,100 47,200 15.600 2.100 3. .MO 4,900 200 3.. WO 2.000 600 1.600 2.700 27.100 3.700 1.100 16.300 5.000 6.900 800 300 1 ,500 2.700 500 2.400 13.100 18.500 31,700 7.300 200 2.700 2,. 500 15,. 500 50,600 90,200 61,000 2,200 118.200 123,300 .070,800 466,800 5.900 3.900 60.300 1.55.000 208.500 30.100 400 4.200 197,900 213,800 3,230.600 LTrban and rural domestic population 300 300 100 700 100 400 1,900 500 200 300 200 300 500 300 100 100 700 100 1,300 400 200 400 100 300 200 2,600 1,400 4.000 1.200 2.700 2.400 2,400 400 2,100 4..300 3,300 3,100 36,200 Swamp and marsh lands 9,800 400 3.700 200 14,100 200 4.000 2.300 1.700 300 2,400 100 200 200 4.400 26,500 34,300 300 2,000 200 79,100 Net reservoir evaporation 95,400 7.200 2.400 4,600 34,000 4,300 147.900 400 6.900 29.100 3.. 500 2.700 2.700 200 69.700 6.500 1.600 100 100 7.900 119,600 300 100 200 900 67.500 800 400 200 900 600 200 100 200 900 1,500 325,800 » WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 159 TABLE 48— Continued ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON PRESENT SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) Hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Urban and rural domestic population Swamp and niarsh lands Net reservoir evaporation Reference number Name Totals 68 Lahontan Drainage Basin 41,900 9,700 8,400 8,200 6,700 31,100 10,200 5,500 100 800 300 a 1,500 600 1,200 100 3,000 100 400 800 4,300 100 1.600 11.500 44 300 69 14,000 9 000 70 71 Willow Creek - . . . .. 9,.500 8,400 46,400 10,600 5,900 72 Secret Valley 73 74 SUBTOTALS 121,700 1,200 6,900 18.300 148,100 TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 3,577,400 39,300 100,100 492,000 4,208.800 ■ Less than 50 acre-feet. 160 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 49 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON PRESENT SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Reference number 40 41 42 45 40 48 49 52 55 57 30 S3 56 57 59 GO 53 54 50 57 59 30 31 13 14 15 16 17 42 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 1 12 13 14 15 16 68 40 42 43 Name Butte County Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River Challenge Wyandotte Los Molinos Durham Gridley COUNTY TOTALS Colusa County Stony Creek Clear Lake Fru to Colusa Gridley Cortina Arbuckle COUNTY TOTALS Glenn County Lake Pillsbury Stony Creek Fruto Orland Colusa Gridley Cortina COUNTY TOTALS-. _ Lake County Lake Pillsbury Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown COUNTY TOTALS... Lassen County Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc.\rthur Hat Creek North Fork Feather River Surprise Valley -. Madeline Plains Eagle Lake Willow Creek Secret Valley Susan River Herlong COUNTY TOTALS Modoc County Tulelake Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Surprise Valley COUNTY TOTALS Plumas County Chico Creek North Fork Feather River East Branch Feather River Irrigated lands 500 2,400 600 100 200 13,500 30,700 123,300 335,600 508,900 1,000 1,700 525,700 1,300 2,000 39,800 571, .500 1,400 2,100 117,700 294,800 40,300 462,300 25,400 3,700 29,100 1,900 21.600 9.300 900 3,600 2,400 9,700 8,400 8,200 6,700 31,100 7,000 110,800 53,000 19,500 7,100 58,200 15,.')00 5,300 39,500 198,100 8.900 18,500 Urban and rural domestic population 3,.300 2.700 1,900 8,100 1,100 200 1,200 600 100 1,900 700 100 800 100 800 300 1,400 500 100 100 800 200 400 Swamp and marsh lands 100 4,400 14,400 18,900 12,100 200 12.300 300 200 12,400 5,300 18,200 2,400 2,400 500 1,200 600 1,200 100 3,000 100 6,700 300 200 3,500 100 1,500 5.600 Net reservoir evaporation 900 1,000 200 200 200 2,500 4 ,,500 100 4,600 3,400 3,400 4,300 119,500 300 124,100 4,800 300 1,800 2.200 10,200 4,300 100 1.600 11,500 36,800 57,700 400 2,100 28,800 1,700 800 91,500 56,300 800 WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 161 TABLE 49— Continued ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON PRESENT SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES {In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Name Irrigated lands Urban and rural domestic population Swamp and marsh lands Net reservoir evaporation Totals 44 45 46 47 73 74 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 33 34 35 38 42 50 44 45 47 74 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 16 19 20 fi3 i;7 24 26 27 28 29 35 36 37 38 Plumas County — Continued Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River.- Susan River Herlong COUNTY TOTALS Shasta County Mc Arthur Hat Creek.. Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunsmuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda - Stillwater Plains Cow Creek ._ Bear Creek Battle Creek. Mill Creek North Fork Feather River Anderson COUNTY TOTALS-. .-- Sierra County Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River North Yuba River Herlong Little Truckee River COUNTY TOTALS Siskiyou County Tulelake Butte Valley Klamath River Shasta Valley Scott Valley Salmon River Big Valley --- Mc Arthur McCloud River.- Dunsmuir COUNTY TOTALS Sutter County Colusa Gridley Sutter. Marysville Pleasant Grove East Yolo COUNTY TOTALS. Tehama County Cottonwood Creek ' Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Battle Creek Paynes Creek Antelope Creek MiU Creek Deer Creek Chico Creek 15,700 7,200 50,300 28,100 14,700 2,100 1,000 300 200 2,900 2,000 1,100 16,300 5,000 2,600 40,900 117,200 16,000 2,600 3,200 5,500 27,300 38,400 18,400 8,800 56,300 44,300 200 4,500 2,.500 4,600 178,000 171,300 83.600 155,000 40,200 30,100 68,700 548,900 600 600 1,600 300 4.300 800 300 1.500 2.700 300 900 200 200 300 1.300 100 2.500 4.600 100 100 200 200 300 100 700 100 100 300 500 2.300 500 400 2.100 200 100 3.300 100 a 100 1,000 1,700 100 2,800 400 400 9,500 400 3,700 200 13,800 2,000 14,400 300 200 16,900 400 57,500 500 2,700 200 69,700 6,.500 1,600 100 100 100 200 81,700 300 300 37,700 7.200 2.400 4.600 51,900 15,700 7,900 a 108,700 29,800 19,300 2,300 1,000 300 69,700 6,700 1,600 3,000 2,400 2,500 16,300 5,000 2,900 43.500 206.300 16,100 3,000 3,200 5,900 28,200 85,800 26.300 11,300 65,300 44.600 200 4.600 2.800 5.100 246.000 173.800 98.400 157.400 40.400 30.100 69.000 569,100 600 700 a 1,700 300 4,300 800 300 1.500 2.700 162 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 49-Continued ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON PRESENT SERVICE AREAS (1954 TO 1956) WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Urban and rural domestic population Swamp and marsh lands Net reservoir evaporation 1 Totals Reference number Name 50 Tehama County — Continued 9,700 90,200 30,300 100 500 100 1,400 700 100 a 100 9,900 91,700 31,000 100 500 , 51 63 Pruto - -- COUNTY TOTALS - - 143,500 3,400 600 1,400 300 2,400 a ft 400 100 100 34,000 140,100 37,400 600 1,800 300 Trinity County g 9 rOTTNTY TOTALS 5,700 79,000 1,900 20,500 400 4,200 197,900 145,100 400 200 200 a 3,300 3,000 ft 34,000 1..500 40,100 79,200 1,900 20,700 1,900 4,200 201 .200 148,100 Yolo County 56 60 65 449,000 100 2,500 5,900 168,300 6,700 100 4,100 2,000 1,500 600 600 900 457,200 n 46 Smith Fork Ffither River 47 80(1 3,1011 58 6,8011 62 174,4011 COUNTY TOTALS 176,800 4,200 2,000 2,100 185,100 TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 3,577,400 39,300 100,100 492,000 4,208,800 » Less tlian 50 acre-feel. percentage, was estimated by eomparisou of developed water supplies to potential consumptive iise, and from information furnished by watermasters on availability of water in watermaster service areas. Irrigated lands on the Sacramento Valley floor were evaluated as hav- ing a full water supply available, while in some of the mountain valleys in Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, and Plumas Counties, it was estimated that the available water supply would meet as little as 30 per cent of the potential consumptive use. Estimates of mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water on present water service areas in the Northeastern Counties, based on present developed water supplies, are presented in Tables 48 and 49, by hydrographic units and counties, respectivelj^ Probable Ultimate Use of Applied Water The procedures utilized in estimating probable ulti- mate consumptive use of applied water in the North- eastern Counties were similar to those employed to estimate present consumptive use. The amount ol water that will be used on ultimately irrigated lands; was estimated by multiplying the forecast ultimato acreage of each crop type by its respective unit valut of consumptive use of applied water. Ultimate sea^ sonal consumptive use of applied water by iirban anci suburban, rural domestic, recreational, industrial and swamp and marsh areas and principal reservoir! was estimated as the product of the ultimate level of development and the corresponding unit value o water use. Estimates of ultimate consumptive use of applie( water for irrigated lands are based on the assumptioi that a full seasonal water supply would be availabl to the net crop acreage that might iiltimately b irrigated in any one season. Consumptive use of applied water for urban an< suburban, and rural domestic purposes, was computef as tlie product of the appropriate population esti mates and the unit value of per capita water use. WATER UTILIZATION AND EEQUIREMENTS 163 TABLE 50 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) Hydrographic unit Name Irrigated lands Urban, suburban, rural, domestic population Forest products industry Recreation areas Swamp and marsh lands Net reservoir evaporation Totals North Coastal Drainage Basin Tulelake. Butte Valley Klamath River Shasta Valley Scott Valley Salmon River Upper Trinity River Lower Trinity River Soutli Fork Trinity River Southern Trinity County Lake Pillsbury SUBTOTALS Central Valley Drainage Basin Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley Mc Arthur Hat Creek Montgomery Creek McCloud River Dunsmuir Shasta Lake Clear Creek Keswick Cottonwood Creek Olinda Redbank Creek Elder Creek Thomes Creek Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown Stillwater Plains Cow Creek Bear Creek Battle Creek Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Mill Creek Deer Creek Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River East Branch Feather River Sierra Valley Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River North Yuba River Challenge Wyandotte Anderson Corning Los Molinos Fruto Orland Durham Colusa Gridley Browns Valley ll Cortina Arbuckle Sutter Marysville Pleasant Grove West Yolo Capay Woodland East Yolo — SUBTOTALS 134,700 95,200 30,800 185,.500 80,900 800 3,100 3,800 9,600 7,200 551,600 59,300 12.900 182,200 132,900 91,400 28,100 6,800 4,200 14,600 2,100 500 89,300 17,000 39,200 10,100 42,200 84,700 116,400 17,600 55,300 71,200 31.700 39,400 6,800 2,700 1,800 3,200 3,300 38,700 36,600 52,800 168,300 23,400 1,500 4,900 25,100 71,900 64,300 279,300 173,900 93.400 222,300 190,900 1,277,100 618.800 33,000 136,800 201.600 151,800 398,100 41,900 13,200 18,600 289,800 291,500 1.600 1,000 2.000 4,900 2,000 500 .500 1.300 700 300 800 15,600 400 200 3,000 1,900 2.400 1.900 200 800 3.000 300 200 100 700 900 3.600 100 500 900 9.900 1,100 12.600 1.500 300 800 100 300 200 400 2.200 8.100 5.200 2.000 1.400 3.400 2.. WO 1.400 2.700 13,700 16.900 8.400 7,900 500 8.600 12.200 13.100 4.100 3.600 2.000 7.100 10,600 13.600 200 1,400 3,400 60,400 10.800 200 200 700 1,200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 4,000 1,800 2,100 1,400 900 1,000 2,300 3,300 2.100 1,300 1,200 31,100 400 3,700 200 3,200 100 200 200 500 200 800 700 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 200 100 500 200 100 200 100 200 100 a 8,800 2,100 2.100 2,500 2,500 2.100 21,400 400 400 1,800 1,600 1,800 3,300 1,200 1,300 1,200 1,900 900 200 3,600 100 600 400 1,200 2,300 3,500 600 1,400 500 1,500 500 1,000 700 1,200 1,200 300 4,500 3,500 1,200 3.300 1,100 2,400 1,300 200 300 700 500 1,900 500 600 1.200 « 100 900 100 600 700 300 800 35,400 200 4,000 2,300 1,700 300 2,400 a 100 200 200 4,400 26,500 34,300 300 2,000 200 95,400 8,600 68,500 12.900 4,600 8,700 34,000 .58,300 18,500 21, ,300 4,300 335,100 400 6,900 36,600 20,200 15,800 2,800 3,100 6,500 800 69,700 15,400 1,600 52,500 5,300 12,400 3,000 44,100 132,700 8,100 100 14,000 2,100 4,700 500 4,100 3,600 9,400 143,900 27,300 5,400 19,000 8,900 8,300 6,000 700 .54,100 100 .50,000 900 200 3,200 6,500 15,900 1,500 267,000 107,200 104,100 209,600 88,800 11,200 40,000 66,800 31,000 30,200 6,400 962,300 60,500 20,400 223,900 160.800 113.900 38.300 11.500 13.600 20.300 74.100 17,100 1.900 146,300 23,300 43.400 23.000 47.000 132.300 264.900 27.400 68.000 88.200 ,32,500 44,000 12,100 4,000 3,300 9,000 10,500 56,600 190,700 85.800 176,400 49,300 14,100 17,200 35,200 86,600 144,500 290,600 234,400 94,800 231,100 210,000 1,318,800 660,200 40,400 146,500 208.700 162.800 432.600 42.200 16,700 22,700 350,500 303,300 6,086.400 275,700 25,500 63,300 79,100 828,300 7,358,300 164 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 50-Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) Hydrographic unit Refer- ence num- ber 70 71 72 73 74 75 Name Lahontan Drainage Basin Surprise Valley Madeline Plains Eagle Lake Willow Creek --- Secret Valley — Susan River Herlong Little Truckee River SUBTOTALS TOTALS, NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Irrigated lands 162.400 230,400 12,500 26,500 38,000 132, .500 167,600 15,000 784,900 Urban, suburban, rural, domestic population 2,100 300 400 100 100 4,500 1,100 100 8,700 300,000 Forest products industry 100 100 300 Recreation areas 900 1,000 800 300 1,300 900 500 300 6,000 90,700 Swamp and marsh lands 1,,500 600 1,200 100 3,000 100 400 6,900 Net reservoir evaporation 800 4,300 19,300 2,,300 1,600 12,900 1,700 6.800 49,700 Totals 167,700 236,000 33,700 30,400 41,100 153,900 171,000 22.700 856.500 ' Less than 50 acre-feet. Consumptive use of applied water was estimated to be 50 per cent of the urban delivery requirements. The ultimate consumptive use of applied vpater for recreational pnrpo.ses was determined by multiplying the estimated user-days for each type of use in the recreational areas by the appropriate unit value of gallons per user-day. The totals were then expressed in acre-feet per season and totaled for both hydro- graphic units and counties. The probable ultimate consumptive use for foi'est products manufacture was estimated by multiplying the estimated annual production of lumber and other forest products that would be ultimately processed, on a sustained yield basis, by the appropriate average unit values of water consumed in processing. For the purposes of evaluating consumptive use, the evaporation from water surfaces under ultimate conditions was estimated as the surface area in acres at maximum operating levels for existing reservoirs and tliose included in the Northeastern Counties lui- der The California Water Plan, times the mean sea- sonal net evaporation loss. Seasonal consumptive use of applied water from swamp and marsh lands was computed by multiplying the mean seasonal unit value of consumptive iise by the estimated acreage of such lands. Tables 50 and 51 show, by hydrographic units and counties, respectively, estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water within the Northeastern Counties. WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 165 TABLE 51 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Name Irrigated lands Urban, suburban, and rural domestic population Forest products industry Recreational areas Swamp and marsh lands Net reservoir evaporation Totals Butte County Chico Creek Paradise North Fork Feather River.. Middle Fork Feather River. South Fork Feather River.. Challenge Wyandotte Los iVIolinos Durham Gridley COUNTY TOT.^LS... Colusa County Stony Creek Clear Lake Fruto.-. Colusa Gridley Cortina -- Arbuckle COUNTY TOTALS... Glenn County Lake Pillsbury Stony Creek Fruto. Orland._ Colusa Gridley Cortina COUNTY TOTALS... Lake County Lake Pillsbur.v Stony Creek Clear Lake Middletown COUNTY TOTALS... Lassen County Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley --. Mc Arthur Hat Creek North Fork Feather River.. Surprise Valley Madeline Plains Eacle Lake Willow Creek Secret Valley Susan River Herlong COUNTY TOTALS... Modoc County Tule Lake Goose Lake Jess Valley Alturas Big Valley McArthur Surprise Valley COUNTY TOTALS... 3,000 38,700 8,200 1,500 1,300 71,900 87,200 190,900 464,000 866,700 2.5,200 15,200 621,200 6,600 90,500 137,100 895,800 51,600 92,900 219,200 337,200 42,100 2,200 745,200 100,700 17.600 118,300 3,300 80.600 28.200 700 17,900 6,100 230,400 12,500 26,500 38,000 132,500 157.100 733,800 76,500 .59.300 9.600 182,200 52,300 6,200 156,300 2,100 8,100 3,400 2,000 2,400 ion 13.700 2.900 12,200 3.300 50,200 700 600 6,600 900 3,800 12,600 300 1,800 500 8,600 3.900 300 500 100 6,300 1,100 8,000 100 1,100 400 200 200 100 300 400 100 100 4,.500 1,100 8,600 200 400 100 3,000 800 100 2,000 200 100 400 100 100 2,.500 2,500 900 300 2,100 1,200 900 200 100 300 100 4,400 14,400 5,900 6,000 500 400 700 700 18,900 12,100 200 2,300 300 1.400 A 400 12,300 300 200 12,400 5,300 100 2,100 900 100 2,800 600 18,200 2,400 100 100 100 100 100 100 4,400 200 700 600 300 300 200 1,000 800 300 1.300 900 500 2,400 .500 1.200 600 1.200 100 3.000 100 500 100 100 100 7,100 2,300 400 200 1,800 900 700 6,700 300 200 3,500 100 1,500 3,600 9,800 9,400 56,600 63,700 77,800 11,800 16,600 7,700 12,400 100 700 86.600 90,200 210,000 200 484,700 97,100 1,044,800 4.500 30,900 100 16,300 640.600 6,800 6,500 98,600 140,900 21.100 900 22,000 4,300 132,600 8,100 145,000 4,800 2,900 1,800 5,600 10,200 4,300 19,300 2,300 1,600 12,900 1.700 67.400 57.700 400 2.100 33.700 18,400 800 934,100 600 76,200 94,300 228,000 353,900 47,700 2,200 802,900 5,800 200 244,800 27,400 278,200 8,400 2,900 84,800 36,100 1,300 28,600 6,400 236,000 33,700 30,400 41,100 1.53,900 160,500 824,100 137,100 60,500 12,000 221,000 76,000 6,400 161,300 542,400 6,600 300 6,300 5,600 113,100 674,300 IfiG NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 51 -Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Urban. suburban, and rural domestic population Forest products industry Recreational areas Swamp and marsh lands Net reservoir evaporation Totals Refer- ence num- ber Name 40 Plumas County 10,500 52,800 102,900 21,900 200 1,B00 2,000 400 1,400 100 100 a 100 200 100 a 2,000 3,500 500 2,100 200 100 70,000 27,300 3,,500 7,200 1,200 84,200 85,800 107,300 32,700 1,700 200 43 44 46 47 73 74 COUNTY TOTALS. - 188,300 53,700 27,400 6,800 1,200 1,800 2,100 500 38,700 17,000 55,300 71,200 31,700 16,500 45,300 5,600 1,100 1,700 200 200 300 200 100 300 900 12,600 1,500 300 400 16,800 400 n 400 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 8,800 8,400 700 3,000 1,200 400 700 1,900 900 200 1,500 100 1,400 500 600 100 100 1,000 1,700 a 100 109,200 10,200 2,800 3,100 3,900 69,700 15,400 1,600 7,200 5,300 100 14,000 1,100 19,000 311,900 66,700 37,000 11,500 5,600 2,800 74, IOC 17,100 1,900 47,800 23,300 68,000 88,200 32,500 18,70C 100 90,10C 16 Shasta County 17 Hat Creek .... - 18 19 20 21 22 dear Creek -- -- - 23 24 25 32 Stillwater Plains .._.. 33 Cow Creek -- - - - 34 35 38 Mill Creek - - 42 50 COUNTY TOTALS 369,200 65,400 3,. 500 10,500 15,000 36,600 1,000 800 100 10,100 100 200 100 13,300 700 a 1,700 a 300 2,800 400 133,400 1.900 1,300 6,800 585,400 69, la 7,50( 10,50( 22,700 44 Sierra County 45 47 North Yuba River 74 75 Little Truckee River ~ ~ COUNTY TOTALS 94,400 58,200 95,200 30,800 :S5„500 80,900 800 3,300 3,000 12,800 1,900 1,400 1,000 2,000 4,900 2,000 500 800 800 2,800 400 100 200 700 1,200 200 200 100 700 600 2,700 1,700 1,800 2,100 1,400 900 1,000 500 900 500 400 30,800 400 3,700 200 10,000 37,700 8,600 68,500 12,900 4,600 8,700 2,600 800 109,800 129,900 107,200 104, 10( 209,60( 88,80( Il,20( 4,70( 8,00( 17,50( 1 Siskiyou County Tiile Lake 2 Butte Valley - -- 3 4 5 Scott Valley _ _ . . , 6 15 Bie Vallev - - - 16 19 20 COUNTY TOTALS 470,500 228,200 106,100 151,800 55,200 41,900 87,200 16,200 2,100 500 10,600 MOO 200 1,600 4,000 10,800 800 200 100 100 100 200 35,100 2,000 14,400 300 200 144,400 0S1,00( 2.33, 10( 121,201 162,801 56,401 ■ 42,201 89,2I)( 56 Sutter County 57 Gridley 61 62 63 67 East Yolo COUNTY TOTALS 070,400 50,600 39,200 10,100 42,200 7,900 22,900 16,100 400 3,600 100 500 100 400 100 a 100 100 1,500 2,100 600 400 1,200 300 900 16,900 45„300 12,400 3,000 18,.500 1,000 704,i.i0( 43.K)( 23.l«)( 47,0111 26.SIH 25,301 24 Tehama County 26 Redbank Creek 27 28 29 35 Battle Creek--- - WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 167 TABLE 51— Continued PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (In acre-feet) County and hydrographic unit Irrigated lands Urban, suburban, and rural domestic population Forest products industry Recreational areas Swamp and marsh lunds Net reservoir evaporation Refer- ence num- ber Name Totals 36 37 38 39 40 50 51 52 53 54 7 8 9 10 30 50 59 fiO 04 I'i5 60 67 46 47 48 58 62 Tehama County — Continued 6,800 2,700 1,800 3,200 300 19,000 279,300 86,700 500 3,100 100 300 200 400 100 100 8,400 5,000 a a a 100 100 2,100 2,100 500 1,000 700 1.200 300 200 700 400 u 100 a 4,700 .500 4,100 35,100 100 50,000 12,100 4,000 Mill Creek 3,300 Deer Creek - - - - 9,000 700 54.500 290.600 144,200 500 Orland - 3.100 COUNTY TOTALS 576,300 3,100 3,800 9,600 7,200 19,700 .500 1,300 700 300 4,700 100 100 100 100 10,500 2.300 3,300 2,100 1,300 100 174,700 34,000 .58,300 18,.500 21,300 786.000 Trinity County 40.000 66,800 South Fork Trinity River 31,000 30,200 COUNTY TOTALS 23,700 500 90„W0 44,100 64,500 13,200 18,600 289,800 204,300 2,800 1,200 500 1,100 3,300 1,400 3,400 60,400 9,200 400 9,000 300 500 600 700 300 600 a 132,100 1,.500 168,000 Yolo County Clear Lake --- - --- 2,000 91,000 45,700 67,800 16,700 22,700 350,500 East Yolo - - 214,100 COUNTY TOTALS 725,500 1,400 25,100 33,000 342,900 80,500 500 2.600 3.600 12..500 a a. 100 2,100 3,000 600 1,300 600 800 2,000 1„500 2,000 6,000 3,200 15,900 810,.500 Yuba County 9.500 35.100 Browns Valley _- - 40,400 376,200 COUNTY TOTALS 402,400 19,200 2,200 3,300 2,000 32,100 461,200 TOTALS. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 7,422,900 300,000 29,000 90,700 121,400 1,213,100 9,177,100 ' Less than 50 acre-feet. PROBABLE ULTIMATE WATER REQUIREMENTS TO MEET CONSUMPTIVE USES A clotcrmiiiation was made of the probable iiltiinate ■equirement for water for each hydrographic tniit md county in the area under investigation. This osti- nate represents the gross amount of water required ,0 meet both demands for consumptive n.se of applied .vater and irrecoverable losses incidental to its appli- ;ation, taking into consideration the re-use of return low from water applied within the unit. Such an estimate is the measure of the required water supjily hat ultimately should be developed for the particu- ar hydrographic unit or countj'. In general, the esti- nates of water requirements were derived by dividing ;he consumptive use of applied water by the appro- priate water service area efficiency factor. The various Avater requirements are considered and evaluated separately : for irrigated agriculture ; for urban, suburban, and domestic population; for the forest products industry; and for recreation. The esti- mates of probable ultimate mean seasonal water re- quirements to meet consumptive demands are sum- marized for hydrographic iinits and counties within the Northeastern Counties in Tables 53 and 54, re- spectively. Water Requiremenfs for Irrigafed Agriculture Ultimate seasonal water requirements for irrigation in the Northeastern Counties were estimated by ap- plying appropriate water service area efficiency fac- tors to the seasonal consumptive use of applied water for each hydrographic unit. The resulting estimates represent the amounts of water which should be de- 168 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION veloped and delivered to the land at one or more strategically located points within the nnits to pro- vide for irrigation use and for irrecoverable losses incidental to such use. The first step in determination of the ultimate ir- rigation requirement for water was to divide each hydrographie unit into subareas, largely on the basis of topographic and geologic conditions. Irrigable lands within these subareas were segregated, on the basis of geological conditions, into lands overlying free ground water basin.s and those overlying confined ground water basins or nonwater-bearing materials. In the former case, relatively high water service area efficiencies were assumed, while in the latter case the water service area effleiency was estimated to be some- what lower. Available data and experience in irriga- tion practice in comparable existing fully developed irrigated areas was considered in developing estimated ultimate water service area efficiencies. For each hydrographie unit a weighted average water service area efficiency was computed, based on previously computed subarea efficiencies of irrigated lands overlying absorptive and nonabsorptive mate rials. Ke-use of return flow from one subarea bv another subarea which is topographically situated and geologically adapted to use of the return tlov was also considered as an element in the overall effi- ciency. Return flows of irrigation water were thu^ routed through the entire hydrographie unit in ordei to determine the total requirement for irrigation water. In Table 52 are presented the probable idtimatt irrigation water service area efficiencies within hydro graphic units of Northeastern Counties. Although, a.<- stated above, water service area efficiencies include consideration of the re-use of water applied within thel service area, the,y do not include allowances for unconsumed applied water, either surface or under- ground, from an upper hydrographie unit flowing into and fulfilling a portion of the requirement «°" '^'''"''' ^^-^^-^f^^^-,-^Z2 ^^-tO" •' ' ^ " ' v-^.*iiiiij.u,i.iv.,ij. Total natural population increase, 1040-1950 shows that: (60,806 births minus .30.940 deaths) t approx. 30,000 , , Tx • 1 .1 XI , • , Total net in-migration, 1940-1950 51,100 (aj it IS less tlian tJie population growth rate of Total net in-migration per year, 1940-1950 5,100 4.9 times the rate of employment increase in ^5 (idu (,oo these two industries in California durin"- the * ^'^'® population increase : ,„' ^ '^„„ or 325 percent *-^ 10,066,000 60 years 1880-1940 cited above. state employment increase in 615,000 ,1 , Tx • I. 1 ii i IT J tr J- ,-, n agriculture and lumber and or 73 percent (b) it IS below the rate of 4.45 times the rate of wood products 355, soo employment increase in the same two indus- • ^^s or 4.45 times tries estimated for the growth of California ^ g^,,. Department ot PubUc Health '' IV. METHOD OF ESTIMATING ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IN NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES A. SUMMARY Basically, the estimates of employment aud popu- lation in the northeast counties at ultimate develop- ment were developed from detailed study of present and potential ultimate develoimient of ap'ricultural lands and water, mineral, forest, and recreation re- sources of each county (and of the northeastern county area as a whole) similar to the analysis in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2 and the State Division of Water Eesources Report on Upper Feather Biver Service Area. However, statistical techniques used in translating estimates of ultimate development of natural resources into estimates of population and employment differ from those in the foregoing reports. Trends and patterns of economic development and population growth of the 15-county area as a whole were analyzed and projected to the period of ultimate development (years 2020-2050) based on potential development of the natural resources of the area, the projected growth of the state and national popula- tions, and expected changes in employment patterns of the state and the 15-county area in light of estab- lished long term trends. Estimates of major land uses, employment and pop- ulation were then prepared for each county on the basis of its physical and economic characteristics, potential development of its natural resources, and past and expected patterns and trends of its growth and development in relation to those of the 15-county area and the state as a whole. The aggregates of the estimates for the individual counties are consistent with the magnitudes of popu- lation and employment projected separately for the entire area. Framework of Esfimafes Tlie estimates for the northeast counties were devel- oped within a framework of population projections for the United States (375,000,000) and California (45,000,000) in the year 2050. These projections were developed as described in Section C of this chapter, entitled "Projections of the Populations of the United States and California to the year 2050". The county projections are also based on certain assumptions about the probable relation between pop- ulation and employment expected to prevail in the state and in the 15 northeastern counties at ultimate development. The determination of this relationship (i.e.. the ratio of employed population to total popu- lation) is an essential step in estimating ])opulation growtli based on develoi)ment of local resourees. The data and assumptions used in comiiuting this ratio for the .state aud 15 counties are discussed in Section D entitled "Estimation of Ratio of Total Em- ployment to Total Population at Time of Ultimate Development". Estimates of the distrilnition of employment of county residents among various industries at ultimate development were guided by long-term trends of changes in employment patterns in tlic United States and California described in Section E entitled "Dis- tribution of Employment, United States and Cali- fornia, 1870 — 1950, with Projections." Estimates of ultimate agricultural development and ultimate April 1 employment in agriculture and the timber industry in each of the 15 counties were de- veloped from estimates of potential ultimate irrigable acreage and sustained timber yields in eacn county, provided by the Department of Water Resources and the U. S. Forest Service respectively (Sections F and G). ^4// estimates and projections as to ultimate devel- opment presented in this report are predicated on the assumptions concerning future technologic, eco- nomic and demographic conditions and trends de- scribed under "Assumptions about Living Conditions in 2050" (Section B). County Factors Considered in Preparing Esfimafes The county estimates at ultimate development also are based on study and appraisal of the following specific factors and c(in . . .. 186,291,000 1970'' 196,370,000 1975'" 206,907,000 1980 . . - 215,000,000 1990.. 231,000,000 2000 245,000,000 2010 257,.500,000 2020 269.000,000 2030. 280.000.000 2040 2050- 290.000,000 300,000.000 eastern counties. It also appears possible that this population figure might be reached at any time after the year 2020. Comparability With Other Estimates The 45,000,000 estimate derived by the foregoing analysis is only 2,590,000 larger than the estimate of 42,410,000 for probable ultimate state pojnilation de- veloped by a different method by the State Division of Water Resources and published in State Water Re- sources Board Bulletin No. 2, Volume 1, June 1955, page 220. The projection is quite close to the 45.800,000 esti- mate for California population in 2050 developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Region 2, and published in its "Guide for Forecasting Population Growth," October 1954, page 9. The Bureau estimate for U. S. population in 2050 is 381,700,000 compared with 375,000,000 in Table 7. Also in Table 7, the estimate of 272,500,000 for United States population in year 2000 compared with an estimate of 273,000,000 for that year prepared by Stanford Research Institute in its 1954 report to Weyerhauser Timber Companv, "America's Demand for Wood 1929-1975." TABLE 8 POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA 1900-1950 WITH ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS TO 2050 Year Population California percent of United States I900-- 1.485.053 2.377,549 3,426,861 5,677,251 6,907,387 10,586,223 13,035.000 13,600.000 1.95 1910.- 1920-. 2.59 3.24 1930 4.62 1940-. 5.25 April 1 July 1. 1930 7.00 1955 «. 1956 ■>. 7.89 Julv 1, 8.09 California percent of High Mean Low United States Projections High Mean Low Julv 1 19601' 13.413,000 15,011.000 14.609.000 8.59 8.44 8.28 19651' 17.781.000 17.100.000 16.419.000 0.20 9.01 8.81 1970 =20,000.000 18,800,000 17.600.000 9.. 55 9.27 8.96 1980 25.600.000 22,900.000 20,200.000 10.71 10.09 9.40 1990 '31.200.000 20,730.000 '22.300.000 11. .56 10.68 9.65 2000 36,200.000 30.200.000 24.200,000 12.07 11.08 9.88 2010 41,000.000 33.500,000 26.000.000 12.42 11.40 10.10 2020 43, .500.000 36.6.30,000 27.800.000 12.64 11.65 10.33 2030 49,800.000 39.600.000 29.400.000 12.77 11,82 10.50 2040 54.000.000 42.400.000 30.800.000 12.86 11.94 10.62 2050 58.000.000 43.000.000 32,000.000 12.89 12.00 10.67 » Estimated Ijy tlic Btirciu of the Census. Curcent Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 141. .August 10. 1056. *" High and low prnjections from Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. No. 123. Octohcr 20, 1955. Mean projections are the arithmetical means between the high and low projections atid are not thn.se of tlie Bureau of ttte Census. •^ 1[I90 high projection by Parsons. Bririckerbotf. Hall and Macdouakl. » From 'Talifornia's Population in IIISB." State Department of Finance, .luly 1956. '< Higli and low projections arc from Projected Poiiulation of California by Broad Age Groups. 1956-U)Gfi. State flepartment of Finance. September 1955. "•High projection for 1970 arid the liigh and low projections for liliiO are those de- veloped by Parsons. BrinckerholT. Hall and Macdonald for their report. Reeional Rapid Transit, to the San Francisco Bay .\rea Rapid Transit Commission. January 1956. 218 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION D. ESTIMATION OF RATIO OF TOTAL EM- PLOYMENT TO TOTAL POPULATION AT TIME OF ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT The proportion of the population of an area that is gainfully employed on a particular date is deter- mined by: 1. The percentage of that population which is in the working age group 14 years and older. 2. The percentage of that working age population which is in the labor force (i.e., persons actually em- ployed or seeking work. This percentage is known as the labor force participation rate). 3. The percentage of the labor force that is gain- fully employed. The ratio of total employment to total population therefore is equal to percentage 1. multiplied by per- centage 2. multiplied by percentage 3. Assumpfions Concerning Future Characteristics of County Populations In the past, the populations of most of the 15 north- east California counties have sliown : 1. A higher sex ratio (i.e., number of males per 100 females) than for the nation and state. 2. Larger proportions of children ages 0-14 years than the averages for the nation and state. The long-term trends of the sex ratios and age dis- tribution in the 15 counties, however, have been to diminish their differentials in these respects from the national and state averages. Hence by the time of ultimate development (2020- 2050) it can reasonably be expected that the age dis- tribution and sex composition of the populations of most of the 15 northeast counties will have become about the same as the age-distribution and sex compo- sition of the national and state populations at that future date. Some of the 15 northeast counties, for example, the counties of Lake, Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra, because of their potential attractions for retired elderly per- sons, may have relatively high proportions in the age group 65 and over with consequently smaller percent- ages of their working populations in their labor forces. The effects of these two deviations from the average for the nation, state and other northeast counties would tend to be offsetting. The larger percentage in the age group 65 years and over would increase per- centage 1. but the greater proportion of retired per- sons would tend to reduce percentage 2. Hence, in computing the overall ratio of employment to popu- lation, it has been assumed that the age distribution and sex composition for each of the 15 counties at iiltimate development will approximate the averages for the national and state populations. Estimation of Percentage 1 At Ultimate Development The percentages of the civilian populations of the United States, California and the 15 northeast coun- ties in the working age group 14 years and over in the years 2020-2050 should be larger than in April 1950 because there will then be smaller percentages in the child age grouj^s and higher percentages in the older age groups 65 years and over. A series of popu- lation pi'ojections for the entire United States by the Federal Security Agency to 2050 shows a probable decline of 21 to 4 percentage points from 1950 to 2050 for children ages 14 and younger and a rise of 4| to 7 percentage points for the age group 65 years and over.^ On the other hand, the active working age group 20-64 years which contains most of the gainfully em- ployed will probably decline from 57.5 percent of the total U. S. population in 1950 to 56 or 55 pei'cent by 2050. Again, these changes in the age distribution of the population may have offsetting effects on the ratio of total emplojnnent to total population. The decline of the proportion of the population in the most active working ages will tend to lower the ratio, while the larger proportion in the elderly ages may tend to raise it. In view of the population projections to 2050 by the Federal Security Agency, cited above, the ex- pected range of the age distribution of the popula- tions of California and the 15 northeast counties in 2020-2050 is as follows : PROBABLE RANGE OF AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA AND THE 15 COUNTIES IN 2020-2050 = Age Group Pmhahle Range 0-14 years 23- 25 percent 15-19 years 7- 8 percent 20-64 years 56- 55 percent 65 years and over 14- 12 percent 100-100 percent Another prospect of significance for this study is that the current downtrend of the sex ratio of the national population may be halted and begin to re- verse itself between 1975 and 2000 with the result that the sex ratio will be higher in 2020 and 2050 than it was in 1950. The four series of population projections for the entire United States to 2050 published by the Federal Security Agency in 1952 each assumes that the current relative superiority of female over male mortality will decrease in the future (although abso- lute improvement is shown for both sexes). It is recog- nized that in the past the gap has been widening so that this assumption is contrary to a projection of ^"Illustrative United States Population Projections 19i)2/' by Robert J. Myers and E. A. Razor, Actuarial Study No. 33, Fed- eral Security Agency, November 1952. Population figures in this report include tiie populations of Alaska, Hawaii. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and U. S. armed forces and civilians ovei-seas. - Based on projected age distributions of United States population in Federal Security Agency study cited above. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 219 past trends but is thought to be the most reasonable assumption.^ Hence, it seems likely that the sex ratios of the populations of the United States, California and the 15 northeast counties will be close to unity by the years 2020-2050. In other words the number of males will then be approximately equal to the number of females. Esfimafion of Percentage 2 At Ultimate Development The next question is : In what direction and to what extent will changes occur in percentage 2, i.e., the rate of labor force participation of the working age population? Will the anticipated higher income level and assured lifetime income of the elderly reduce their propensity to seek gainful employment, or will their improved health and increased vitalitj' and longevity (through expected advancements in medical science) together with the expected greater oppor- tunities for non-arduous labor and a desire of the aged to perform such remunerative service to society raise their labor force participation rate? On this point, a recent report by the Bureau of the Census - projects a decline in the labor force partici- pation rate of males ages 65 and over in the national population from 44.7 percent in 1950 to 36.5 percent in 1975. This is a drop of 8.2 percentage points for those 25 years. The same report, however, projects a slight increase from 8.9 percent in 1950 to 9.5 per- cent in 1975 in the labor force participation rate for females ages 65 and over in the national population. The same Census Bureau report also projects an increase from 57.3 percent in 1950 to 59.1 in 1975 in the labor force participation rate of the whole national population ages 14 years and over. The ]irojected rate for males ages 14 years and over drops from 83.3 percent in 1950 to 80.6 percent in 1975, but tlie rate for females ages 14 years and over rises from 31.3 percent in 1950 to 37.5 percent in 1975. A writer on California employment trends has noted : "In the past there has been a close relationship between the working age population (assumed here for convenience to be 15-64 years) and civilian em- ployment in California. However, the employed portion of California's population has beeu declin- ing gradually with time, as it has been in the nation as a whole. In 1880, about 60 percent of California's working age population was employed; by 1950, this ratio had dropped to about 55 percent. If this trend continues, tlie ratio will be about 53 percent in 1970." 3 'Quoted from Federal Security Agrency study, pages 32 and 33. "Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Labor Force, Series P-50, No. 42, December 10. 19.52, Table 1 (A Prelected Growth of the Labor Force in the United States under Condi- tions of High Employment: 19.50-1975). 8 Richard C. Singleton in Growth find Changes in Califnrnia's Population, by Warren S. Thompson, The Haynes Foundation, Los Angeles, 1955, page 296. In view of the much higher level of the population, assured life incomes for most of the elderly group, and the smaller percentages of total employment in extractive activities exiiected during 2020-2050, it seems likely that current definitions and statistical relationships between population, labor force, and employment will have become outmoded by those dates and new concepts, definitions and relationships will have emerged. Especially it seems probable that the labor force will then be divided into two groups, TABLE 9 COMPUTATION OF PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL POPULATION IN THE LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYED IN CALIFORNIA 2020-2050 A. Percent of population 14 years old and over in April 1 labor force, United States and California Males: 14-19 years 20-64 years 65 years and over. 1 4 years and over, total _ Females; 14-19 years 20-64 years 65 years and over 14 years and over, total — .\verage, male and female. United States' 1950 1975 48.9 93.8 44.7 83.3 27.4 35.7 31.3 57.3 43.7 93.2 36.5 80.6 26.3 45.8 9.5 37.5 59.1 California 1950» 2020-2050 39.0 89.2 32.4 78.2 19.7 35.9 7.4 25.0-21.0" 87.0-8,5.0 28.0-25.0 70.7-68.6 12. 0-10. 0> 44.0-40.0 10.0- 8.0 31.0 34.9-34.6 54.1 .52.8-51.6 B. Proportion of total population in April 1 labor force, California, 2020-2050 Males: 15-19 years 20-64 years 65 years and over Females : 15-19 years 20-64 .years Go years and over Average, male and female: C. Percent of total population employed AprU 1, California. 2020-2050 Percent in labor force- Percent employed High Low 25 X .07 = .0175 .21 X .08 = .0168 87 X ..56 = .4872 .85 X ..-JO = .4675 .28 X .14 = .0392 ..5439 .25 X .12 = .0.300 .5143 = 54.39%) ( = 51.43%) 12 X .07 = .0084 .10 X .08 = .0080 .44 X ..56 = .2464 .40 X .OD = .2420 .10 X .14 = .0140 .2688 .08 X .12 = .0096 .2596 = 26.88%) ( = 25.96%) 40.64 percent (liisili) 38.70 percent (low) Percent of whole population employed Average equals. 40.64 percent .96 38.70 percent .94 39.01 36.38 39.01 -t- 36.38 = 37.7 percent 2 1 Data from Bureau of tlie Census. Current Populalion Reports. Labor Force. Series P-50, No. 42. December 10. 1952, Tabic 1 (Includes persons In mlllUry scrvic6) = Data from 'l950 Census of Population, Part 5, Cillfornta. Table 69, page 5-269. 2 .\8c group 15-19 years in 2020-2050. 220 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION one ropresenting persons engaged in or seeking regu- peacetime years, it seems reasonable to assume that lar toll tnue employment and the other representing unemployment in the nation and California in the those who desire and will accept only intermittent or period 2020-2050 will probably fluctuate between 4-6 part-tune employment, devotnig the rest of their time percent. Hence it is assumed that from 96 to 94 per- BurZr^r' '''''"'r" .• . . •^^^^ °^ ^^^^ ^^b^^- ^^'^^ ^^^^ ^e employed at the time But since it is necessary to estimate future employ- of ultimate development, ment, labor toree and population on the basis of cur- rent definitions and relationships, the following as- Summary: Percentage 1 x Percentaae 2 x sumptions appear logical and reasonable for the Percenfaqe 3 purposes of this study. It is tlierefore assumed that t.- „ , . by 2020-2050: l-i inally, therefore, the estimated range of the ratio T rru ^- ^ . °f *o^^l April 1 employment to total April 1 popula- 1. The proportions of youths ages 14-19 in the labor tion in California in 2020-2050 is as f oHows • forces of California and the nation will be much -louows . smaller than in 1950 because their educational period Estimaied Range of Percentages in 2020-2050 should then be materially lengthened. The minimum High Low age for gainful employment will almost certainly be Percent of total population age.s 1.5 years and raised from 14 to 16 years and the labor force partici- over (Percentage 1) __.. 77.0 75.0 •natin.i m+pc. in +h^ ^k Ta u i ';"^'-.'; P'^^i- "-^ Percent of population ages 15 years and over pation lates m the 15-19 year age bracket will proba- in the labor force (Percentage 2) 52.S 516 bly not exceed 25 percent for males and 12 percent Percent of the labor force employed (Percent- for females (see Table 9, Section A). "^^ '"^ 96.0 94.0 -. The labor force participation rates for males ^"'''^ "^ ^"^^^ employment to total population___ 39.0 36.4 ages 20-64 years in California and the nation will (mean = 37.7) 3. The labor force participation rate of males ao'es • '^^'^ '"^*'° °^ ^"^"^^ employment to total population 65 years and over will have declined to 28-25 percent "^ ^'^^ ^'^ northeastern counties at time of ultimate and the rate for females will range from 10 to 8 per- development will probably be slightly below the 37.7 cent. percent average developed above for California as a mv,„„„ „ .■ ^, ,. whole. Reasons for this belief are : inese assumptions then were applied to the pro- jected range of the age distribution of the population ^- "^^^^ larger proportions of rural non-farm popu- in 2020-2050 as shown in tlie statistical analysis in Nation and smaller proportions of urban population Table 9, Section B. expected in the 15 counties than for the state as a In accordance with the previously described trend whole, in sex ratios, it is also assumed that the sex ratio of 2. The proportions of employment in extractive the California population in 2020-2050 will be unity activities and in wood products manufacture are ex- (i.e., equal numbers of males and females). " pected to be relatively larger in the 15 counties than _ With these assumptions, the labor force participa- ^^^ average for the state, tion rate of the population of California affes 15 t 1 +• .• • .• years and over in 2020-2050 will range be ween ?0 7- f."" ' '?? ''^''''!'',T'' ■ '"''' °' '^'' '''''^ ^°"- 68.6 percent for males and between 34 9-34 6 percent ^/^'^ P°P"l^f ^^^ m California are substantially lower for females. For males and females together'the ranoe °! ^%^^ T^'L ^'T '' *^^" *^' corresponding is 52.8-51.6 percent (Table 9 Section A) "" ^ State s urban population. Comparative For the total population of California in 2020-2050 [tf ^°'' "^^"^ ^' ^^^^ """' '^°'''" "' *^' following the pro.iected range is 54.4-51.4 percent for males and p, , , „ , ,. , ,, ,. 26.9-26.0 percent for females ^'"Tn "^ ^T '■,'■"" i'i' ^V"""' I ciiL J.U1 xcmdii;,. and Oi^erm Civilian Labor Force Percent of Sfate Population California, April 1,19.')0 Estimation of Percentage 3 At Ultimate April 1,1950 Total Males Females Development ^^■'^ U'"''''" 53.3 75.2 32.6 J. ■ ■ ., , ^-^ Rural Farm 54.7 83.0 19 8 It IS impossible of course to predict exact levels of ^^-^ Rural Non-Farm 45.2 64.2 2-''0 l7£o7Z'\ '"'^ ""^'"Ploy^-^nt in 2020-2050. It may ^0 Whole Population __._"1T^ ^0 ^^ reasonably be assumed however that periods of econ- so„hc. : v. s. census of Population : 1050, vlme n^art omie recession will then be relatively .short and of ^- chapter b, Table 25. relatively small depth because of th^ advances that Since it seems likely that the rural non-farm popu- wiu doubtless be made in controlling fluctuations of lation of the 15 northeastern counties at the time of economic activity in the future. ultimate development will comprise a considerably bince unemployment on April 1 (as now defined larger percent of tlieir total population than the av- generaily averages about 4 percent in prosperous erage percent for the state population; and because NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 221 the rural non-farm population tends to have a rela- tivelj- low labor force participation rate, it may be expected that the labor force participation rate for the 15 counties in 2020-2050 will be slightly below that for the state as a wliole at that time. Furthermore, larger proportions of total employ- ment in the 15 northeastern counties are in the ex- tractive activities and in wood products manufacture than the corresponding proportions for California as a whole, and male employment in these activities is relatively high while female employment in them is relatively low. Nine of the 15 northeastern counties had slightly higher labor force participation rates for males in 1950 than the California average of 78.2 percent.^ These nine counties were Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, SLskiyou, Sutter and Tehama. Only one of the 15 counties (Plumas), hoAV- ever, equalled the vafional labor force participation rate of 83.3 per cent for males in 1950; all the other counties had lower rates for their males of working age. All 15 counties, however, had much lower labor force participation rates for their females of working age in 1950 than the 30.8 percent for the state and the 31.3 percent for the nation. Hence, the labor force participation rate for the whole population of working age (males and females together) in the 15 counties generally was below the corresponding state and national rates in 1950. It should be noted also that the California rates for both males and females were slightly below the correspond- ing national rates in 1950. Part of this difference probably was due to the higher median income level of the California population, which freed relatively more of the state's population of working age from the necessity of gainful employment. Another clue to the probable labor force participa- tion rates of the northeastern counties in 2020-2050 may be found by examining the rates for Lake County in 1950. These rates were only 71.3 percent for the countj- 's male population ages 14 and over and 24.1 percent for the female population of working age. For males and females together the rate was only 48.3 percent. The unusually low rates for Lake County in 1950 appear to have been due largely to the age dis- tribution of the county's 1950 population, especially the very high proportion (14.7 percent) of persons ages 65 and over. The sex ratio of the population of Lake County in 1950 was approximately 106 and the age distribution of the population was : t 0-14 years 23..3 percent 15-&4 years _' 62.0 percent 65 years and over 14.7 percent Whole population 100.0 The foregoing analysis indicates that the age dis- tribution and labor force participation rate of the populations of the northeastern counties in 2020-2050 may approach that of Lake County in 1950. Hence, it may logically be reasoned that the labor force par- ticipation rate for the population ages 15 years and over in the 15 counties in 2020-2050 probably will not exceed 50 percent, and may be below that figure. This is below the estimated state average rate of (52.8 + 51. G) 2 = •52.2 percent in 2020-2050 (data from Table 9). Assuming an average labor force participation rate of 50 percent of the population ages 15 years and over in 2020-2050, the ratio of total employment to total population in the 15 northeastern counties would be as follows: Percentage 1.— 76 (77 + 75) Percentage 2. — 50 Percentage 3. — 95 (96 + 94) Total Employment — 36.1 percent of total popu- lation Hence, in making the populati(ju pro.jections for the northeastern counties the ratio of April 1 emploj'ment to population at time of ultimate development has been generally assumed to be 36 percent. In applying this assumption to computations for individual coun- ties, however, the percentage has been varied to meet local differences. For Yolo County, which is expected to have a relatively high degree of urban and indus- trial development, the percentage is assumed to be 37.5 percent. In a number of other counties, espe- cially Colusa, Glenn and Sutter, where farm einiiloy- TABLE 10 EMPLOYMENT (APRIL 1) AS PERCENT OF POPULATION IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES: ESTIMATES FOR ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT, YEARS 2020-2050 '1950 Census of Population, Vol. II, Part 5, Chapter B, Tables 10 and 12. Population Employment Employment as percent of population Butte 284,000 68,000 85,000 65.000 67,,500 51,100 44,700 195,000 16,000 127,200 121.800 105.100 22.000 390.000 105.000 102,200 26,500 32,080 21,000 24.930 18.510 16,080 70.200 5,7.50 46,180 47,180 36,800 7,925 146,2.50 37.750 36.0 39.0 Glenn 37.7 32.3 36.9 36.2 36.0 36.0 35.9 36.3 38.7 35.0 36.0 Yolo - .-- - 37.5 36.0 Total 1,747,400 .639,335 36.6 222 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION ment is a relatively high proportion of total employ- ment or is relatively high in comparison with farm population, the employment to population ratio of .36 was applied only to non-farm employment instead of to total employment. Lake County is assumed to have a relatively low ratio of employment to population. For the 15 counties as a group, this procedure re- sults in an average ratio of estimated April 1 employ- ment to population at ultimate development of 36.6 percent. In the case of some counties, the difference between 36 percent and the figure shown in Table 10 is due to rounding of population estimates or employ- ment estimates or both. E. DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT, UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA 1870-1950 WITH PROJECTIONS Purposes and Uses of Data in Tables 1 1 and 12 Tables 11 and 12 were prepared to show the direc- tions and rates of shifts iu the functional distribution of employment in the United States and California, by decades, 1870-1950. These tables .show clearly the continuous decline in both the United States and California of the propor- tions of employment provided by the extractive ac- tivities and the continuous rise in the proportions employed in "Other Employment" (i. e., in construc- tion, distribution and service activities) . Similar analyses for other states show the same general trends. The universality of these long term trends in em- ployment patterns provides the basis for projections of the distribution of employment in the northeastern California counties and for projections of total em- ployment therein at the stage of probable ultimate development, including full utilization of their natu- ral resources. Sources of Data in Tables 7 1 and 72 Percentage distribution of employment 1870-1950, was computed from data in Employment Expansion and Population Growth, The California Experience 1900-1950 by Margaret S. Gordon, University of Cali- fornia Press, 1954, especially Tables A-13, A-14, A-17, A-18, and A-19. TABLE 11 TRENDS IN FUNCTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 54.2 51.6 43.8 40.7 34.3 30.2 24.9 20.9 14.1 52.3 0.4 1.5 16.2 49.4 0.5 1.7 17.7 41.2 0.7 1.9 18.3 37.6 0.7 2.4 19.4 31.1 0.6 2.6 22.4 27.0 0.6 2.6 25.1 22.1 0.5 2.3 22.6 18.7 0.2 2.0 23.5 12.2 0.2 1.7 25.9 3.6 12.6 3.5 14.2 3.3 15.0 3.1 16.3 3.5 18.9 2.6 22.5 2.4 20.2 2.0 21.5 2.1 23.8 29.6 30.7 37.9 39.9 43.3 44.7 52.5 55.6 60.0 TABLE 12 TRENDS IN FUNCTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA Industry Group 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Esti- mated .\pril 1956 (Tentative) Ultimate Development 2020-2050 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 46.5 41.0 35.3 31.1 21.9 19.7 16.4 12.9 8.4 8.9 3.4 29.3 1.7 15.5 14.2 28.6 2.1 10.3 17.5 29.0 1.7 4.6 16.7 25.0 1.4 4.7 17.7 17.9 1.2 2.8 17.9 17.2 0.8 1.7 21.0 13.7 0.6 2.1 17.0 10.7 0.3 1.9 16.8 7.3 0.3 0.8 19.6 7.8 3 0.8 22.3 2.8 Estimated 0.1 Assumed 0.5 Assumed 22.5 Assumed 4.6 9.6 4.8 12.7 3.5 13.2 3.1 14.6 3.2 14.7 2.8 18.2 1.8 15.2 1.6 15.2 1.8 17.8 - 0.8 Assumed 21.7 Assumed 39.3 41.5 48.0 51.2 60.2 59.3 66.6 70.3 72.0 68.8 74.1 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 223 Percent of total employment in liimbez- and wood products manufacture was computed by multiplying percentages of total manufacturing production work- ers employed in lumber and wood products by the percentage of total employment engaged in manufac- turing in the nearest census year (Tables A-18 and A-19 in Gordon report). Percentage distribution in Table 12 for April 1956 was computed from data in Monthly Report on Em- ployment and Unemployment in Californiei, published by the State Departments of Employment and Indus- trial Relations. F. ESTIMATION OF FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Farms, Farm Population and Employment According to the projections made for this study, the number of farms in the northeastern counties at time of ultimate development will be approximately twice the present number. These farms will support roughly twice the farm population and farm employ- ment i-oported in the 1950 Census of Population. Increase in Irrigated Acreage This expansion is predicated upon full develop- ment of irrigation through the California Water Plan. The State Department of Water Resources estimates total net irrigable acres in the northeastern counties at 3,803,900. This is 3.5 times the irrigated acreage reported by the 1950 Census of Agriculture and 3.0 times that reported by the 1954 Census of Agriculture. Total land in farms is not expected to change much from the present acreage ; land in irrigated farms will be greatly increased while land in non-irrigated farms will be greatly decreased. Average size of farm will be reduced to about half the present figure. Expansion of irrigated acreage will take place in part through additions to the irrigated acreage of ex- isting irrigated farms, and in part through creation of entirely new fai-ms on land made useful for crop- land or pasture by irrigation. Reversal of Trend Toward Larger Farms The projected increase in number of farms and in farm population and employment presumes a reversal of the present state-wide trend. In recent decades, in- creases in irrigated acreage have resulted largely in an increase in the average size of farms, rather than an increase in number of farms and farm population. For example, between 1930 and 1950 irrigated acre- age in the state increased from 4.7 million to 6.4 mil- lion ; farm population declined slightly from 620,000 to 617,000; and average size of farm increased from 224 acres to 307 acres. The increase in size of farm was almost entirely accounted for by an increase in the size of irrigated farms. Development in the north- eastern counties has followed a similar pattern. Assumptions Underlying the Projections In ]iresuming that there will be a reversal of the present trend, this study bases its projections on the following assumptions : 1. Estimates of agricultural development in tlie nortlii>ast('rii counties should indicate the maximum development possible witli full use of water resources. 2. Population pressure will require higher ratios of people to land, and every productive acre of farm land will be called upon to supjxirt a ma.ximum share of population. 3. To achieve a maximum ratio of people to farm land, farm land will be shifted generally into the most intensive use of which it is capable. This process will be aided by technological inii)rovcments which cannot now be predicted. 4. Farms will attract a large niimbcr of people as desirable places to live and make a living in the Jiighly urbanized nation of the future. State-wide Increase in Irrigated Acreage The State Division of Water Resources has esti- mated tliat a gross area of 19,050,000 acres is siiitable for irrigated agriculture and that "under ultimate conditions of development in the State a net area averaging about 16,250,000 acres will actually be irri- gated ' ' ( State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2, page 222). This estimate is very close to that of Varden Fuller of the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Eco- nomics, who has written : "In combination, the various accelerating forces may approximately offset the growing resistances to the development of water resources and the achievements from their use. If so, the decades im- mediately ahead may see irrigation expansion at near the average of the past half century, namely, at an average of a million acres per decade. If de- velopment were to be at that rate, the estimated ultimate development of 17 million acres will be achieved by about 2050. If the accelerated rate of 1940-1950 were to he maintained, the ultimate would be reached by 2020" (from Chapter XVIII of Orowth and Changes in California's Population, by Warren S. Thompson, the Haynes Foundation, Los Angeles 1955, pp. 288-289). Basis for Population Increase It has been noted that increases in irrigated land in California provide a basis for increased popula- tion. In studies for the Central Valley Project, the Bureau of Reclamation stated: "The development of water and power affords new economic opportunities in agriculture and in- dustry which can support an increjased population. This factor is of prime importance in California 224 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION where tlie population lias expanded and probably will continne to expand nuit-h more rapidly than in the rest of the United States'" (Report of U. S. De- partment of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cen- tral Valley Basin, August 1949 ; printed as Senate Document 113, Slst Congress, 1st Session, page 63). Ratio of New Irrigated Acreage to New Farms The Bureau of Reclamation report estimated that an increase of 3,860,000 in irrigated acreage in the Central Valley basin would provide a basis for crea- tion of some 51,000 new farms — a ratio of 75.7 new irrigated acres per new farm (Report, page 198). The projections presented in this report indicate that for the state as a whole, the increase in irrigated acreage from 7,048,049 in 1954 to 16,250,000 in 2050 will resnlt in an increase in number of farms from 123,074 in 1954 to 220,000 in 2050— a ratio of 94.9 new irrigated acres per new farm created. For the 15 northeastern counties, the indicated in- creases are 2,525,837 irrigated acres and 15,639 farms — a ratio of 161.5 new irrigated acres per new farm created. It is clear that the ratio for the 15 counties results in a conservative estimate of the increase in number of farms compared with increases indicated by the state and Central Valley ratios. The ration of new irrigated acres to estimated new farms in each of the northeastern counties is shown in Table 13. TABLE 13 AVERAGE NUMBER OF NEW IRRIGATED ACRES PER NEW FARM IN 15 NE. COUNTIES FROM 1954 TO 2050 Additional irrigated acres New farms Ratio of new acres to new farms 196,872 236,971 196,889 60,102 388,282 227,328 85,899 162,9.39 34.899 249.648 99,266 246,434 13,036 215. .582 111.690 1,112 1.834 2,462 304 1,348 1.101 249 971 214 1,375 808 1.053 15 2,272 521 177.0 129.2 80.0 Lake - 197.7 288.0 206.5 345.0 Shasta - - - - 167.8 163.1 181.6 122.9 Tehama - . . 234.0 869.1 Yolo - 94.9 Yuba 214.4 Total - 2,525,837 9,201,951 15,639 96,926 161.5 gtate - 94.9 Procedure for Estirriating Farm Population and Employment Most of the figures presented in Table 14 and Tables 54-69 are historical data from the Census of Agricul- ture for 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1954. These data have been used to indicate current trends in agricultural development, and to provide a beucliniark for esti- mates of ultimate development (2020-2050). Key determinations for ultimate development are the following : Irrigated land in farms is the estimate of net ir- rigable acreage made by the State Department of Wa- ter Resources from its 1956 laud elassificatiou survej'. To obtain number of irrigated farms, this figure has been divided by an assumed average of irrigated acres jjer irrigated farm. The latter is a judgment figure based on the historical Cen.sus data, on probal)le ulti- mate crop patterns, and on opinions of agricultural experts interviewed in the various counties. Much assistance was obtained from Circular 173 of the Cali- fornia Agricultural Extension Service, Farming in California. May 1951. It should be noted that the assumed figures of irri- gated acreage per farm are generally higher than those indicated in Circular 173. Effort was made to liave the assumed average reflect local conditions, in- cluding length of growing season and the probable ultimate crop j)attern of each countj'. In general, average irrigated acreage per farm is assumed to be greater where farming is expected to be predominantly extensive — livestock and pasture — and smaller where the dominant type of cultivation will be more intensive — field croj^s, truck crops, and orchards. Average size of farm represents a judgment as to the minimum economic unit required to support a farm famih-. It is based on the same factors as the estimate for irrigated laud in farms, namely, past trends, the judgment of local farm experts, and con- siderations set forth in Circular 173. The estimates for average size of farm used in the projections are considerably larger than the estimates of minimum economic unit made by expert sources. Total land in farms is an estimate based largely on recent Ceiisiis data, and on consideration of the expansion believed likely to take place in other land uses such as urban and recreational. A precise esti- mate of total land in farms in each comity is not now available because the Census Bureau reports land in farms according to the county in which the farm headquarters is located. This means that some farm land credited to a specific county is located outside it ; and some farm land in the county is not credited to it. Unless these acreages happen to balance, the re- ported Census figure overstates or understates actual land in farms in the county. Average population per farm equals total farm population divided by number of farms as reported by the Census Bureau. Estimates of average popula- tion per farm at time of ultimate development are based on projected changes in average size of farms and employment required per farm. The figures rep- resent all persons living on farms, and not solely members of the primary farm household. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 225 TABLE 14 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) — % of land in farms % land in irrigated farms Avg. per irrigated farm (acres) A^'e^age size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population April 1 — total.. Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm: average per farm. % state population No. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1,000 acres .Average per farm 135,676 85,784 49,892 ,442,581 ,018,864 ,423,717 ,746,632 15.6 39.5 55.3 224.4 140.1 369.3 620,506 41.156 579,350 4.. 57 10.9 20.38 334.241 57.7 13.36 10.98 2.46 132,658 84,310 43,348 .30,524,324 14,071,222 16,453,102 4,276,554 14.0 30.4 .50.7 2.30.1 166.9 .340.3 670,426 35,037 635,389 5.05 9.71 21.96 265.871 41.8 10.74 8.71 2.00 137.168 90,755 46,413 36,613,291 20,562.873 16,050,418 6,438,324 17.6 31.3 70.9 266.9 226.6 345.8 617,367 '49,136 '568,231 4.. 50 5.83 16.86 286.642 50.4 7.35 7.83 2.09 123,074 84,502 38.572 37.800,380 22,967.240 14,8.33.140 7,048.049 18.6 30.7 83.4 307.1 271.8 .384.0 220,000 203.500 16.S00 37,500.000 32,.50O,00O 5,000,000 •16,250,000 43.3 50.0 80.0 170.0 160.0 300.0 1,070,000 1,070,000 4.9 2.4 28.5 480.000 44.9 2.8 12.8 2.2 I NVvv definition. Old: Urban farm — 32.204. Hural farm — 585.163. XiiTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." • SWRB Bulletin No. 2, page 222. Average employment per farm is also estimated piiinaril}^ from the Census data. Consideration was given also to ultimate crop patterns and to farm lal)(ir requirements, as estimated by the Agricultural Extension Service. Average emi)loyment per farm is e.stimated as of April 1, and therefore tends to rep- ri'sent the permanent farm labor force. It is assumed that seasonal farm requirements will be supplied both liy migratory labor and bv^ residents who are not in the labor force on a year-around basis. All other figures shown in the "ultimate" column I of the tables on farm population and employment are derived from the foregoing key determinations. G. ESTIMATION OF APRIL 1 EMPLOYMENT IN j LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUS- TRIES IN 15 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES UNDER CONDITIONS OF PROB- ABLE ULTIMATE SUSTAINED YIELD I The employment estimates for lumber and wood I products industries shown in Table 15 are derived I essentially from sustained yield capacity estimates I supplied by the U. S. Forest Service, California Re- [ gion, and employment factors published bj' Ralph "W. ! Marquis, Forest Economist, U. S. Forest Service, in 1 the Journal of Forextry, May 1948. I Sustained Yield 1 The estimates of sustained yield capacity are pro- vided in a letter from B. H. Payne, Assistant Regional Forester, Division of Timber Management, U. S. For- S— 16762 est Service, California Region, to California State Division of Water Resources, dated March 13, 1956, reference "S-PLANS — Timber Management." The estimates, according to W. R. Howden of the Timber Management section, are sustained j'ield ca- pacities of timber areas and working circles in the 15 northeast counties, allocated as ])recisely as possible to individual counties. Both public and jirivate forest lands are included. The "ultimate sustained yield capacity" for the commercial forest land in each county is based upon the a.ssumption that all lands capable of growing com- mercial forest stands would be used for that purpose, and that an average stocking capacity of 80 percent would be obtained. The acreages in commercial forest stands used in these estimates are tho.se shown by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station of the U. S. Forest Service in Forest Survey Release No. 25, December 1954, Table 12. Sustained yield capacity is compared with esti- mates of current j^roduction of saw timber in Table 16. Employment Factors The employment factors for logging, rough lumber (sawmills) and "all other" wood products manufac- ture in Standard Industrial Classification Groups 24 and 25 are taken from the article by Ralpli W. Jlar- quis entitled "Employment Opportunities in Full Forest Utilization," Journal of Forestry, May 1948. These factors are preseiiti>d in Tables 17 and 18. ■i 1 226 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Marquis estimates the employmeut which might re- sult from full utilization of the timber resources of a typical area in the Douglas fir region of Oregon and Washington. The labor requirement factors used in his e.stimates, though not tested against specific ex- perience in the California pine, fir and Douglas fir re- gions, appear to be in general agreement with em- ployment ratios of timber operators in the northeast counties. For example, Marquis shows that under present utilization there are approximately 10.0 men per mil- lion board feet of sawtimber cut, employed in logging, primar.y manufacture including rough lumber and plywood, and remanufacture including planing mill products, box and shook. These are the principal lumber industry operations now found in the north- eastern counties. The ratios reported by timber oper- ators during a survey of the northeastern counties in July-August 1956 ranged from 6.0 to 12.0 men per million board feet of sawtimber cut, depending on the range of operations performed. For comparison, state- wide employment in 1952 in lumber and wood prod- ucts industries (excluding pulp and paper products) averaged 12 persons per million board feet of saw- timber cut that year. This ratio included furniture prodiiction which is not presently a factor in the northeastern counties. Full Ufilizaiion The concept of full utilization used by Marquis is based on the historical trend, demonstrated in timber areas of the East and Pacific Northwest, that "with the diminishing availability of an area's accessible TABLE 15 EMPLOYMENT (APRIL 1) IN TIMBER INDUSTRY 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 1940, 1950 AND ULTIMATE 1940 1950 At ultimate sustained timber yield Lumber and wood products (SIC Gps. 24, 25) Pulp and paper (SIC Gp. 26) Total Butte 964 11 10 56 2,540 671 1,129 499 295 3,027 9 42 24 47 54 1,761 27 25 145 1,894 664 1,.527 2,323 170 3,201 100 451 644 68 543 2,073 74 332 517 1,636 1,156 3,215 4,531 1,380 6.863 2.542 1.902 859 1,978 3,487 856 1,721 837 4,051 Glenn 332 Lake Lassen. — 1,636 1,156 3,215 8,018 1,380 7,719 Shasta Sierra . . _ Sutter Tehama 4 "'63 1,902 Yolo 1,696 Total 9,378 13,. 543 27,080 8,879 35,959 timber resource, that area will shift to the production of more final and less primary products from its modi- fied resource base — the net result of such a shift shows that greater emploj'ment maj' be obtained from a given resource input" ("Walter J. Mead, "The For- est Products Economy of the Pacific Northwest," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin, May 1956). California's forest industry is now based primarily j on the single product of lumber. In 1952, employment ( in the indu.stry averaged 68,097 persons, or 11.9 per- TABLE 16 CURRENT TIMBER PRODUCTION AND SUSTAINED YIELD CAPACITY OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (Production in millions of board feet of sow timber per year) Butte Colusa — Glenn Laice Lassen — Modoc — Plumas-- Shasta — Sierra Sisliiyou-. Sutter Tehama,- Trinity... Yolo Yuba Total Current (1952-45 average') 147 37 24 202 104 366 377 95 378 92 262 Ultimate sustained yield capacity^ 135 6 27 42 133 94 295 303 138 558 166 326 2,267 1 California State Department of Natural Resources. Division of Forestry, annual reports on commodity production of forest products. -U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. California Region, letter from B. H. Payne to C;ilifornia State Division of Water Resources, Marclj 13, 1956. TABLE 17 LABOR REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION IN LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES (Present Utilization) Logging Thinning Rough lumber Dressed lumber-. Mill worlc Box Furniture Caskets Sliingles Plywood Pulp Paper and board. Molasses .\lcohol Unit IMM bd. ft. saw timber- M cords MM bd. ft MM bd. ft. lumber used MM bd. ft. lumber used MM bd. ft. lumber used MM bd. ft. lumber used IMM bd. ft. lumber used M squares MM sq. ft M tons M tons Ton M gal - Number employed Marquis* 3.40 5.00 3.25 1.75 15.00 7.. 50 80.00 10.00 0.63 5.44 3.65 7.25 Forest service^ 3.. 35 3.25 1.75 15.00 7.50 0.63 5.40 3.25 6.50 4.50 6.00 I Ralph W. Marquis, "Emplo.vment Opportunities in Full Forest Utilization." "Jour- nal of Forestr.v," May 194S. - U.S. Forest Serncc, Report on Timber and Range Resources of the Upper Klamath Basin, in departmental report entitled "Upper Klamath River Basin." U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, June 1954. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 227 TABLE 18 EMPLOYMENT RATIOS IN LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES WITH FULL UTILIZATION Expressed as persons employed per MM bd. ft. of saw timber cut l,oLji;inK llnimh lumber l'l\ vMiod. shinffles and cooperage, planing, furni- ture, mill work, box shook, etc ,1 board I \ I'rted paper products I-' ff sawmill waste Total Marquis^ 0.66 1.50 Used for this report^ 7.0 3.3 4.8 1.8 2.4 0.5 19.8 iSee fonlnnte 1. Table 17. ^ Derived from Marquis, adjusted aocoriUng to lulmi- reciuiiemciits shown in Forest Service report (Table 17). sons per million board feet of sawtimber ent that year. Marqnis' typical Douglas-fir area shows under present utilization 11.6 persons employed per million board feet of saw timber cut ; under full utilization, the same area has a potential for employment of 22.7 per.sons per million board feet. The increased em- ployment is accounted for by salvage of cull timber and logging residues in the forest, by greater reman- ufacture of rough lumber, and by fuller use of log- ging and milling residues suitable for production of pulp, paper, hardboard and softboard, and other con- verted paper products. The current rate of cutting in California forests is roughly double the current rate of growth of saw- timber. Some excess of growth over cut is reasonable and necessary because of the dominance of recent old- growth timber which makes little contribution to net I growth. I "However, there is substantial evidence to indicate fthat the cut from California forests has reached a plateau level and that further significant increases in jthe volume of cut are not likely. Further expansion I of the forest industries to contribute to the support of :the expanding population and to add to the supply I of needed forest products in the state must come pri- marily from increased use of the timber cut rather 'than fi-om increases in the volume cut" (from draft I report of the Cooperative Study on Waste Treatment and Disposal Aspects of Development of Pulp and Paper Resources of California, by the State Water Pollution Control Board and cooperating agencies, June 21, 1956). Apr/7 ] Employment Estimates of annual .employment in lumber and wood products industries have been adjusted to an April 1 level for consistency with present methods of reporting population and employment used by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. Data of the California State Department of Employment and Department of Industrial Relations were used to formulate sea- sonal adjustment factors based on current experience. A special tabulation of employment in logging camps, sawmills and planing mills in the 15 north- eastern counties, prepared by the State Department of Employment for this study, shows the following April 1 employment levels (average of March and April) : April 1 emplo.vmpnt, 15 counties, as percent of .vcar averaee : Logging camps anil contractors.. Sawmills and planing mills J!).-iO 57.3 84.4 I'jr,! 78.5 92.4 For the .state as a whole in 1950, the April 1 level of logging employment was 65 percent of the year average; the level of employment in sawmills and planing mills was 84 percent. For the state as a whole, State Department of Em- ployment data show April 1 employment in the lum- ber and wood products industry (excluding furni- ture) has averaged 91 percent of the annual average in recent years (Table 19). TABLE 19 EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES AS OF APRIL 1 AS PER- CENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT Year Lumber and wood products. excluding furniture Furniture and fixtures Paper and allied products 1950 1951_. 84.1 94.1 89.9 95.6 91.3 91.9 95.8 104.6 96.0 104.9 98. 5 98.5 92.2 1952 96 1953 1954 1955 96.4 97.4 96.9 Average 91.2 99.7 96.4 SOURCE: State Department of Employment — "Odifornia Employment & Payrolls 1950"; State Department of Industrial Relations — "Ilandliook of California Labor Statistics." 1951-1952 and 1953-1!)54: '■Estimated Number of Waee and Salary Workers in Non-Agricultural Establishments, by Industry, California 1939-1055" (March 1956). Pulp, Paper and Board The estimates of employment in wood pulp, paper and paper board manufacture in Table 15 are based on the following assumptions : 1. Annual production of pulp material in the 15 northeastern California counties, with a sustained yield of 2,267 million board feet of saw timber jier year, will approximate 220,000,000 cubic feet of solid wood residues (forest residue plus coarse mill resi- due). This is the framework of the assumption by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station that total material available for pulp production in the State, with a sustained yield of 4,000 million board feet per year, will approximate 385,000,000 cubic feet per year. r 228 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION 2. Tlie 220,000,000 cubic feet of pulp material will yield about 550,000,000 cubic feet of wood chips (@ 80 cubic feet solid wood equals 200 cubic feet of chips). 3. The 550,000,000 cubic feet of chips will pvodiice approximately 1,375,000 tons of pulp (@ 400 cubic feet of chips per ton of pulp). To allow for some diversion of pulp material to other uses, this estimate is reduced to 1,285,000 tons of pulp per year for em- ployment estimate purposes. The latter figure is selected because it is consistent with the pulp production estimate resulting from the Cooperative Study on Waste Treatment and Disposal Aspects of Development of Pulp and Paper Re- sources of California, by the State Water Pollution Control Board and cooperating agencies, July 31, 1956. The Cooperative Study estimated that under sustained yield conditions (-1,000 million board feet per year) and with minimum diversion of sawlogs from existing wood processing industries (only about 10 percent of sawlogs would go to the pulp mills), tliere would be sufficient pulp material to support mills with a daily capacity of 6,445 tons, including the existing mills at Antioch and Ukiah. On a proportional basis, the 15 counties would pro- duce sufficient material to support mills with a daily capacity of approximately 3,675 tons ( @ 350 working days per year). The 15 counties, with 57 percent of the state's sustained yield of saw timber, would presumably have at least 57 percent of its pulp ma- terial. However, it is estimated that only about 85 percent of this pulp material would be processed in the 15-county area. 4. Employment in pulp mills would be on the order of 3.25 men per 1,000 tons produced, per year. This ratio is used by the U. S. Forest Service in its report on timber and range resources of the Upper Klamath Basin (published as part of report by U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Klamath River Basin, June 19.54). It is somewhat below the ratio of 3.65 men per 1,000 tons used by Marquis in his Journal of Forestry article. May 1948. 5. Employment in paper and board production would be on the order of 6.50 men per 1,000 tons of paper and board production. The latter is assumed to be two-thirds of pnlp tonnage, as indicated by Mar- quis. The ratio of 6.50 men per 1,000 tons is used by the Forest Service in the Upper Klamath Basin re- port. It is somewhat lower than the ratio of 7.25 men per 1,000 tons used by Marquis. Use of the foregoing assumption results in a range of estimates of total employment generated by the area's pulp material output of 9,700 to 10,300 em- ployed per year (Table 20). The total of county esti- mates shown in Table 15 is somewhat below this range, due to adjustment to an April 1 basis and al- lowance for i)ulp material processing outside the 15- county area. 6. It is assumed that the location of mills produc- ing pulp, paper and board will be confined generally TABLE 20 TOTAL YEARLY EMPLOYMENT IN PULP, PAPER AND BOARD PRODUCTION RESULTING FROM SUSTAINED YIELD CUTTING PROGRAM AND FULL FOREST UTILIZATION IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Estimate No. 1 (1) State output of pulp material assuming sustained yield of 4,000 million board feet saw timber _._ _ = 385,000,000 cu. ft. (2) 1.5-county output of solid pulp material assuming sustained yield of 2,267 million board feet saw timber (56.7% of state total) = 218,295,000 cu. ft. (3) 218,295,000 cu. ft. solid pulp material (@ 80 cu. ft. solid wood = 200 cu. ft. chips).. = 545,737,500 cu. ft. chips (4) 545,737,500 cu. ft. chips (@ 400 cu. ft. chips = 1 ton pulp) = 1,364,340 tons pulp ( = 602 tons pulp/MM bd. ft. logs) (5) Daily capacity @ 350 days/year 3,898 tons (6) 1,364,340 tons pulp = employment of 4,434 in pulp (@ 3.25 men/M tons pulp) 5,912 in paper and board (@ 6 . 50 men/M tons paper and board) (1 ton pulp = 2^ ton paper and board) Total 10,346 Estimate No. 2 (1) state sustained yield of 4,000 million bd. ft. saw timber will provide enough pulp material for 6,445 tons daily capacity of mills. (State Water Pollution Control Board, Cooperati^■e Study) (2) 15 northeastern counties, with 2,267 million bd. ft. of saw timber (56.7% of state total) will provide enough material for 3,650 tons daily capacity of mills. (3) 3,650 X 350 days = 1,277,500 tons/year (4) 1,277,500 X 3.25 = 4,152 men in pulp (= 1.83 men/MM bd. ft. saw logs) 852,000 X 6. .50 = 5,538meninpaperandboard(= 2.44men/MM ft. saw logs) Total 9,690 Note: These estimates represent total yearly emploj'ment pro\ided by all pulp material produced in the 15 counties. The estimate used for the 15 counties — 8,879 — represents April 1 employment, from approximately 85 percent of the pulp material produced in the area. TABLE 21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF AAAJOR TIMBER PRODUCTS IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES AT SUSTAINED YIELD County Lumber (MM bd. ft.) Plywood (M sq. ft.) Pulp (M tons) Paper and paperboard (M tons) Butte 286 6 27 42 134 95 149 417 140 566 168 111 45 21,840 985 4,360 6,790 21,520 15,195 47,730 66.610 11,150 90,285 44,440 8,000 18,290 244 431 106 213 103 156 Glenn "" "■ Lassen . _ "" ~- Plumas . " Shasta . 276 Siskiyou Tehama Trinity. 68 135 Yuba 66 Total... 2,186 357,200 1,097 701 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 229 to central valle}' counties such as Shasta, Tehama, "Butte, Yuba, and perhaps Siskiyou. These counties will process pulp materials received from their own forests and sawmills, plus those of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Glenn and Colusa. It is assumed further that Trinity County's pulp material will be processed in Shasta and Tehama counties and the north coastal area, one-third share each; and that Lake County's pulp material will be processed en- tirely in the north coastal area. These assumptioiis are based in the main on the findings of the Coopera- tive Study and in part on judgment factors resulting from interviews and observations in the various counties. Output of Major Timber Products As a final step, estimates of annual production of major timber products in each of the IT) northeastern counties, under conditions of sustained yield and full forest utilization, have been made and are presented in Table 21. These estimates are derived from the data, estimates and assumptions presented in this sec- tion, including the sustained yield estinuites provided by the Forest Service, the analysis of full utilization by Marquis, the pulp production estimates of the State "Water Pollution Control Board Cooperative Study, and the assumptions as to location of pulp mills made by the authors of this report. V. BASIC DATA AND PROJECTIONS The tables which foUuw (Tables 22-69) comprise the basic statistical data and projections of the re- port. The first Rroup of tables (Tables 22-37) deals with population; the second group (Tables 38-53) with employment; and the third group (Tables 54-69) with farm population and farm employment. Sources of data are as follows : Populafion Population data for 1920-1950 are from the Census of Population for those years. The 1920 Census was taken as of January 1; others were taken as of April 1. The projections of ultimate population are based on estimates of future employment and on relation- ships of population growth in the northeastern coun- ties to that in the state and nation. Employment Employment data for 1940 and 1950 are from the Census of Population for those years. Projections of ultimate employment are based on estimates of employment in local resource-based in- dustries, agriculture and lumbering and wood prod- ucts manufacture. The proportions of total employ- ment provided by these industries and other economic activities have been projected on the basis of long- term trends observed from historical data for tin United States and California. A remarkable consistency has been found in thi historical relationship between the proportion of em ployment in agriculture and lumber and wood prod nets manufacture and the proportion of populatioi residing in urban places. This relationship has beei used as a check on the consistency and reasonablencs of the projections. Farm Population and Employment Data for 1930, 1940 and 1950 and 1954 are fron the Census of Agriculture. Projections shown in the "ultimate" column an based on the key figure of irrigated land in farms, as estimated by the State Dei^artment of Water Re sources from its 1956 land classification survey. AI other figures in the column represent direct or derivec ] judgments, based on consideration of the census dat, for past years, and on information, judgments ani opinions obtained from experts in the field of agricul ture. These include farm advisors, agricultural com missioners and representative farmers interviewed ii each county ; soil cla.ssification experts of the Depart ment of Water Resources; and agricultural eeono mists of the California Agricultural Extensioi Service. (230 ) NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 231 TABLES 22-37 POPULATION DATA AND PROJECTIONS NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES County 16 counties total Total population Urban ., Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ — Rural non-farm / Butte I Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm / ' Percent distribution. Urban 1 Rural farm \ I Rural non-farm / Colusa Total population Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farm / Percent distribution Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Glenn Total population Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution Urban Rural farm Rural non-farm Lake Total population Urban Rural farm Rural non-farm Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Lassen Total population Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farm / Modoc Total population Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Plumas Total population Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / 1920 162,905 30,881 132,024 100.0 19.0 81.0 30,030 12,679 17,351 100.0 42.2 57.8 9,290 9,290 100.0 100.0 11,853 11,8.53 100.0 100.0 5,402 6,402 100.0 100.0 8,507 8,507 100.0 100.0 5,425 5,425 100.0 100.0 5,681 5,681 1930 199,089 36,884 65,778 96,427 100.0 18.5 33.0 48.5 34,093 1 1 ,059 9,144 13,290 100.0 34.2 26.8 39.0 10,2.58 4,394 3,864 100.0 42.8 57.2 10,935 6,110 4,825 55.9 44.1 3,027 4.139 100.0 42.2 57.8 12,589 2,199 10,390 100.0 17.5 82.5 8,038 2,762 5,276 100.0 34.4 65.6 7,913 908 7,005 1940 249,298 43,892 67,965 137,441 100.0 17.6 27.3 55.1 42,840 13,708 10,465 18,667 100. 32.0 24.4 43.6 9.788 3,781 6,007 100.0 38.6 61.4 12,195 5,978 6,217 49.0 51.0 8,069 2,997 3,072 100.0 37.1 62.9 14,479 2,115 12,364 100.0 14.6 85.4 8,713 3,048 5,665 100.0 35.0 65.0 1 1 ,548 700 10,848 1950 3.30,339 114,465 60,993 134,941 100.0 34.6 18.5 46.9 64,9.30 27,225 9,408 28,297 100.0 41.9 14.5 43. G 11,631 3,031 2,907 5,713 100.0 26.0 25.0 49.0 15,448 3,019 6,286 6,143 100.0 19.5 40.7 39.8 2,824 8,657 100.0 24.6 75.4 18,474 8,956 1,6.59 7,859 100.0 48.5 9.0 42.5 9,678 2,819 3,066 3,793 100.0 29.1 31.7 39.2 336 12,983 Ultimate 1,747,400 1,203,980 128,.530 414,870 100.0 68.9 7.4 23.7 284.000 210,160 15,820 58,020 100.0 74.0 68,000 40,120 10,6.50 17,230 100.0 .59.0 13.7 25.3 83,000 48,4.50 16,000 20,5.50 100.0 57.0 18.8 24.2 65,000 29,2.50 4,300 31,450 100.0 45.0 6.6 48.4 67,. 500 40,500 7,8.50 19,150 100.0 60.0 11.6 28.4 51,100 29,640 7.400 14,060 100.0 38.0 14.5 27.5 *44,700 22,350 1,500 20,8.50 County Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farm / Shasta Total population Urlian Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm ] Rural non-farm / Sierra Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ — Rural non-farm / Siskiyou Total i^opulation Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Sutter Total population Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Tehama Total population Urban Rural farm 1 Rural non-farru / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Trinity Total population LTrban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Percent distribution. Urban Rural farm \ Rural non-farm / Yolo Total population Urban Rural farm "l,_. Rural non-farm / Percent distribution Urban Rural farm "1 __. Rural non-farm / 1920 100.0 100.0 13,361 2,962 10,399 100.0 22.2 77.8 1,783 1,783 100.0 100.0 18,545 2,328 16,017 100.0 13.6 86.4 10,113 10,115 100.0 100.0 12,882 3,104 9,778 100.0 24.1 75.9 2,551 2,551 100.0 100.0 17,105 4,147 12,958 100.0 24.2 75.8 1930 100.0 11.5 13,927 4,188 4,394 5,345 100.0 30.1 31.5 38.4 2 422 265 2,1.57 10.9 89.1 25,480 2,610 3,.355 17,515 100.0 10.2 21.0 68.8 14,618 3,605 8,088 2,925 100.0 24.7 55.3 20.0 13,866 3,517 6.764 3,. 585 100.0 23.4 48.8 2,809 1. 191 1,618 100.0 42.4 57.6 23.644 5,.542 8,720 9,382 100.0 23.4 36.9 39.7 1940 100.0 6.1 93.9 28,800 8,109 5,140 15,551 100.0 28.2 17.8 54.0 306 2.719 100.0 10.1 89.9 28,598 5,463 23,135 100.0 19.1 80.9 18,680 4,968 8,134 5,578 100.0 26.6 43.5 29.9 14,316 3,824 6,835 3,657 100.0 26.7 47.8 25.5 3,970 1,175 2,795 100.0 29.6 70.4 27,243 6.637 9,082 11,524 100.0 24.4 33.3 42.3 1950 100.0 4.0 96.0 36,413 10,2.56 4,100 22,057 100.0 28.2 11.2 60.6 2,410 205 2,205 91.5 30,733 5.906 4,359 20,408 100.0 19.4 14.2 66.4 26,239 7,861 8,724 9,6.54 100.0 30.0 33.2 36.8 19,276 7,442 6,313 5,521 100. 38.6 32.8 28.6 5,087 688 4,399 13.5 86.5 40,640 21,986 6,779 11,875 100.0 .54.1 16.7 29.2 Ultimate 100.0 50.0 3.4 46.6 195,000 140.400 8,200 46,400 100.0 72.0 4.2 23.8 ] 6,000 7,200 8.50 7,950 100.0 45.0 5.3 49.7 127,200 76,320 9.870 41,010 100.0 60.0 7.8 32.2 121,800 90,130 12.450 19,220 100.0 74.0 10.2 15.8 105.100 71,300 11.000 22,600 100.0 68.0 10.5 21.5 22.000 9.900 700 11,400 100.0 45.0 3.0 52.0 390.000 312.000 16.000 62,000 100.0 80.0 4.1 13.9 • SDWR estimate in "Ecport on Upper Feather River Service Area" is: Total: 41.200: urban: 24,500; rural: 16,700. i 232 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLES 22-37-Continued POPULATION DATA AND PROJECTIONS NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES County 1920 1930 1940 1950 Ultimate County 1920 1930 1940 1950 Ultimate Yuba 10,375 5,461 4,914 11,331 5,703 2.457 3,111 17,034 6.646 2,746 7,642 24,420 15,904 3,139 5,377 105,000 75,600 5,960 23,440 Percent distribution. _ Urban _ . 100.0 52.6 47.4 100.0 .50.9 21.7 27.4 100.0 39.0 16.1 44.9 100.0 65.1 12.9 22.0 100.0 72.0 5.7 22.3 Rural non-farm / Rural non-farm / NOTE: 1950 urban population includes cities and unincorporated places having 2,500 only incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more were considered "urban." inhabitants jr more. In previous census year.«. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 233 TABLES 38-53 NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS (Employment as of April 1) Industry group :940 No. % 1950 No. % Ultimate No. % Industry group 1940 No. % 1950 No. Ultimate No. % IS N. E. Counties Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fislieries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. _ Other manufacturing - AUotlier Butte Total _ Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries. Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing - All other Colusa Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. _ Other manufacturing. All other Glenn Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. _ Other manufacturing- All other Lake Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing - All other Lassen Total- Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing-. All other 86,074 29,074 23,705 525 4.804 12,042 9,478 2,564 44,958 12,896 3,816 3,052 40 724 1,599 964 635 7,481 3,482 1,682 1,664 4 14 87 11 76 1,713 4.209 2,170 2,144 17 9 170 10 160 2.573 1,064 915 21 128 123 56 67 1,386 5,476 830 760 49 21 2,738 2,640 98 1,908 100.0 33.8 27.6 0.6 5.6 14.0 11.0 3.0 52.2 100.0 29.59 23.67 .31 5.61 12.40 7.48 4.92 58.01 100.0 48.30 47.79 .11 .40 2.50 .32 2.18 49.20 100.0 51.56 50.94 .40 .22 4.04 .24 3.80 44.40 100.0 41.35 35.56 .82 4.97 4.78 2.18 2.60 53.87 100.0 15.16 13.89 .89 .38 50.0 48.21 1.79 34.84 116,254 27,362 25,416 869 1,077 18.397 13.543 4,854 70,495 21,366 3,841 3,582 83 176 3,226 1,761 1,465 14,299 4,268 1,892 1,878 8 6 156 27 129 2,220 5,858 2,. 543 2,517 23 3 320 25 295 2,995 3,946 1,185 1,125 40 20 258 145 113 2,503 6.569 706 644 61 1 1,997 1,894 103 3,866 100.0 23 . 5 21.9 0.71 0.9J 15.8 11.6 4.2 60.7 639,335 59,258 55,113 4,145 108,993 27,080 81,913 471,084 100.0 102,200 17.98 16.77 .39 .82 15.10 8.24 6.86 66.92 100.0 44.33 44.00 .191 .14/ 3.66 .63 3.03 52.01 100.0 43,41 42.97 .39' .05 J 5.46 .43 5.03 51.13 100.0 30.03 28.51 l.Oll .51J 6.54 3.68 2.86 63.43 100.0 10.75 9.80 .931 .02 J 30.40 28.83 1.57 58.85 6,330 5,930 100\ 300) 18,400 2,073 16,327 77,470 26,500 5,900 5,830 70 2,120 74 2,046 18,480 32,080 8,080 8,000 2,570 332 2,238 21,430 21,000 1,700 1,680 120 1,678 517 1,161 17,622 24,930 3,700 3,490 210 2,500 1,636 864 18,730 100,0 9.3 8.6 0.6 17.0 4.2 12.8 73.7 100.0 6.2 5.8 0.4 18.0 2.0 16.0 75.8 100.0 22.3 22.0 .3 8.0 .3 7.7 69.7 100.0 25.2 25.0 .2 8.0 1.0 7.0 66.8 100.0 8.1 8.0 .1 8.0 2.5 5.5 83.9 100.0 14.8 14.0 0.8 10.0 6.6 3.4 75.2 Modoc Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Otiier manufacturing-. All otlier -- Plumas Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing - Another Shasta Total- Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing - All other- Sierra Total--- Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. -. Other manufacturing-. All other Siskiyou Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing- All other Sutter Total Extractive Agriculture Forestry and fisheries- Mining Manufacturing Lbr. and wood prod. - Other manufacturing-. AU other--. 3,328 1,237 1,161 35 41 720 671 49 1,371 4,475 1.176 281 60 835 1,171 1,129 42 2,128 10,042 1,882 1.254 70 558 758 499 259 7,402 1,289 562 110 9 443 310 295 15 417 11,204 2,917 1,900 118 899 3,192 3,027 165 5,095 5,729 2,909 2,848 3 58 213 9 204 2,607 100.0 37.17 34.89 1.05 1.23 21.63 20.16 1.47 41.20 100.0 26.28 6.28 1.34 18.66 26.17 25.23 .94 47.55 100.0 18.74 12.49 .70 5.55 7.55 4.97 2.. 58 73.71 100.0 43.60 8.53 .70 34.37 24.05 22.89 1.16 32.35 100.0 26.04 16.97 1.05 8.02 28.49 27.02 1.47 45.47 100.0 50.78 49.71 .06 1.01 3.72 .16 3.56 45.50 3,735 1,203 1,128 739 G04 5,028 320 187 61 72 1,601 1,527 74 3,107 12,743 1,487 1,161 174 152 2,650 2,323 327 8,606 795 148 67 8 73 204 170 34 443 11,662 1,869 1,484 187 198 3,429 3,201 228 6,364 8,942 3,497 3,457 4 36 503 100 403 4,942 100.0 32.21 30.20 1.77 .24 19.79 17.78 2.01 48.00 100.0 6.36 3.72 1.21 1.43 31.84 30.37 1.47 61.80 100.0 11.67 9.11 1.37 1.19 20.80 18.23 2.57 67 . S3 100.0 18.62 8.43 1.01 9.18 25.66 21.38 4.28 55.72 100.0 16.03 12.73 1.60 1.70 29.40 27.45 1.95 54.57 100.0 39.11 38.66 .041 I 55.27 18,510 2,945 2,775 1201 50i 1,700 1,1.56 544 13,865 16,080 700 500 100 100 3,375 3,215 160 12,005 70,200 3,060 2,460 300 300 14,740 4,530 10,210 52,400 5,7.50 500 300 50 150 1,.500 1,380 120 3,750 46,180 4,650 3,925 350 375 9,220 6,864 2,356 32,310 47,180 5,290 5,190 100 7,550 7.550 34,340 100.0 15.9 15.0 9.2 6.3 2.9 74.9 100.0 4.3 3.1 .6 .6 21.0 20.0 1.0 74.7 100.0 4.3 3.5 .4 .4 21.0 6.5 14.5 74.6 100.0 8.7 5.2 .9 2.6 26.1 24.0 2.1 65.2 100.0 10.1 8.S .8 .8 20.0 14.9 5.1 09.9 100.0 11.2 11.0 0.2 16.0 16.0 72.8 234 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLES 38-53-Contmued NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS (Employment as of April 1) 1940 1950 Ultimate Industry group 1940 1950 Ultimate Industry group No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Tehama Total 4,800 2,008 1,963 30 15 200 42 158 2,592 1,388 864 303 50 511 33 24 9 491 100. 41.83 40.90 .62 .31 4.17 .88 3.29 54.00 100.0 62.25 21.83 3.60 36.82 2.38 1.73 .65 35.37 6,941 2,024 1,967 49 8 759 451 308 4,158 1,764 369 227 52 90 651 644 7 744 100.0 29.16 28.34 .71 .11 10.94 6.50 4.44 59.90 100.0 20.92 12.87 2.95 5.10 36.90 36.50 .40 42.18 36,800 3,560 3,310 1.501 lOOJ 6,6.30 2,540 4,090 26,610 7,925 508 208 120 180 2,100 1,902 198 5,317 100.0 9.7 9.0 0.7 18.0 6.9 11.1 72.3 100.0 6.4 2.6 1.5 2.3 26.5 24.0 2.5 67.1 Yolo Total Extractive _ 9,747 4,260 4,224 11 25 525 47 478 4,962 5,436 1,697 1,126 8 563 203 34 149 3,536 100.0 43.70 43.33 .11 .26 5.39 .48 4.91 50.91 100.0 31.22 20.71 .15 10.36 3.73 .99 2.74 65.05 15,072 4,772 4,728 24 20 1,064 68 996 9,236 7,565 1,506 1,264 29 213 840 543 297 5,219 100.0 31.66 31.37 .161 .13/ 7.06 .45 6.61 61.28 100.0 19.91 16.71 .38 2.82 11.10 7.18 3.92 68.99 146,250 9,450 9,250 200 29,250 29,250 107,550 37,750 2,885 2,265 100\ 400/ 5,660 859 4,801 29,205 100.0 6.4 6.3 0.1 20.0 20.0 73.5 100.0 7.3 6.0 1.3 15.0 2.3 12.7 77.7 Agriculture Forestry and fisheries,. Agriculture Forestry and fisheries. - Manufacturing _- __ Lbr. and wood prod. .. Other manufacturing- _ All other Lbr. and wood prod. -- Other manufacturing- _ AU other Yuba Trinity Total Agriculture Agriculture _ _ _ Forestry and fisheries.. Forestry and fisheries.. Lbr. and wood prod. _, Other manufacturing- - All other Lbr. and wood prod. .. Other manufacturing. . All other NOTE: Lumber and wood products include industries in Standard Industrial Classification Groups 24 and 25. Pulp, paper and allied products (S.I.C. Group 2G) are includeil iu "Other Manufacturing," which is in accordance with present Census Bureau practice. TABLE 54 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate 15 NE. Counties 1930 1940 1954 Ultimate 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1 . Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non.irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 10. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm, average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1,000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres.. 24. Average per farm 15,825 8,854 6.971 6,846,424 3,178,360 3,668,064 674,501 9.9 21.2 76.2 432.6 359.0 526.2 66,158 380 65,778 4.16 33.0 9.61 33,374 50.7 37.2 4.87 2.11 14,827 9,432 5,395 6,856,600 4,087,248 2,769,3.52 869,283 12 21 92, 462 433 513 68,088 123 67,965 4.58 27.3 9.91 23,705 34.9 27.5 3.46 1.60 15,375 10,518 4,857 7,715,014 4,972,678 2,742,336 1,085,368 14.1 21.8 103.2 501.8 472.8 564.6 61,592 599 60,993 3.97 18.5 7.91 25,416 41.7 21.9 3.29 1.65 15,248 10,985 4.263 8,107,983 5,701,561 2,406,422 1,278,063 15.8 22.4 116.3 531.7 519.0 564.5 30,887 28,062 2,825 8,155,000 7,024,850 1,130,150 3,803.900 46.6 54.1 135.5 264 250 400 128.550 128,550 4.2 7.4 13.8 55,113 42.9 8.6 6.8 1.8 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 235 TABLE 55 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Butte County Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) % oflandin farms % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm, average per farm % county population No. per 1 ,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total — % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1,000 acres Average per farm - 2.603 1,44.^ 1,158 619,584 264,379 355,205 67,038 10.8 25.4 46.4 238.0 183.0 306.7 9,173 29 9,144 3.51 26.8 14.76 4,451 48.7 31.57 7.18 1.71 1940 2,584 1,500 1,084 582,779 310,840 271,933 79,885 13.7 25.7 53.3 225.5 207.2 250.9 10,491 26 10,465 4.05 24.4 17.96 3,052 29.2 27.3 5.23 1.18 1950 2,680 1,835 845 676,109 436,385 239,724 125,209 18.5 28.7 68.2 252.3 237.8 283.7 9,565 157 9,408 3.51 14.5 13.91 3,582 38.1 16.8 5.30 1.34 1954 2.843 2.026 817 672,802 .521,309 151,493 101,628 24.0 31.0 79.8 236.7 257.3 185.4 Ultimate 3.955 3.770 185 600,000 555,000 45,000 358,500 .59.8 64.6 95.1 152 147 243 15,820 15,820 4.0 5.6 26.4 5,930 37.5 5.8 9.9 1.5 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." TABLE 56 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimote Colusa County 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. .Average per irrigated farm (acres) 11. -Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm, average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1 ,000 acres 20. Farm employment. April 1. total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres 24. Average per farm 1930 894 359 535 481,604 120,004 361,600 58,369 12.1 48.6 162.6 538.7 3.34.3 675.9 4,394 4,394 4.91 42.8 9.12 2,712 61.7 57.3 5.63 3.03 730 400 330 437,030 196,771 240,259 82,890 19.0 42.1 207.2 598.7 492.0 728.1 3,781 3,781 5.18 38.6 8.65 1,664 44.0 47.8 3.81 2.28 813 530 283 532,915 346,489 186,426 97,347 18.3 28.1 183.7 655.5 653.8 6.58.7 2,919 12 2,907 3.58 25.0 5.45 1.878 64.6 44.0 3.52 2.31 1954 746 533 213 597,968 443,732 154,236 138,929 23.2 31.3 260.7 801.0 8.32.5 724.1 Ultimate 2,580 2,350 230 600,000 330,000 70,000 375,900 62.7 70.9 160.0 235 225 300 10,650 10,650 4.1 15.7 17.7 5,830 54.7 22.0 9.7 2.3 NOTE: 1930 employment Is per old ^ettnition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' 286 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 57 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 ond Ultimate Glenn County 1930 1940 1950 Ultimate 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrijjated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 11. Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm : average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1.000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acrea_ 24. Average per farm 1,463 997 466 586,411 185,392 401,019 60,306 10.3 32.5 60.5 400.8 185.9 800.6 6,110 6,110 4.18 55.9 10.42 2,573 42.1 55.3 4.39 1.76 1,376 1,061 315 541,555 258.807 282,748 101,557 18.8 39.2 95.7 393.6 243.9 897.6 5,978 5,978 4.34 49.0 11.04 2,144 35.9 50.9 3.96 1.56 1,,527 1,292 235 611,865 387,450 224,415 102,557 16.8 26.5 79.4 400.7 299.9 955 6,286 6,286 4.12 40.7 10.27 2,517 40.0 43.0 4.11 1.65 1,538 1,318 220 703,043 411,049 291,994 136,511 19.4 33.2 103.6 457.1 311.9 1,327.22 16,000 4.00 18.8 25.8 8,000 SO.O 24.9 12.9 2.0 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' TABLE 58 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Lake County 1930 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 . Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1 . Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm: average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1,000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres 24. Average per farm 1,057 110 947 240,445 52,476 187,969 1,916 0.7 3.7 17.4 227.5 477.1 198.5 3,027 3,027 2.86 42.2 12.59 1,352 44.7 46.2 5.62 1.28 876 141 735 229,854 56,802 173,052 3,281 1.4 5.8 23.3 262.4 402.9 235.4 2,997 2,997 3.42 37.1 13.04 915 30.5 35.6 3.98 1.04 1,058 314 744 252,923 110,261 142,662 9,174 3.6 8.3 29.2 239.1 351.1 191.8 2,824 2,824 2.67 24.6 11.16 1,125 39.8 28.5 4.45 1.06 1,038 359 679 247,810 112,489 135,321 12,498 5.0 11.1 34.8 238.7 313.3 199.3 4,300 3.2 6. 21.5 1,680 39.1 8.0 8.4 1.25 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 237 TABLE 59 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Lassen County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1, Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms :i. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) .'i. Irrigated farms h- Non-irrigated farms 7 Irrit^ated land in farms (acres) ^ ' , (tf land in farms I ' , land in irrigated farms 111. average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1 , Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms i:i Non-irrigated farms II. Farm population — total 1 .'i Urban farm III. Rural farm — total 1 7. Rural farm : average per farm 1 fs. % county population 111. No. per 1,000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 2.1. No. per 1,000 acres 24. Average per farm 472 241 231 473,268 303,248 170,020 39,893 8.4 13.2 165.5 1,002.7 1,2.58.3 736.0 2,199 2,199 4.66 17.5 4.65 987 44.9 16.2 2.08 2.09 486 301 185 606.335 511,973 94.362 62,243 10.3 12.2 206.8 1,247.6 1,700.9 510.1 2,115 2,115 4.35 14.6 3.49 760 35.9 13.9 1.25 1..56 420 211 209 682,086 528,863 153,223 48,662 7.1 9.2 230.8 1,624.0 2,.506.5 733.1 1,665 6 1,659 3.95 9.0 2.43 644 38.8 9.8 .94 1..53 397 232 165 672,795 494,988 177,807 53,018 7.9 10.7 228.5 1,694.7 2,133.6 1,077.6 1,745 1,545 200 1 ,000,000 800,000 200,000 441, .300 44.1 55.2 285.6 573 518 1,000 7,8.50 7,850 4.5 11.6 7.8 3,490 44.5 14.0 3.5 2.0 IE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." TABLE 60 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Modoc County 1930 1950 1954 Ultimate Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non- irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) % of land in farms % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm; average per farm % county population No. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1,000 acres Average per farm 621 418 203 450,139 310,471 139,668 70,025 15.6 22.6 167.5 724.9 742.8 688.0 2,762 2,762 4.45 34.4 6.14 1,320 47.8 35.6 2.93 2.13 532 154 583,189 471,868 111,321 92,419 15.8 19.6 173.7 850.1 887.0 722.9 3,048 3,048 4.44 35.0 5.23 1,161 38.1 34.9 1.99 1.69 823 655 168 680,694 597,095 83.599 133,869 19.7 22.4 204.4 827.1 911.6 497.6 3.068 2 3,066 3.72 31.7 4.50 1,128 36.8 30.2 1.66 1.37 749 569 180 673,897 595.917 77,980 124.772 18.5 20.9 219.3 899.7 1,047.3 433.2 1,850 1,756 94 750.000 702.400 47,600 3.52.100 46.9 .50.1 200.5 405.2 400 500 7,400 7,400 4.0 14.5 9.9 2,775 37.5 15.0 3.7 1.5 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." 238 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 61 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Plumas County 1930 1940 Ultimate 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 11. Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm; average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1,000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres- 24. Average per farm 178 119 59 167,446 98,666 68,780 16,774 10.0 17.0 141.0 940.7 829.1 1,165.7 908 908 5.10 11.5 5.42 385 42.4 8.8 2.30 2.16 167 130 37 160,513 145,510 15,003 29,481 18.4 20.3 226.8 961.2 1,119.3 405.5 700 700 4.19 6.7 4.36 281 40.1 6.3 1.75 1.68 159 100 59 150,621 114,822 35,799 24,516 16.3 21.3 245.2 947.3 1,148.2 606.8 536 536 3.37 4.0 3.56 187 34.9 3.7 1.24 1.18 151 95 56 164,004 127,000 37,004 22,001 13.4 17.3 231.6 1,086.1 1,336.8 660.8 1.500 3.75 3.4 7.5 500 33.3 3.1 2.5 1.25 NOTE: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations." TABLE 62 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Shasta County 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3 . No n- irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1. Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm: average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per I,()00 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres 24. Average per farm 1930 1,213 809 404 607,833 386,847 220,986 41,173 6.8 10.6 50.9 501.1 478.2 547.0 4,447 53 4,394 3.62 31.6 7.23 1,826 41.6 29.3 3.00 1.50 1,229 885 344 534,671 395,201 139,490 37,273 7.0 9.4 42.1 435.1 446.6 405.4 5,163 23 5,140 4.18 17.8 9.61 1,254 24.4 12.5 2.34 1.02 1,108 753 355 723,752 504,234 219,518 39,992 5.5 7.9 53.1 653.2 669.6 618.4 4,116 16 4,100 3.70 11.3 5.66 1,161 28.3 9.1 1.60 1.05 1,079 773 306 768,818 469,446 299,372 44,961 5.8 9.6 58.2 712.5 607.3 978.3 L'ltimate NOTE: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations.' NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 239 I TABLE 63 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Sierra County 1930 1940 1950 Ultimate Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrieated farms Land in farms — total (acres)--- Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) % of land in farms % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm: average per farm % county population No. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1 ,000 acres Average per farm 92 54 .38 119,579 53,340 66,239 9,104 7.6 17.1 168.6 1,299.8 987.8 1,743.1 265 265 2.88 10.9 2.22 136 51.3 10.7 1.14 1.48 65 21 60,105 46,872 13,233 7,307 12.2 15.6 112.4 698.9 721.1 630.1 306 306 3.56 10.1 5.09 110 35.9 8.5 1.83 1.28 49 20 83,535 54,924 28,611 16,682 20.0 30.4 340.4 1,210.7 1,120.9 1,430.6 205 205 2.97 8.4 2.45 67 32.7 8.4 .80 .97 66 44 22 92,477 77,199 15,278 14,201 15.3 18.4 1,322.7 1,401.2 1,734.5 694.4 280 250 30 100.000 83,000 17.000 49,100 49.1 59.2 196.4 357 333 550 850 850 3.0 S.3 8.5 ,300 35.3 5.2 3.0 1.1 NOTE: 1930 emplojment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' TABLE 64 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Siskiyou County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) % of land in farms % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total L^rban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm; average per farm % county population No. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No, per 1,000 acres Average per farm 1,155 744 411 627,704 415,855 211,849 58,655 9.3 14.1 78.8 543.5 558.9 315.4 5,355 5,355 4.64 21.0 8.53 2,190 40.9 19.3 3.49 1.90 1,208 915 293 699,496 589,742 109,754 91,783 13.1 15.6 100.3 579.1 644.5 374.6 5,463 5,463 4.52 19.1 7.81 1,900 34.8 17.0 2.72 1.57 1,000 681 319 879,904 653,121 226,783 100,525 11.4 15.4 147.6 879.9 959.1 710.9 4,371 12 4,359 4.36 14.2 4.95 1,484 34.0 12.7 1.69 1.48 970 698 272 961,344 735,577 225,767 93,552 9.7 12.7 134.0 991.1 l,0.i3.8 830.0 2,345 2,145 200 950,000 850,000 100.000 343,200 36.1 40.4 160.0 405 400 500 9,870 9,870 4.2 7.8 10.4 3,925 39.8 8.5 4.1 1.7 NOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in g:iinful occupations." I 240 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 65 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Sutter County 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms — 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 11. Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 15. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm: average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1.000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres -- 24. Average per farm 1,738 1,237 501 343,634 183,410 1.58,244 98,771 28.7 33.3 78.6 195.5 147.5 315.9 8,158 70 8,088 4.60 55.3 23.53 4,285 53.0 65.3 12.47 2.44 1940 1,425 1,084 341 317,113 230,610 86,503 102,119 32 44 94 222 212, 253, 8,179 45 8,134 3.71 43.3 25.65 2,848 35.0 49.7 8.98 2.00 1,807 1,527 280 372,192 312,236 39,956 168,868 45.4 54.1 110.6 206.0 204.5 214.1 8,735 11 8,724 4.83 33.2 23.44 3,457 39.6 38.7 9.29 1.91 1,787 1,.532 255 369.349 321,420 47,929 192,534 52.1 ,59.9 125.7 206.7 209.8 188.0 Ultimate 2,595 2,570 25 363.000 360.000 3.000 291,800 79.9 81.1 113.5 141 140 200 12,430 12,450 4.8 10.2 34.1 5,190 41.7 11.0 14.2 2.0 NOTE: 1930 emploj-ment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." TABLE 66 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Tehama County 1930 1940 1950 1934 Ultimate 1. Number of farms — total 2. Irrigated farms 3. Non-irrigated farms 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 5. Irrigated farms 6. Non-irrigated farms 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8. % of land in farms 9. % land in irrigated farms 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1 . Average size of farm (acres) 12. Irrigated farms 13. Non-irrigated farms 14. Farm population — total 13. Urban farm 16. Rural farm — total 17. Rural farm: average per farm 18. % county population 19. No. per 1,000 acres 20. Farm employment, April 1, total — 21. % rural farm population 22. % civilian employment 23. No. per 1,000 acres 24. Average per farm 1.805 933 832 1,195,796 394,095 801,701 32,110 2.7 8.1 33.7 662.5 413.5 941.0 6,764 6,764 3.75 48.8 5.66 2,746 40.6 48.0 2.30 1.52 1,744 981 763 1,227,203 447,830 779,373 34,433 2.8 7.7 35.1 703.7 456.5 1,021.5 6,843 8 6,835 3.92 47.7 5.57 1,963 28.7 40.9 1.60 1.12 1,718 1,141 577 1,131,660 323,606 808,054 38,440 3.4 11.9 33.7 658.7 283.6 1,400.4 6,433 120 6,313 3.67 32.7 5.58 1,967 31.1 28.3 1.74 1.14 1,707 1,280 427 1,161,699 598,908 562,791 50,766 4.4 8.5 39.7 680.6 467.9 1,318.0 2.760 2,. 560 200 1,100,000 920,000 180,000 297,200 27.0 32.3 116.1 399 359 900 11,000 11,000 4.0 10.5 10.0 3,310 30.1 9.0 3.0 1.2 NOTE: 1930 employment Is per old dednition: "persons 10 years old and over, engaged In gainful occupations.' t NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TABLE 67 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Trinity County 241 Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (aer«s) % of land in farms -- % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) _ Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm: average per farm % county population No. per 1 ,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1 ,000 acres Average per farm 1930 325 193 132 184,523 46,553 137,970 5,263 2.9 11.3 27.3 567.8 241.2 1,045.2 1,191 1,191 3.66 42.4 6.45 452 38.0 40.3 2.45 1.39 1940 1950 329 199 130 186,445 57,688 128,757 4,753 2.5 8.2 23.9 566.7 289.9 990.4 1,175 1,175 3.57 29.6 6.30 303 25.8 21.8 1.62 .92 238 104 134 195,862 92,691 103,171 3,734 1.9 4.0 35.9 822.9 891.3 769.9 688 688 2.89 13.5 3.51 227 33.0 12.9 1.16 .95 1954 215 119 96 186,898 106,677 80,221 3,664 2.0 3.4 30.8 869.3 896.4 835.6 Ultimate 230 180 50 125,000 90,000 35,000 16,700 13.4 18.6 92.8 544 500 700 700 700 3.0 3.2 5.6 208 29.7 2.6 1.7 .9 XOTE: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations.' 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. TABLE 68 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Yolo County Number of farms — total Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Land in farms — total (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) % of land in farms % land in irrigated farms Average per irrigated farm (acres) - Average size of farm (acres) Irrigated farms Non-irrigated farms Farm population — total Urban farm Rural farm — total Rural farm: average per farm % county population No. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1, total % rural farm population % civilian employment No. per 1,000 acres Average per farm 1,641 820 821 488,252 214,548 273,704 84,856 17.4 39.6 103.5 297.5 261.6 333.4 8,814 94 8,720 5.31 36.9 17.86 6,061 69.5 54. 5 12.41 3.69 1940 1,339 868 471 477,258 268,521 208.737 115,301 24.2 42.9 132.8 356.4 309.4 443.2 9,100 18 9.082 6.78 33.3 19.03 4,224 46.5 43.3 8.85 3.15 1950 1,263 860 403 509,630 356,038 153,592 139,483 27.4 39.2 162.1 403.5 414 381.1 6,861 82 6.779 5.37 16.7 13.30 4,728 69.7 31.4 9.28 3.74 1,158 825 333 680,153 467,764 112,389 172,218 29.7 36.8 208.7 501.0 567.0 337.5 Ultimate 3,430 3,200 230 580,000 512,000 68.000 387,800 66.9 75.7 121.2 169 160 296 16,000 16,000 4.7 4.1 27.6 9,250 57.8 6.3 15.9 2.7 NOTE: 1930 employment is per 'old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations.' 242 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 69 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Yuba County 1930 1940 1950 19.54 Ultimate I. Number of farms — totaL- ._ 548 335 213 260,186 147,076 113,110 30,248 11.6 20.6 90.3 474.8 439.0 531.0 2,591 134 2,457 4.48 21.7 9.44 1,898 77.2 35.2 7.29 3.46 562 370 192 213,032 98,207 114,825 24,538 11.5 25.0 66.3 379.1 265.4 598.0 2,749 3 2,746 4.89 16.1 12.89 1,126 41.0 20.8 5.28 2.00 692 466 226 231,266 154,463 76,803 36,310 15.7 23.5 77.9 334.2 331.0 339.8 3,320 181 3,139 4.54 12.8 13.57 1,264 40.2 16.7 5.47 1.83 804 582 222 254,926 218,086 36,840 56,810 22.3 26.0 97.6 317.1 374.7 165.9 2. Irrigated farms _ 1,325 3. NoD-irrigated farms 1,250 4. Land in farms — total (acres) 75 5. Irrigated farms _ 215,000 6. Non-irrigated farms. 200,000 7. Irrigated land in farms (acres)-- 15.000 8. % of land in farms . 168,500 9. '^ land in irrigated farms 78.4 10. Average per irrigated farm (acres) -- 84.3 11. Average size of farm (acres) . 134.8 12. Irrigated farms.- . 162 13. Non-irrigated farms 160 14. Farm population — total 200 15. Urban farm 5,960 16. Rural farm— total.-- _- 17. Rural farm: average per farm 5,960 18. % county population _ 4.5 19. No. per 1,000 acres--- 5.7 20. Farm employment, April 1 , total . 27.7 21. % rural farm population 2.265 22. % civilian employment _ 38.0 23. No. per 1,000 acres 6.0 10.5 1.7 NOTE; 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations.' PART TWO POTENTIAL ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES, PREDICATED UPON FULL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I. INTRODUCTION The northeastern part of the State of California has an exceedingly colorful historj' woven from its streams and rivers, gold and silver mines and vast stands of pine and fir. Indians, Chinese, and Yankees, miners, woodsmen, trappers and cattlemen all have played a part in the fascinating drama of "Superior" Cali- fornia. The Chinese temple in Weaverville, the lava trenches of the Modoc War, Susanville's Fort De- fiance, are historic reminders of this not so distant past. Historical romance intrigues the historian and the tourist, but the modern-day resident of the area — the farmer, the lumber mill worker, the government em- ployee, the small entrepreneur cannot live on the memories of the past. The economic life of individuals and business operations depends upon a stable, pros- perous future. Declining economies in a number of the counties witliin this area indicate a need to evalu- ate the potential return from full development of the natural resources of the area. RECREATION: A NEW "INDUSTRY" Historically, the economic life of the northern mountain counties has consisted of timber, mining and agricultural operations and related service indus- tries. In recent years, however, recreation activity has increased rapidly to a position of ma.jor importance in the region's economy. There is now every reason to believe that its future volume will surpass the visions of the far-sighted men who some time ago formed the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association to inform the world of the resources of the north- eastern mountain counties. It appears evident the northeastern counties are on the threshold of enormous growth in the development and use of their recreation resources. These counties have some of tlie finest moiintain country in the state. All or parts of eight national forests are included in their boundaries, plus one national park and one national monument. The pressure of population upon the older, more developed recreation areas of the state is sending more people into the northeastern counties already each year in search of recreation oppor- tunities. RECENT INCREASES IN RECREATION USE Forest Service records show that in 1955 there were 8,351,600 visitor-days use of national forest recreation areas in the northeastern counties, compared with 2,958,500 only five years earlier. This increase of 182 percent in recreation use occurred during a period when state population was increasing 23 percent, and population of the northeastern county area increased only 10 percent. Thus it is clear that per capita u.se was increasing sub.stantially. This increase in recreation use reflects an increasing national propensity to spend more time in leisure and reci'eation activities. It has been estimated by the National Association of Travel Organizations that tourists in the United States in 1955 spent $24,000,- 000,000 for recreation purposes, or about 7i percent of the national income. Recreation visits to the na- tional parks and national forests in 1955 totalled 96,000,000, an increase of 140 percent over 1946. On a per capita basis, recreation visits more than doubled between 1946 and 1955 (U. S. Forest Service, Opera- tion Outdoors. 1957). In California, visitor-days use of the national parks and national forests increased from 23,085,000 in 1946 to 35,614,000 in 1955, an increase of 54 percent. State population increased 36 percent during this period. PROSPECT OF ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT Present development of hotels, resorts, campgrounds and other facilities in the northeastern counties is rel- ativel}^ low. Despite the historic antiquity of the area, exploitation of its recreation resources is in its early stages. Thus the rate of development from this time forward to probable ultimate development can be ex- pected to be vei'y rapid, and to exceed the rate of state population growth by a considerable degree. Thus, although state population is expected to in- crease three or more times between now and ultimate development, recreation use of the northeastern county area may increase by 10 times or more. Existing developed recreation facilities in the state and in the nation generally are inadequate to meet present demand, and a large "catching up" process in construction of facilities is urgently needed. For example, camp and picnic grounds in the national forests in 1955 had a safe, convenient and healthful capacity of about 17,600,000 visitor-days. Actual use was 25,500,000 visitor-days — an overload of 45 per- cent ! At the rate of construction permitted by funds now available, the overload is expected to increase to 61 percent by 1958. Comparable conditions are known to exist in the national forests and national parks in California. The State Park Commission has stated conservatively that "during the past several years, the demand for camp and picnicking sites has far exceeded the supply, and this will undoubtedly continue for some time in the future." (California State Park System, Five Year Master Plan, March 1, 1956). Per capita use of outdoor recreation facilities will increase rapidly under the stimulation of higher in- (245) 246 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION PLATE A-2 \ o \ M ■O \ \ by state population o CO o \ o o N lO \ \ O > O N O < z \ \ (M o < > \ -o O O z \ \ in O N lO m 1— UJ h o u. _l -1 o < ^ z « o 'q. t o 0) o (ft u \ \ O c _o u 0> lO o o \ 'o \ * o lA \ A > \ LU ID \ \ 21 o " z o < \ (S in in u UJ \ 0) o (0 \ \ in in N \. 01 \ o in J a> in m 2. \ u — < ■* 5. at o _ ^ o> Oo»a>h-(DiO«t to r4 — V 1 1 d V u a d S A. V a 8 i 1 S 1 A NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 247 comes, a shorter work-week, longer vaeations, im- proved transportation, and other benefits of an ex- panding: etehnolopy. From 1950 to 1!)55 visitor-days in the national forests and national parks in Califor- nia has increased from 1.6 per capita to 2.7 per cap- ita, an annual increase of 0.2. One hundred years hence at this rate of increase, the per capita user days would exceed 20. Therefore, it may be conservatively estimated that annual use of California's national parks and national forests, now about three visitor- days per resident, will ultimately increase to some- thing on the order of 10 visitor-days per year, or even more. The projections set forth in the first part of this report indicate a state population, as of the period of probable ultimate development (2020-2050), of 45,000,000. On this basis, visitor-days use of national forests and national parks in California might ap- proximate 450,000,000 — compared with an estimated 35,600,000 in 1955. (These estimates do not include visitor-days use of private resorts and other types of private recereation facilities, outside the national parks and national forests.) RECREATION USE CAPACITY OF NORTHEASTERN COUNTY AREA The .survey of potential recreation areas described in the following pages indicates that the northeastern counties alone have the potential area and resources to accommodate this gross volume of recereation use, given the development of necessary public and private facilities. It is probable that actual use of reci-eation areas in the northeastern counties will be somewhat less than the capacity use estimated in this report, but will nevertheless be ver.y substantial. The water resources development projects proposed in the California Water Plan would contribute sub- stantially to the achievement of such levels of recrea- tion activity, as discussed below. (If a state-wide inventory of potential recreation areas were available, which employed classifications and standards similar to those used in this survey of the northeastern counties, it would be possible to esti- mate with some precision how much of the state total of outdoor recreation activity miglit be accounted for by the northeastern counties. Lacking such inventory, it may be estimated very roughly that the north- eastern county share of future outdoor recreation ac- tivity in the state may approximate one-third of the state total. It may be noted that the northeastern counties have 37 percent of the forested lands of the state. On the other hand, being inland counties they cannot provide the attractions of the "seashore.") FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL AREAS The recreation use foreseen in this report includes the activities of the vacationer and tourist, the hunter and the fisherman. It also includes the establishment of permanent and sunnner homes by persons in retire- ment or semi-retirement, or having their place of work or business elsewhere, who are attracted to the area by its resources for relaxed, healthful living and im- mediate access to moi;ntain recreation areas. The town of Paradise in Butte County is an example of this kind of development, which is expected to be dupli- cated in many parts of the area at elevations of 1,000 to 3,000 feet. Profes.sor David Weeks, who has done a number of studies of the Sierra foothills, believes there are very good prospects for clusters of population in the foot- hills, aroi;nd the 3,000-foot level. These are areas which al.so have a high potential, according to Weeks and others, for agricultural use with sprinkler irri- gation, thus providing additional support for com- munities whose economic base will largely rest on services to residents. CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF RECREATION AREAS III order to estimate the potential recreational use of the mountains, lakes, reservoirs and streams of the nortlieastern county area, it was necessary to develop assumptions and standards for classifying and meas- uring areas deemed suitable for development. These standards ai-e shown in Table 1 (page 257). The preparation of these standards followed review of existing recreation studies prepared by the Na- tional Park Service, the United States Forest Service and the State Division of Beaches and Parks and dis- cussion with officials of these agencies. In the application of these standards to each county, great reliance was placed on the experience and judg- ment of local officials and private citizens who knew the area intimately and who could delineate on maps the forests, lakes, streams and other featui'es having existing or jjotential recreational value. A survey of each county was made by air, accom- panied by an experienced official, usually a Forest Ranger. Large areas of each county were also visited by automobile. CLASSIFICATION OF RECREATION AREAS To describe the characteristics of potential recrea- tion areas in some detail, some 22 area classifications were used. For each of these classifications, assump- tions were made as to how much of the area could be developed (ranging from five to 60 percent), and what proportion of the developed areas was suitable for each of four types of major recreation facility: recreation residences, resorts, camping and picnic grounds, and organizational camps. Density standards were also established for each type of recreation facility. To illustrate: The R-1 classification in Table 1 in- cludes areas which are usable for an average distance of one-half mile on each side of a stream or 640 acres per lineal mile of stream ; it is assumed that 50 per- cent of such area is suitable for intensive develop- ment; it is further assumed that on the average the total developable area in an R-1 classification can be allocated as follows : • 50 percent in recreation residences, at a density of one per acre ; • 30 percent in resort development, at a density of one unit per 15 acres; • 20 percent in camp and picnic grounds, at a den- sity of 2 familj^ units per acre. AREA CHARACTERISTICS Characteristics of each of the 22 area classifications are as follows : RECREATION AREA CLASSIFICATIONS Genera/ Characterisiics R-1 Major rivers readily accessible to motor vehicles, having scenic, climatic, topographic, location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation developments. R-2 Rivers and major tributaries accessible to motor ve- hicles as for R-1. Ofter have considerable fluctuation in usable valley width and steepness of canyon walls. R-3 Small rivers and tributaries accessible to motor ve- hicles as for R-1. Generally have steeper fall and inter- mitteut flats and meadows. R-4 Tributaries and streams accessible to motor vehicles as R-1. Generally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. R-l-R Reservoirs readily accessible to motor vehicles, having scenic, climatic, topographic, location and other re- source values which will attract public and private recreation developments. R-2-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-l-R. Often have considerable fluctuation in usable valley width and steepness of canyon walls. R-3-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1. Gen- erally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. R-4-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1. Gen- erally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. S-1 Major streams and tributaries in part inaccessible to motor vehicles also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will at- tract public and private recreation development. S-2 Streams and tributaries in part inaccessible to motor vehicles, also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. S-3 Medium to small streams in part inaccessible to motor vehicles, also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. S-4 Small streams largely inaccessible to motor vehicles also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. P-1 Primitive and wild areas of 200,000 acres or more pre- served in natural state for camping, hiking, scientific study, fishing, etc. P-2 Primitive and wild areas of less than 200,000 acres and suitable for more intensive use. L-1 Lake areas inaccessible to motor vehicles. L-2 Lake areas accessible to motor vehicles. RA-1 Desirable middle to high altitude areas of conifers, meadows, and rock out-croppings suitable for fishing, hunting, camping and biking, etc. and generally inac- cessible to motor vehicles. (248) NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 249 RA-2 Desirable niicklle altitude areas of mixed conifers, aspen, streams, meadows, gentle topography. RA-3 Juniper-sage plateau, some pine, bitterroot, grassland, suitable for some fishing and hunting. H-1 Desirable major highway frontage where not included in other series, having scenic, topographic, location and other resource values ; with primary emphasis on com- mercial development. II-2 Less desirable major highway frontage where not in- cluded in other series, having some scenic, topographic, location and other resource values with primary em- phasis on commercial development. W Wildlife— waterfowl. For presentation on maps, the 22 classifications were summarized in three groups, designated by the colors, "blue, green and yellow" (see Table 1). These groupings may be described as follows : Blue: Areas of prime recreation potential readily accessible by motor vehicle during the entire vacation season. Grec7i: Areas of prime recreation potential not readily accessible by motor vehicle. This may include some areas accessible by jeep. TelloH': Acce.ssible areas having limited recreation potential such as the wide juniper sage plateau of the Lahontan Basin, the dry ranges of the Eastern Cas- cade slope, and the middle altitude mesquite and mauzanita forest. This includes wildlife areas. Pri- mary recreation uses are hunting and fishing. Lands adjacent to present urban centers, or areas likely to become urban and suburban in character have also been designated. Their estimated acreages by county are shown in Table 2. For mapping pur- poses they are shown in red. Urban and suburban areas are expected to contain a large number of residences of persons moving into the northeastern county area because of its attractions for livins'. 1. Permaneni and Summer Homes According to demands for suimiuT lioiiic sites within the United States National Forests, tlicrc will be an increasing trend for families to build sunnuer and second homes in their favorite vacation areas. In addition, earlier retirement and longer lives are encouraging the construction of homes in desii-able living areas previously considered financially imprac- tical. There is also a tendency for families to move to the countryside to live on small farms with in- comes supplemented by jobs in nearl)y urban centers. 2. Commercial Recreation Uses Commercial recreation uses, such as resorts, hotels, motels, restaurants, dude ranches, pack stations and related business activities. Almost every public rec- reation area attracts service establishments patron- ized by vacationers. Other recreation areas are de- velojjed and served entirely by private business estab- lishments ; recreation is their means of livelihood. 3. Campgrounds and Picnic Areas These areas vary from roadside rests and camps providing urban conveniences for the motoring tourist to the inaccessible wilderness and timberline bivouacs reserved for those who are able to find them on foot or horseback. 4. Organizational Camps Outing and cami^ing- programs for youths, adults, and families have increased so rapidly that today many California cities operate extensive facilities to serve their residents. Private summer camps for boys and girls and the wide camping programs sponsored by service organizations have exceeded the capacity of existing facilities in all parts of the state. RECREATION FACILITY CLASSIFICATION Within the classifications of recreation land shown in Table 1, it is assumed that there would be four major types of facilities to make the areas usable for public recreation. These are : Permanent and summer homes (recreation resi- dences) Commercial recreation uses (resorts, hotels, mo- tels, restaurants, dude ranches, pack stations, etc.) Campgrounds and picnic areas Organizational camps COUNTY TOTALS OF POTENTIAL RECREATION AREA (Table 2) With the assistance of forest rangers and other county residents having expert knowledge, every stream, lake, reservoir, meadow, plateau and primi- tive area in each county was classified and its capacity for potential recreation development was measured according to the standards and assumptions set forth in Table 1. The results of this classification and measurement are presented, count.y by countj', in Table 2. I. ESTIMATION OF RECREATION USE The estimates of developable ai-ea presented in Table 2 provide a basis for estimation of potential nser-days if facilities are developed and used to capac- ity. These estimates are shown in Table 3. The estimates employ conservative assumptions as to average number of jjersons using a facility and length of season. Nevertheless, the estimates add np to a grand total of 463,000,000 nser-days per year. This total includes approximately 80,000,000 nser- days representing direct use of existing and proposed reservoir areas (Table 4). Indirectly, water resource projects are bound to have a much larger eflfect, as without such projects development along man.y other streams would not occur. A reservoir project which contributes to stabilization of stream flow, for exam- ple, will stimulate downstream use by fishermen and campers, and will increase the demand for resorts, camp and picnic grounds beyond the immediate vicin- ity of the reservoir. No adequate eom]3arison can be made between the estimate of 463,000,000 user-days, which is for capac- ity use and includes both public and private facilities, and present recreation use. For one thing, no ade- quate data are available on present use of commer- cial and other private facilities. For national foi-est areas, for which records are kept, total use in 1955 is estimated at 8,350,000 visitor-days, including per- sons driving through the forests to enjoy scenic at- tractions. More significant than the present level of recreation use is its rapid increase in recent years, as discussed earlier in this report. Estimated visitor-days for Shasta County include the Shasta Lake area, which in 1955 had an estimated 340,000 visitor-days of use. This is a small propor- tion of the 20,874,000 visitor-days estimated as po- tential capacity recreation use of reservoir areas in Sliasta County. For planning purposes, it is probably reasonable to assume, conservatively, that annual average use of recreation facilities at ultimate development will be about one-third of the capacity estimates. This indi- cates a total of about 150,000,000 visitor-days for the northeastern counties, including 30,000,000 visitor- days in reservoir areas. RECREATION BENEFIT A figure of $2.00 per visitor-day is suggested for use in measuring recreation benefit. Use of this figure would give a total recreation benefit of approximately $300,000,000 at full development, including $60.000',- 000 in reservoir areas.* By comparison, $300,000,000 is a little more than the value of 1955 agricultural production in the 15 northeastern counties (estimated by agricultural com- missioners at $287,392,000 f.o.b. farms), and about 50 percent more than the value of current annual timber production (estimated at about $200,000,000 f.o.b. mills). The $2.00 figure has been selected after extensive review of the problem of measuring recreation benefit with government agencies and other organizations working in the recreation field. It is recognized that no single monetary measure will be accepted by all persons, but the concept of benefit from a visitor-day of use probably finds the widest acceptance. The $2.00 figure is consistent with benefit figures currently used by Federal agencies for benefit-cost analysis, and is believed to understate recreation value from the point of view of public welfare and public policy. The $2.00 figure represents a judgment of the direct benefit to an average tourist, vacationer, sportsman, or other "recreationist" of a day in the outdoors, using the types of facilities indicated in this survey. It represents the intangible value of recreation, over and above expenditures for food, lodging, transporta- tion, sporting equipment and other factors necessary or incidental to enjoyment of the recreation. The latter factors may appear as indirect benefits to the local business community in the form of gross receipts for food, shelter, automobile fuel and service, sportswear and sporting equipment, etc. Keeent sur- ve.ys indicate that at current income and price levels, such expenditures average $8.00 per visitor-day in the western states. (These studies are described in this consultant's report to the State Department of Water Eesources on recreation potential of the Upper Feather River Basin). RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES TO RECREATION BENEFIT The relative contribution of each county to esti- mated total recreation benefit is indicated by the fol- lowing percentages, which represent each county's share of total estimated annual visitor-days use of recreation areas in the northeastern counties at full development : * All estimates are in dollars of present purchasing power. (250) NOKTIIEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 251 PERCENTAGE OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE (IN USER-DAYS) third of total user-days are expected to be accounted ACCOUNTED FOR BY EACH OF 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES foj. by recreation residences; families in such resi- 3^,jj^ (Based on Tobie 3) ^ _ ^^^ deuccs luay Iwve substantially different expenditure Colusa 2.4 patterns from families who are traveling and spend Glenn 2.6 much less time in an area. Lake 5.0 t-, , Lassen 7.9 Even where the $8.00 per visitor-day figure (or a Modoc 7.1 similar figure) applies, some of the expenditure is for Shasta IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"! 14!7 food, gasoline, etc. enroute, and may not be spent in Siena 3.3 the county whose recreation area is the objective of Siskiyou 13.4 the trip. Sutter 1.3 ' Tehama 11.5 For crude estimating purposes, however, it may be Trinit.v 9.3 said that at present price levels the total estimated Yuba IIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 31 annual recreation use of 150,000,000 visitor-daj'S in the northeastern counties might involve something on l'i"« the order of $1,200,000,000 of expenditure {(Fo $8.00 The same proportions might also indicate very ap- Pei" visitor-day) aud that various counties might share proximately the share of each county in potential »i s"ch expenditures roughly in proportion to their expenditures for recreation purposes. However, it is share of developed recreation facilities and potential very difficult to estimate the volume of recreation ex- user-days in the 15-couuty total, penditures which would appear as receipts to business To sum up, it does not seem unreasonable to esti- in each county. For one thing, the average of $8.00 mate that the northeastern counties have the potential per visitor-day shown by available studies reflects pri- in natural resources to support recreation activity marily the expenditure of motorists visiting an area worth one billion dollars per year or more, at ultimate for a relatively brief period (several days up to two development and in present dollars, in gross receipts weeks). In the potential recreation development of the to the construction, retail and service industries of the northeastern counties, on the other hand, about one- area. IV. RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES This section contains brief descriptions of the rec- reation resonrees of tlie northeastern counties, to indicate principal features suitable for recreation development. The descriptions reflect the findings of the inven- tory of recreation resources discussed in Section II. BUTTE COUNTY The climate, terrain, and accessibility of the foothill portions of Butte County have already encouraged a great diversity of recreation development which in- clude a wide range of public and private activities. The community of Paradise located at about 2,000 feet elevation in the north central portion of Bvitte County is a notable example of a rapidly expanding resort, summer home, and retirement center. Similar low density rural communities will be duplicated many times in the future along the entire length of the Sierras, in some cases up to an elevation of 3,500 feet. Butte County has many valuable natural resources that are especially suitable to encourage extensive resort and summer home development in the Sierra Foothills up to an elevation of 3,500 feet and public camping, hunting, hiking, skiing and related recrea- tion activities at higher altitudes. Portions of The Lassen National Forest and Plumas National Forest lie within the county and comprise 12 percent of its land area. The inventory of recreation resources indicates that approximately 25 percent of the gross area of the county is usable for permanent and summer homes, while an additional 11 percent of the county is suit- able for group and family camps and resorts. Extensive urban growth is anticipated around Chico and Oroville, particularly with the increased economic activity resulting from the construction of Oroville dam. Home building may extend from Oro- ville to Palermo and will doubtless expand in such valley towns as Gridle.y, Biggs, and small centers along the Sacramento River. In the Sierra foothills retirement homes and small farms are expected to follow the most desirable watercourses such as the Chico, Little Butte and Clear Creeks north to the county line. New water sources will change much of the high plateau rangeland into a pattern of small farms, resorts, and retirement centers. In time almost all of Butte County's eastern slope will be made ac- cessible. Resorts and public recreation areas will be interspersed among the living areas. At higher eleva- tions these public facilities will be more extensive. Proper planning of the county's recreation re- sources should set aside large wild life and wilderness areas along the Saci'amento and Feather Rivers and some of the picturesque rim rock country of the lower Sierras. COLUSA COUNTY The rich agricultural lands of the Sacramento Val- ley and the dry oak-studded range land of the western foothills comprise most of the county. The introduc- tion of water storage reservoirs, particularly those that will be maintained at a constant water level will change the character of the area and increase its de- sirability for building vacation homes and resorts. The upper reaches of Big Stony Creek, Mill Creek and Little Stony Creek are desirable for camping, fishing and some resorts. The higher ridges between Colusa and Lake County have desirable forest recrea- tion characteristics. The area east and south of East Park Reservoir is dry range and for recreation pur- poses suitable only for hunting and a few mineral spring health resorts. The Saci'amento River which flows along the east- ern county boundaries is the greatest recreation re- source in Colusa County. Potentially this wonderful river could provide a wide range of water recreation activities : camping, picnicking, resort development and choice permanent and summer home location and the reservation of large river primitive areas in order to preserve the beauties and powerfiil significance of this jugular vein of Northern California. GLENN COUNTY Nearly one-fourth of Glenn County is in the Men- docino National Forest which reaches an altitude of over 7,000 feet. Good timber stands, manj^ streams and springs and relatively easy access should result in continuing increase in use of this area. Portions of this higher forested area would be most suitable preserved as an inaccessible wilderness and camping area. Medium altitude meadows and streams will attract campers, trailer camps, resorts and a sprinkling of vacation homes, particularly along the upper reaches of Grindstone Creek, Salt Creek, and the middle fork of Stony Creek and on the western slope along Black Butte Creek and its tributaries. Below 2,500 feet elevation digger pines and native oaks indicate a dry grazing zone suitable for hunting but discouraging to other recreation pursuits except immediately along the major streams. Stony Gorge Reservoir located in the foothills above the Sacramento Valley floor, attracts over 1,000 water C ) NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 233 sports enthusiasts during a Sunday for a four-montli season even without facilities available to encourage this use. This is evidence that reservoirs built in this hot, dry foothill area will substantially increase the recreation potential of the county. Bird refuges are important recreation resources of Glenn and other Valley counties and should receive considerable planned expansion to maintain the Pa- cific Flyway and meet the increasing hunting pres- sures. The Sacramento River is a major recreation resource that is receiving considerable increased use without proper controls to ensure orderly resort, sum- mer home, and camping development and to preserve portions of the primitive river and wildlife scene. LAKE COUNTY Of the 15 northeastern counties under investigation Lake County is unique. The abilitv of this county to attract a large population may be surmised from the historic record of a dense Indian population which enjoyed the natural abundance of foods and the mild climate. Although Lake County is one of the smallest of the northeastern counties it is one of the richest in natural recreation resources. Lying entirely within the coast range the southern portion of the county is typical foothill country of rolling hills, numerous streams and upland valleys. North of Clear Lake the terrain becomes more rugged with extensive lumber stands within the Mendocino National Forest. The rec- reation resources of the county have already been ex- tensively developed. Resorts, homes and public parks around Clear Lake, the Blue Lakes and to a lesser extent Pillsbury Lake indicate the attractiveness of such natural or man-made water resources. The inventory of recreation land indicates that ap- proximately 30% of the county is suitable for perma- nent and summer homes and the expansion of urban centers. Approximately seven percent could be used for a wide range of resorts and approximately 14.2 percent for family and group camping activities. Field investigations and conferences with county officials confirm the trend of increased construction of retirement homes and small farms. Sprinkler irri- gation has made possible the planting of fruit and nut orchards in the hill areas. The favorable climate and easy commuting to the metropolitan area is en- couraging large numbers of retired, semi-retired and week-end commuters to buy 5 or 10 acre orchards. There are strong indications that much of the county will become a bedroom satellite of the Bay Area. A sampling of resort activity reveals an increase of 50 percent to 100, percent during the past year. Boating on Clear Lake has increased many times over in recent years according to experts close to this activity, though only 20 percent of the accessible shoreline is being used for recreation purposes. The mild climate favors the gradual increase of the tour- ist season to a 12 month operation. In addition to the usual resort development there is already a notice- able trend to construct golf courses and private and resort airports for pleasure aircraft. LASSEN COUNTY Geographically the Ijahoiitan Plain which covers most of Lassen County seems unrelated to other parts of Northern California. Perhaps this remoteness is partly responsible for the relatively undeveloped state of the recreation resources of the region. National forests — Lassen, Modoc, and Plumas — cover 21 percent of the county's area. The inventory of recreation potential showed that the county has a relatively high potential user-day capacity with ma- jor emphasis on camping and outing experiences and somewhat lesser potential for the building of resorts, and vacation homes. The mild summer climate will encourage extensive use of the forest, many lakes and streams in the west- ern half of the couutj-. The Blue Lakes region in the southern end of the Warner Range, only recently discovered by the public, is an example of the excel- lent and as yet unused and unspoiled reei-eation re- sources in the county. The extensive Pit River Watershed including Horse, Davis, Juniper, Willow and Ash Creeks pro- vide opportunities for extensive camping and resort possibilities as well as centers for the best hunting field of Central and Eastern Lassen County. Such creeks as Red Rock, Snake and Buckstrom Canyon and a number of lakes and reservoirs along the east- ern portion of the county provide recreation areas similar to the popular dry plateau vacation lands of Arizona and New Mexico. Lassen Volcanic National Park and the Caribou Peak wild area are a small part of the choice vacation land that falls Mathin Lassen County. Without ques- tion a large part of Lassen County's future depends on the wise use of these natural resources. Eagle Lake, located approximately 17 miles north- west of Susanville promises to have a bright recrea- tion future as a large resort or vacation center. Plans are now under way to maintain a constant level on this large inland lake, to provide paved road access and encourage the construction of resorts and summer home tracts. Susanville, the county seat, is already recognized as the hub of a wide range of recreation facilities, including winter sports, hunting, fishing, boating and family and group camping. MODOC COUNTY From a scenic and recreation viewjioiut Modoc County is a land of contrasts' with features ranging from lava beds with ice caves, and a labrynth of un- derground passages to the great inland seas of Goo.se 254 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Lake and the Upper, Middle and Lower Alkali Lakes of Surprise Valley. Over half of the county is in- cluded in the Modoc National Forest. The wild and primitive Warner Mountains with extensive forests, perennial sti-eams and small lakes, all are potential vacation lands which contrast with the broad juniper and bitter-weedplains in the south central parts. The preat 30,000 head herd of muletail deer that migrate south from Oregon have made hunting- the major rec- reation activity. A short season of goose and duck shooting is also a major attraction for sportsmen. As with Lassen County, Modoc County has a very promising recreation future providing that the use of these natural wonders is carefully planned to protect the delicate natural balance between flora and fauna in this water deficient area. The development of family camping areas, attractive trailer parks and access to the many points of scenic interest will lengthen the recreation season and increase the im- portance to the county of this segment of the economy. The balanced development of these scenic and wild- life resources also require the preservation of large wild life and game refuges and primitive areas. Guided by wise planning even the famous Modoc ante- lope may be returned to their former strength. PLUMAS COUNTY The boundaries of Plumas County coincide roughly with those of the Plumas National Forest, which oc- cupies about 70 percent of the county. The rough ter- rain of the Sierra Nevada is here relieved by arable valleys — Sierra, Indian, American, Mohawk, and Genessee — and by the splendid watercourse of the Feather River and its tributaries. Plumas County offers the tourist, vacationer, sports- man and other "recreationist" the finest in mountain scenery, environment, and sports opportunities, in- eluding winter sports. (No detailed description of recreation areas in Plumas County is given here because, pursuant to contract, such is included in a separate report to the State Depai-tment of AVater Resources on the recrea- tion potential of the Upper Feather River Basin.) SHASTA COUNTY Shasta County may be considered the central show window of the recreation resources of Northern Cali- fornia because of its strategic location at the head of the great Sacramento Valley and because of its great variety of recreation resources, including deep can- yons and high mountain peaks, dense forest and Sim-scorched valleys, the headwaters of the mighty Sacramento River and secluded upland streams and meadows. These are a few of the easily accessible recreation resources to be sampled and enjoyed, and that inevitably lead to further exploration into the more inaccessible back country in Trinit}', Si.skiyou, Modoc and Lassen Counties. As shown on the recreation resource map, there are many desirable recreation residence and resort loca- tions in the county, especially along Hat and Mont- gomerj' Creeks and around the Castle Crags and the Castella areas. Urban expansion around Redding will probably extend eastward and south to the Tehama County border. In the Happy Valley and Balls Ferry area there are many examples of the conversion of larger farm holdings into small residence farms of from two to 10 acres. This pattern will be extended over large parts of this rich river bottom land to form a very low density and decentralized urban commu- nity. A relatively large proportion of the population that will settle in the Redding area will probably be retired, having been attracted to this scenic and en- joyable land to relax and "live" away from the con- gestion of metropolitan areas. About one-fourth of the county area has recreation potential wliicli is divided fairly evenly between pos- sible public and i^rivate development. Estimates of capacity user days at ultimate development are higher than for any other of the 15 northeastern counties (Table 3). SIERRA COUNTY Although small in total gro.ss area Sierra County could devote about one-third of its rugged streams to recreation activities. The Yuba River watershed ac- counts for the very high potential even though at present access is limited to state highways #49 and #89. The yearly capacity use of the camping and resort facilities of the Lakes Basin Recreation Area indicates the desirability of these resources for family camping and sportsman fishing and hunting. The east- ern end of the county, being less precipitous forest land and including the southerly portion of Sierra Vallej^ has many recreation streams of high recreation value, including the little Truckee River. The Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Metro- politan populations are already placing heavy pres- sure on these forests because of their proximity to these expanding urban centers. Certainly with proper long range planning, the recreation resources of Sierra County wall become the major economic ac- tivity. SISKIYOU COUNTY The largest and most rugged count.y in the area provides some of its finest scenery. A few of its scenic areas have alreadj^ been protected within the Klamath National Forest as primitive and wild areas.. These include the Marble ]\Iouutaius which are famous for their Alpine beauty and are attracting more and more people to pack and hike into these remote regions. The recreation resource inventory shows that all of the NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT •So'o streams liave a high potential for a balaiieed recrea- tion development -with emphasis on small less acces- sible streams for organization camping. The towns of Etna and Fort Jones in Scott Valley are reminiscent of a Swiss setting nestled among high forested mountains and watered by white water streams. Such restful spots are ideally suited to ac- connnodate dude ranches and resorts developed to harmonize with the relaxed country environment. The proposed ski and winter sports development at Mt. Shasta Recreation Area and the use of Medicine Ijake by increasing vacationists are two examples of current interest in large scale recreation potentials in Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest lies entirely within the western portion of the county. Forest Serv- ice personnel recognize the increasing pressure for fine recreation areas and are making good progress in coordinating the planning for multi-use of the forest. Most of Siskiyou has recreational potential and it is only a question of time when the primary problems will relate to planning and building camps, resorts, and vacation houses fast enough to meet the acceler- ating state-wide demands. Along the Klamath River and at the mouth of each tributary summer resorts, public camps and vacation homes will be built. The Salmon River, Trout Creek and Butte Creek are examples of locations where camps and cabins can be expected eventually. The development of Shasta Springs as a group camp and summer religious center is an example of a recreation activity that will probably increase in Siskiyou County. SUTTER COUNTY The primary recreation resources of Sutter County are the waters of the Feather and Sacramento Rivers, which have so far received only incidental protection or development. Potentially these water- ways can provide enjoyment for many people includ- ing water sports enthusiasts, campers, river tourers, birdwatchers, fishermen, farmers and other residents along the rivers. However, many spots along the river banks are now being used for dumping grounds and other inappropriate iises. Pollution of the river waters is common today and if continued will destroy the recreation values that nature so freely provided. Because Sutter County is small and lacks the variety of recreation resources that other northeastern counties have, it has a special incentive to protect and develop its river recreation areas. TEHAMA COUNTY Reaching from the crest of the Coast Range across tlie upper end of the Sacramento Valley and high up in the Sierra slope. Tehama County has a great variety- of natural recreation resources. Portions of four national forests (Lassen, Shasta, Trinity, and Mendocino) include approximately 20 percent of the county's area. These forests possess many desirable fishing streams, particularly in the Lassen forest where there are many suitable spots for vacation homes, resorts and extensive camping for families and organizations. Winter sports areas are already being developed near Lassen Volcanic National Park and several favorable sites are being considered at liigh elevations on the Coast Range. Below the timber line particularly on the west side of the valley the recica- tion potential is limited to hunting of deer and upland birds. However, tlic construction of reservoirs in these western foothills will attract heavy recreation use if desirable operation characteristics are maintained. About one-fourth of the county has potential for homes, resorts, and camping, under optimum con- ditions. As with other valley counties, the Sacramento River provides Tehama County with a large recrea- tion potential for active use and passive enjoyment. This resource, luilike tlie inaccessible mountains, lias been sadly neglected, misused and polluted. With rising recreation demand it will become increasingly urgent to stop these practices and inaugurate con- structive measures to protect one of tlie major recrea- tion resources of Northern California. TRINITY COUNTY In tlie remote and inaccessible parts of soutliern Trinity Count.y are said to live mountain folk who have never seen the outside world. True or not, there is little question that all of this rugged mountain country is a paradise for the devoted camper, packer and mountaineer. Without doubt recreation use will ultimately be Trinit.y County's largest economic ac- tivity. The many secluded and wonderful valleys that now support a limited agricultural econom.y lend themselves to resort and vacation home use as already exist along Cofi^ee Creek, around Trinity Center, and in the Haj-fork and Wildwood areas. The preservation of the Salmon Trinitj' and Yolla Bolly Wilderness areas are tribute to the foresight of the Forest Service in protecting some of tlie finest scenic country in America. Such planning should extend to manj- other areas throughout the "Shasta-Cascade Wonderland." Four IT. S. Forests (Mendocino, Shasta, Trinity and Six Rivers) cover two-thirds of this county, indi- cating the extent of the national forest. The estimates of ultimate reei'eation use indicate that about 15 percent of the gross area of the county has recrea- tion value and when fully developed could contain facilities sufficient to accommodate approximately 44,000,000 visitor-days per season at capacity use, or nearly 10 percent of the total use estimated for all of the 15 northeastern counties. I 256 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION YOLO COUNTY Yolo County is expected to receive a larger per- centage of the iirban population than any other of the northeastern counties. This population concen- tration will require that special attention be given to the proper and full utilization of the relatively limited recreation resources of the county. The Sac- ramento River along the easterly county line is the greatest natural resource, and has great potential for boating and water sports, home sites and resorts. Pub- lic access to the river is an immediate j)roblem which, unless adequately provided before the cost is pro- hibitive, will seriously limit the full use of the Sacra- mento River and its tree-lined shores. The western boundary of the county follows the crest of the Vaea Mountains which presently have a limited recreation potential. Hunting is a major at- traction in this area. Montieello Reservoir now under construction on Putah Creek and particularly the Montieello Dam Afterbay will attract great numbers of day and weekend people as well as extensive summer home and resort construction. Water, as a new reservoir or a freshened stream, will give new recreation life to the western hill country of Yolo County. YUBA COUNTY The description of recreation values of Butte County apply in large measure to Yuba County which lies just to the south. The number of small, pleasant towns such as Brownsville, Challenge, Camptonville, give an indication of the desirable character of the Sierra foothills for rural living. As most of the county is readily accessible it has been estimated from the recreation resource inventory that more than 20 per- cent of the total area has potential for family and group camping, vacation cabins and permanent homes and a wide range of resort and overnight accommoda- tions. About 12 percent of the couiity is covered by the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. I NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 257 Of < s 2 0- UI " oe 01 _. " < s 5 > ui ^ o 1- k O o ^ h- UI — OS -a 1- 3 2 - 3-3 < Ol UJ lu tf) ^ S to z < LU < 1 CQ < U) X 1— W) u < » ST _ o O -0 1- B _ UI « "" e 3 <» 1: Ss < u z « < o o o o CO O CO o CJ CM v t. aj t. fe C) b t< u t-> k. L< u. k. L. IP » 9 a 01 01 0) a «a > ^ 0) u 0) 0. > a > a > a > > a > a. E Q, C a C a n a C a C a ^ a n i , J ii §■, J - a a i ii J a i| a ' n Q. , ,^ ^ , 1 ^ '-' ' ' ' ■ ^ rt ^ - III I ' £ OT OT tn W) m s m CO m (0 » « 01 a; « i> at CJ m 0) 09 u i« u. fc. L. b. U U o u o o o o o o a 1 03 CJ 03 03 03 OJ ca ol «3 cj a3 a o o O O O O o O O O O .2 S ■a -a< f 1* ■^ "^ ■^ ■^ ■^ ^ ^ -1- •a d e .5 •S .a .a .a c .s .a .a & 1 1 ^ ^ I : ^ fH ' ' ' . « '-' --* rH r-* ^ i ^ 1 > "j< p) 1 1 -^ W , 1 '* i^ »o CI 111 1 o ' ' ' ' ' 1 ^ ' ' ' ' < . . »o LO 1 t lo u:) o o 1 1 LO lO lO in O O ' o s? -r CO ' ^ IsJ 00 ■* o •»*• 00 Tf o -f , , , ' o 00 c^ o III 1 o M lO lO CO CI "5 lO CO 1 CJ> - CO --H a t. < o o o o O O O o o iC o O 'O •o ira iQ o s b° CO CC C-1 IN CO CO W (N CN 00 00 ^ "-■ — ' ■-' CO tf ^1S •a §^ 0^*01 Oi O "* Ol Ol , , , 1 CI o o CO III 1 , m to :D Ci o to C>1 ^ ' ' ' 1 I— ^ III 1 ' 1 o t.s n £ CO CJ CO tu i <0 s s u Q. o. a 3 C •a ii i 'd £ T3 a 3 ej 3 ci 3 03 03 s ^ ^ J " ^ ^ J -• -- -^ ' 1 J, -^ -^ " ^ a £ O rt< o Ol O -# Oi Oi ( 1 , ' OJ o o CO III 1 1 O C3 (N <0 © (N c3 a CD X c-i ■•D , (N Nt- f (M Ol r^ 'T 1 Ol f CO li « >-i CO — ■ 5j a (U o S-3 o o o o o o o O o o tn lO o o o o O O O O o o B. 6? »n Tf CO CO lO Tf CO CO 1" o " CO €■* "N o d LO O -1 •"■ O •o , o o o o o o o o 1 o O o o , 1 "ot ll -1* O) 'J' o f C) -T* o V O V 0) 0) o o c c d Al Green 1 Green rimitive Green iver Prim. Green 1 1 3 3 3 3 _3 _a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 li £ S *a! ©13 SffiS S m m S s 5 s m m S O O O < r « T3 — . C^ CO -r -H C) CO Tj* ■«l; C-l C-i ^ Cl CO -t* fU pjeif^ oi pEiPiPi m Pd ^ K S CB ci-j 2h k rt is XX EBB 3 3 3 is SoO O OJ a)>A o 03 -I p =3 « 11 5~ §S1 •^ ce o £ o =i o « £! tt> ^ 5 bI" = 1.1 = a: " 3) « £ £ Q. ^ «j as"* « .. .. = s 9—16762 258 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 2 ACRES IN POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS AND URBAN AREAS Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial faculties Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camps Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial facilities Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camps Butte Comity Blue: Rl 104,960 51,520 19,320 2,960 182,390 285 66,020 10,170 52,480 20,608 5,796 888 72,956 43 33,010 6,102 26,240 10,304 2,319 355 14,592 16,505 2,441 15,744 6,183 1,159 178 14,592 34 9,904 915 10.496 4,121 2.028 311 36,478 9 6,603 2,136 290 44 7,297 610 Glenn County Blue: Rl - 32,480 13,920 122,874 172 24,160 426 16,240 4,176 49,150 26 12,080 256 8,120 835 9,830 6,040 102 4,872 627 9,830 21 3,624 38 3,248 2,088 24,574 5 2,416 90 R2 R2 R3 - R3 R4 R4 SI SI 627 RA2 HI. --- RA2 HI... 4,913 H2 H2 RIR— R2R._ L2 RIR -.. R2R L2 26 Total Green : S2 Total Green: S2 437,625 9,620 191,460 191,883 72,756 48,709 62,182 8,241 194,032 23,880 14,640 2,880 41.400 32,740 3,620 81,928 4,776 2,928 576 8,280 24,927 955 585 115 1,655 19,012 716 440 86 1,242 32,421 2,388 1,464 288 4,140 5,566 716 S3 S3 440 S4 S4 86 RA1_ Primitive — Yellow: RA3 WUdlife Red: Urban RA1._ Primitive Total Yellow: RA3 WUdlife Red: Urban Totals by col. . Lake County Blue: Rl 1,242 Totals by col. _ Colusa County Blue: Rl 638,705 43,360 12,000 1,440 5.920 7,040 80,642 294 15,.360 191,883 21,680 4,800 432 1,776 2,112 32.257 44 7,680 72,756 10,840 2,400 173 710 422 6,451 3,840 48,709 6,504 1,440 87 355 317 6,451 35 2,304 62,182 4,336 960 151 622 1.056 16.129 9 1,536 8,241 21 89 317 3,226 -- 271,692 44,004 76,960 840 7,360 436,030 11,020 320 90,208 22,002 30,784 252 2,208 174,412 5,510 128 26,582 11,001 15,392 101 884 34,882 2,755 64 20,254 6,601 9,236 50 440 34,882 1,653 38 36.561 4.400 6,157 88 772 87,206 1,102 26 6,808 R2 R3- R4 SI R2 RA2 R3 13 HI.. R4 112 H2_ SI RIR R2R RA2 HI - 17,441 L2 H2 RIR R2R L2_. Total 166,056 8,280 7,440 1,520 320 70,781 1,656 1,488 304 160 24,836 331 298 61 17.493 249 223 46 24,799 828 744 152 112 3,653 249 223 46 48 -- Green: S2 Total Green: S2 576,534 600 235,296 120 65,079 24 52,900 18 99.751 50 17,566 S3 . _ . S4 RAl 18 Primitive . S3 LI... S4 RAl Primitive Total Yellow: RA3 WUdlife Red: Urban Totals by col. . Total 17,560 86,560 48.662 3,608 8,656 690 1,731 518 3,462 1,836 2,597 566 866 -- Yellow: RA3 WUdlife 600 29,940 102,160 120 24 18 50 18 Total Red: Urban 135.222 9,540 8,656 1.731 3,462 2,597 866 "~ Totals by col. . 328,378 83,045 27,257 21.473 29,232 5.085 709,234 235,416 65,103 52,918 99.801 17,584 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TABLE 2-Continued ACRES IN POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS AND URBAN AREAS 259 lue: Rl--- R2... R3-. R4--. SI.... RA2- H1-. H2... RIR. R2R. R3R. ! R4R. LI... L2.-. Total. rreen: S3 84 »A1 Primitive . LI. Total. Wildlife. Total. fotaU by col. line: Rl... 112— R3.... R4— SI RA2-. Hl... H2... RIR.- R2R.. R3R.. R4R.. L2... Total. S4 RAl Primitive . 82 LI Total. Total- Total area 36,800 43,200 32,980 14,560 501,451 719 81 33,920 10,160 6,770 740 11,150 681,381 27,882 5,620 33,502 1,524,996 45,070 1,570,066 14,860 2,299,809 30,721 61,920 23,520 16,560 383,068 759 23,360 8,800 9,720 3,360 15,360 577,148 69,240 320 69,560 1,425,670 63,420 1,489,090 20,900 2,156,698 De- veloped area 18,400 17.280 9,893 4,368 200,580 108 12 16,960 4,064 2,031 222 6,690 280,610 2,810 2,810 152,500 152,500 435,920 15,361 24,768 7,056 4,968 153,227 114 11,680 3,520 2,916 1,008 9,216 233,834 160 160 142,567 142,567 346,561 Recrea- tion residenccf 9,200 8,640 3,958 1,747 40,110 8,480 2,032 812 89 2,676 77,750 30,500 30,500 108,250 7,681 12,384 2,822 1,987 30,645 5,840 1,760 1,166 403 3,686 68,374 28,513 Com- mercial facilities 5,520 5,184 1,979 874 40,116 86 10 5,088 1,219 406 44 1,044 61,000 122,530 4,608 7,430 1,411 994 30,645 91 3,504 1.0.56 583 202 1,382 51,906 57,027 96,887 108,933 139,394 Camping and picnic grounds 3,680 3,456 3,463 1,529 100,290 22 2 3,392 813 711 2,342 119,778 1,967 1,967 47,750 47,750 167,495 3,072 4,954 2,470 1,739 76,614 23 2,336 704 1,021 353 3,226 96,512 112 112 42,770 42,770 Organi- zational camps 495 218 20,058 102 11 Area classification 843 843 15,250 15,250 37,646 353 248 15,323 146 50 922 17,042 48 48 14,257 14,257 31,347 Plumas County Blue: Rl. R2. R3 R4 SI... RA2 HI H2 RIR R2R L2 Total Green: S2.... S3 S4 RAl Primitive — LI Total Yellow: RA3 Wildlife Red: Urban Total by col. -. Shasta County Blue: Rl R2 R3 R4 SI RA2 HI H2 RIR R2R L2 Total Green: S2 S3.... S4. RAl. Primitive .. LI Total Yellow: RA3 Wildlife Red: Urban Totals by coL . Total area 1 1 5,680 19,760 12,960 160 960 890,427 68,000 14.890 1,122,837 480 133,670 48,180 3,960 186,290 1,362,687 113,120 105,060 55,080 41,440 2,560 696,350 562 173,420 53,310 3,220 1,244,122 21,240 6,240 8,200 61,740 1,880 99,300 483.380 151,930 1,978,732 De- veloped area 57,840 7,904 3,888 48 288 356,171 34,000 8,934 469,073 96 26,734 1,980 28,810 4,300 502,183 56.560 42,024 16,524 12,432 768 278,540 84 86,710 21,324 1,932 516,898 4,248 1,248 1,640 940 48,338 573,312 Recrea- tion residences 28,920 3,952 1,555 19 58 71,234 17,000 3,.574 126,312 860 127,191 28,280 21,012 6,610 4,973 1.54 55,708 43,355 10,662 773 171,527 850 250 328 1,428 Com- mercial facilities 17,3.52 2,371 778 10 43 71,234 10,200 1,340 103,328 105,062 16,968 12,607 3,305 2,486 115 55.708 67 26,013 6,397 290 123,936 637 187 246 1,070 19,335 182,623 144,361 210,532 Camping and picnic grounds 1 1 ,568 1,581 1,361 17 144 178,086 6,800 3.127 48 16,040 1,386 17.474 1,290 221,448 11,312 8,405 5,783 4,351 384 139,270 17 17,342 4,265 676 191,805 2,124 624 820 658 4.226 14,.501 Organi- zational camps 194 2 43 .35.617 893 36,749 14 10,694 594 11,302 430 48,481 826 622 115 27,854 193 29,610 637 187 246 282 4,834 35,796 260 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION TABLE 2— Continued ACRES IN POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS AND URBAN AREAS Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial facilities Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camps Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial facUities Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camij^ Sierra County Blue: Rl 12,160 22,720 3,120 403.560 12,800 11,680 6,080 9,088 936 161,424 6,400 7.008 3,040 4.544 374 32,285 3,200 2,803 1,824 2,727 187 32,285 1,920 1,051 1,216 1,817 328 80,713 1,280 2,453 47 16,142 701 Sutter County Blue: Rl_ 60,910 2,720 243 30,455 1,088 36 15,228 544 9,137 326 29 6,091 218 "7 -- R2 R2 R3 R3 -- R4 R4 -- SI S1-- -- RA2 HI n.^2 HI H2 H2 -- RIR R2R.. L2 -- RIR R2R R3R R4R L2 Total 466,040 6,050 190,936 46,246 39,994 87,807 16,890 Total Green: S2 Green: S2 63,873 47,250 22,710 31,579 15,772 9,492 6,316 "" S3 Rd RAl Primitive — LI S3..- S4 RAl- Primitive LI YeUow: RA3 Wildlife Red: Urban YeUow: RA3 WUdMfe Red: Urban Totals by col. . Tehama County Blue: Rl Totals by col. . Siskiyou County 472,090 128,640 3,398 49,920 23,923 68,500 276,175 514 34 125,760 24,446 190,936 64,320 1,3.59 14,976 7,177 20,550 110,470 77 2 62,880 14,668 46,246 32,160 680 5,990 2,871 4,110 22,094 31,440 5,867 39,994 19,296 408 2,995 1,435 3,083 22,094 62 2 18,864 2.200 87,807 12,864 272 5,242 2,512 10,275 55,235 15 12.576 5.134 16,890 749 359 3,083 11,047 1,467 133,833 125,440 69,120 61,120 36.960 625,280 409 99,680 7,200 31,579 62,720 27,648 18,336 11,088 2.50,112 61 49,840 4,320 15,772 31,360 13,824 7,334 4,435 50,022 24,920 1,728 9,492 18,816 8,294 3,667 2,218 50,022 49 14,952 648 6,316 12,544 5,530 6,418 3,881 125,056 12 9,908 1,512 R2 -.- R2 R3- 917 R3 R4. 554 R4 SI SI RA2- HI 25,011 RA2 HI H2.. H2 RIR R2R R3R R4R L2 RIR. R2R L2 . -- 432 Total Green: S2 701.310 81,031 62,640 79,720 30,609 227,762 3.216 296,479 16,206 12..528 15.944 6.122 1,608 105,212 3,241 2,.506 3,189 70,439 2,431 1,879 2,392 104,125 8,103 6,264 7,972 3,673 1,126 16,705 2,431 1,879 2,392 2,449 482 Total Green: 82 1,025,209 131,370 424,125 133,623 98,666 164,921 26,914 S3 S3 S4 S4 RA1._ Primitive — LI RAl Primitive — LI - __ 484,978 778,808 05,805 52,404 77,880 8,936 15,576 6,702 31,152 27,138 23,264 9,633 7,788 Total YeUow: R.\3 WUdlife Total Red: Urban Totals by col. . Total YeUow: RA3 WUdlife 131,370 466,160 46,616 9,323 18,640 13,985 4,662 Total Red: Urban- 844,613 113,900 77,880 15,576 31,152 23,264 7,788 466,160 42,270 46,616 9,323 18,646 13,985 4,662 Totals by col. . 2,144,801 426,763 129,724 108,293 154,527 34.126 1,665,009 470,741 142,946 117,312 178,906 31,576 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 261 TABLE 2— Continued ACRES IN POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS AND URBAN AREAS Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial facilities Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camps Area classification Total area De- veloped area Recrea- tion residences Com- mercial facilities Camping and picnic grounds Organi- zational camps Trinity County Blue: Rl 104,960 49,920 15,600 16,880 1,920 344,040 120,000 24,320 10,980 52,480 19,968 4,680 5,064 512 137,616 60,000 9,728 6,588 26,240 9,984 1.872 2,026 103 27,523 30,000 4,864 2,635 15,744 5,991 10,496 3,994 234 252 77 13,761 659 Yolo County — Continued Green: S2 52,970 40,750 5,297 1,059 2,119 1,589 R2 S3 R3 938 1,011 77 27,523 18,000 2,918 988 1,639 1,773 256 68,808 12,000 1,946 2,306 S4 R4 RAl Primitive — Yellow: RA3 WUdlife Total Red: Urban Totals by col. . Yuba County Blue: SI RA2_ HI H2_-_ 530 R1R___ R2R_ L2-.. 93,720 56,460 5,297 1,059 2,119 1,589 530 Total 688,620 36,360 7,520 36,700 322,340 296,636 7,272 1,506 7,340 105,247 1,454 300 1,468 73,190 1,091 227 1,101 103,218 3,636 752 3,670 14,983 1,091 227 1,101 -_ Green: S2 308,618 56,320 20,800 960 640 117,550 78 44,320 640 77,439 28,160 8,320 288 192 47,020 12 22,160 384 32,344 14,080 4,160 115 77 9,405 11,080 154 22,022 8,448 2,495 58 38 9,405 10 6,645 58 20,696 5.632 1,665 101 67 23,508 2 4,435 134 2,108 S3 S4 RAl Primitive Total 402,920 19,940 16.118 3,222 2,419 8,058 2,419 R2 R3 14 R4 10 Yellow • SI RA3 WildliJe - RA2 HI 4.702 H2 Red: RIR R2R_ _ L2 38 Total Green: S2 Totals by col. . 1,111,480 78,400 22,880 4,920 1,680 36,960 238 13,440 312,754 39,200 9,152 1,476 504 14,784 36 6,720 108.469 19,600 4,576 591 201 2,957 3,360 75,609 11,760 2,745 295 101 2,957 29 2,016 111,276 7,840 1,831 516 177 7,392 7 1,344 17,402 74 25 1,479 241,308 8,000 32,420 106,536 800 39,071 160 27,157 320 35,544 240 4,764 S3 S4 Blue: Rl R2. R3... R4. RAl — Primitive --- Yellow: RA3__ WUdlife Total Red: Urban Totals by col. . 80 SI RA2 HI 40,420 68,280 800 160 320 240 SO RIR R2R L2_.. Total 158,438 72,142 31,285 19,903 19,107 1,578 350,008 107,336 39,231 27,477 35,784 4,844 262 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION C3 < I— z liJ a. < UJ ^ q: U Q UJ UJ a I— < si — M — OO t- 0> CT 01 1~ -f CD CD CO COCDO-fCOOOsO to -TM^J — OSOOOOCD t-5 oo r- 1^ O •— -5' CO t- C^ to CO CO -r to t^ QO -1- t-^ ^ 00 co-rO — -TMOsto c^ CO CD - -r OS t— 01 M ■ 10 to io_ t->- r-._ =^. •^. ^ "» '-' '^ «^. -^ ll — * CO '=* oj" CO r-" ^-S-® ^'"^5- 0* Hw ^* i '" 01 ^ -• CD M o" 1 ^ I>. -T- CJ (^ oo r^ r^ GO CO 00 .-H g CO CO OS M r^ It- 1 , -f OS M . . 1 OS . g to t— CO ^- t~ OO CD r- CO t-- f 00 r- 00 OS CD 1 — . 1 -T- ^- 1 1 I — 1 CI t- • »n •— 00 "Tf 00 - ^ CD t- I- • t- OS QO -H . — CO .13 aJ c^* ® oT eo" o> tC ^- ^- 00 to* - <=> CO- t-- cd" •rr '^ ^ CD CO eo iT) o> C4 to CO CO M <%1 M F^ 00 CD to CO s ■^ ca o oo 1 ■* M f» r^ r« 1 CO O) CD OS CO CO 1 1 CO 1 00 M M M . .0 . M 5 00 >< eo eo M s to M S CD ^ m" Q ^ CD CO -r -T CO 1 CD 1 c^j -r c^ -r CO 1 -r t ^ S o oo ™ C: ^ CO CO CD CO 1 t- — CK M to 1 CO . M CO t- — 1 Tf 1 CD -f oo • CO CO ■— ' to • — 00 CD (M Tf - CO —_ CT OS^ 'ja od co" ^ oo' ■"-T oT 10" 10" ^ co' ^" CO oT r£ ^- CO .— 00 (M to H o>_ 00 to" « so CO iM CO -r -H oi to - QO oo r— M » r- tD CO t^ CO CO CD OS ca CD ■ r» 1 00 CD QO to 1 -f r OJ t- • CD I— CO ^ to.r^^ t- OS. 1 g M — — ■ 0> *!»■ t-- po 00 ■ >-i "S CD ci c^ ® -^ a> e co' ^" oo" co" ° cd" CD 2S -a -r O CO — U3 CO OS r"" ■IT QO o_ H 00" m" Oi" m" CO to CJ (M O <© Oi CO CO 1 1 M ^ *^. '^-1 " '-. 01 00" ^.o^„ CO S M S CO m" m" OT " 3 M M OT '^ ~ o_ CO co" -T- (O oo t^ CO eo eo t* r~ 00 «D <3) M* r-co^-or-**'coto ^ tO.->MMeD-HOM Q ca r— t-- oo CO »o 00 M OS . CO to M CD I?- MtOOI^COCDt-.- [^ CO ■ 1— 1 05 *0 » MM . 1x5 2 io tO_ -* -H — _ tO_ M_ »-, CO ^ 00 • M 'a- i- ci" --® CD MM cc t-." ® co" CO 00 00 -r" "^ r-" to" J^ MO oo .-! Cl to CO CO M S CO OS C3S to Cl M_^ M 22 m' oo" CO M s «D O O CO — ^- Q ■^ ^- r~ CO 00 1 ^ b- M CO M CD 1 'Tf 1 ^ _ (M ^ t-, , eo , 2 -r C-1 lO 1/3 O CD Oi r* -T- t— to 1 -- 'I" 00 M .0 1 c; c^t -^ 1 t ■^ Oi CD • -I" — CO rr . -a- r- (-_ cc' ^* ° — -T o j^ arM"=' ^ t-' t-T => OS* — " cd" Qo" CD ® CO -r c^ .- ^ en CO CD 00 CO M t- iS OS OS QO" :^- M to' CO OJ O -f to c^ (-, ^ M r~ r- C3J M 'J- M to [- QO > r- 01 ,^ coeoeooo-r ir-t- -2 CI >o 1^ r~ 00 O) to M OS — . CO CO t— M CO 1 to ■-" OS t- 1 -H 00 to CO ■ -»• CO t^ CO «> • lo Oa to CD ■ CC CO MM •^ t- OS ■ CO CJ CO_ ^ C-i" QO ° CD* ^ r^ -r" 0" ® •^" ic" CO m" => 0" _' m" wa' ° cd' oT CD — CD — to 52 CO "^ OS OT 2^ :: - CO " CO* M .-H ^ m" S CD -H — . O CO t— ■-■ M CO 1^ — OS CO 1 OO^OOOCOCDMM -Htoco — Mr---H-»i OJ -f CO C^ GO CO QO g g 00 CD 1 ■^OtOCOCD-fOJCD 00 — O^MCOO— — m ■ — t- o tj" M ■ to CO t- Tt> M '^ M - M OS to M_ l-J CD" *=* «" ^" tt" OS* 40-5-«=M- S- -h" 0' ® co" ^ to" cs" «■ ^ ■=» 0" OS M t~ lO Q CO ^- f- Ol M -^ CO 'T CO -S' 00 CO 1 -*• t- ~ ^ r-^coh-co icrs— QO O O -r -r ^ CO CD — 03 -7- CD OS -T- »0 OS ^- 1 01 CO f OS CO M ' iM 00 O 0O_ tD_ ■ 0_ <» I-_ (» M ■ CO 00 os_ CO t- ■ M CD t* CO r- . r- -a CD lO ® -il^ -H 0> co' tC '=* -h' 10' CO os' -*-' ■=■ CO -h" os' 06" -- <=> co' OS »0 CO >— 1 CO I— CO CO CO CO CO e3s s CD m" OS M* to o -f lo oo 00 oo ^ c^ r- -f r— — CO .0 to ^ M t- . to _ COOSC^OcD IM.— to CO >0 »0 CO CO M CO CO lO 10 ^ ■ CO 1^ CD OS ■ 00 CO ^ i 00* oT "^ -f" -<" co" 0" M-00-°^" tO- 00 ^- ^- ^- ^- ^- ** to" !>: to- O lO CO M M CO CD 00 CO rj. ■^ co CO "" OS CO 0* to_ s CO CO -^ ^- 1 l^ 00 CO t-» M 1 to 1 — " 00 •»• ^ 1 1 00 1 rf OS M CO 1 1 CD i 00 CO 1 1 eo 1 S O f CO OJ . (M ■f — CO . M . to to eas 1 1 CO 1 OS s — oo ■ (M CD e^ > a a c^i t-. r- lo to r- 10 '»• OS to 00 CO CJ QO CO ^< 1 OS 1 ^ CO -^ 1 . M 1 tO OJ ■ CD Oi M CO ■ CO CO to • r- -H CO to to' oT ° cd" oT irt O-H-O to" to" m" ® co' 00' -tT ©-" " ^- Oi U M 00 CO CO M 10 to M eo" t-' «" I^ M O «3 ■ t^ CO t- CO . M <-, M OS CO 1 1 M t- to CD eg CO ■ ■ eg — cQ to o CO r- .eg r- CO CO 1 CO CO -r CO t- . . -r CO CD 00 M C^ 1 > m Cl CO ■ o t^ "^ -T ■ t- CO M ■ !>■ M ^- ■ — M 3 r~' — ' <=> o" m" •r ^ —^ -V cT [-■ *=■ 0' co" to" <= O* 3 MM ^ M M M OS O OS CO to CD- CO M_ CD r— to CO O -^ 03 CD I^ — — M M 5_, M 00 — 00 QO . M 1 "7 — to M 00 to 1 M 1 -TOO ^H 1 00 1 5 S to O CO M M CO CD -T- -H CD t- QO — QO — CD 1 CO 1 =i. r- M ■ M CI ^ CD . — -r CO 3 :3 PQ ^- -- o ;;;- !} ^- to co" CO *-■ m" m" 0" => tC -- M- 00" 00" ° co" t^ to to to cD to tr to m" M 1 1 1 1 1 [ >> I a i >> 1 :;:;::::?>; C4 1 ei . C4 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 « 1 -0 1 -a . ■X3 1 . . 1 1 1 1 > 1 -a 1 1 10 I J ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 OS I to , 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 oa ! @ i @ i @ : ! i : i ; ; i i@ ; i „ 3 ' c ' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! g ! ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 9 : 1 1 ; ; 1 : ! ; !2 1 c OJ ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > V 1 o a a E E 3 « « i £ J i 1 g 1 1 -C „' 5 rt M CO I1IS.S.S. ■u q 3 3 3 ^H 3 a 1 1 ' «■ ' l-i i \siii ^ ; ^ 10 to to to i £35 = 's '3 r:-aoc33a = D. 1 § i i 1 E ! iiiijiiii "c £ -2 . - '3 '§ 'a '3 '3 u-aoq33=>33 2 to i a 3 a i > 1 1 1 1 1 1 > Q. . »|^:sooooog 1 J - £ iS .^ 3 3 3 3 3m . g-ao3 = 333 = S ' in — li ■EJS fccQ ^ OM- cao >t — eg «„ Pi-Jrtcci^o 3 ; 1 " 1 s ^ = " s ; §3 Sot 3s-|" cc; ^oJKU ■a„H3«„^ •|3 Sot «D «0 CM OO OO lO 00 lO O .-* o> o Oi M M CD (M O -r Ci oo ci_ 00 O e-3 f^ -1^ in Z) < o to liJ < u. o > UJ lO UJ I Of UJ CO 3 < Z z < < I- o o o C^ OJ O Oi O) CO w ^- o »0 OS CJ Sgg "* 00 o CO to OO 00 CM oo (O CM O sss --. »o CM US to o >o CD III i§i O O O OO CD O CM lO -r S^ o_ o_ S S CJ ^- CD CD "^. ". '^. ""5 O -^ CO S CM CO ^ eo" rf ^ "^ CO o' ill o o o III r- o o in lo o o o o T*. TT> O OO GO ea ^ o o O CO o CV CO CD « 'c 5 'c ?^ 'c 1 r®J 5 I, c'l 1 Sp 1 II s Appendix B COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES On the Preliminary Edition of Bulletin No. 58 "Northeastern Counties Investigation" TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Page 269 Yreka Hearing, September 3, 1958 Written Comments Statement by T. W. Williams, Siskiyou County Farm Bureau 271 Resolution, Siskiyou County Board of Super- visors, September 23, 1958 271 Statement by Water Study Committee of Siski- you County Farm Bureau 271 Letter from W. A. Barr to H. 0. Banks, October 23, 1958 272 Verbal Comments Mr. M. V. Maxwell, Siskiyou County Farm Ad- visor 272 Mr. Edson Foulke, Gazelle 273 Mr. F. L. Lathrop, Siskiyou County Water Board 273 Assemblywoman Pauline Davis, Portola 274 Mr. T. W. Williams, Montague 275 Bedding Hearing, September 4, 1958 Written Comments Statement by Jobn Reginato, Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association 276 Statement by Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 278 Statement by Harry D. Grace, Assistant Forest Supervisor, United States Forest Service 278 Letter Transmitting Statements by Shasta County Water Resources Department, Septem- ber 15, 1958 279 Statement by Joseph E. Patten, Manager, Shasta County Department of Water Resources 279 Supplemental Statement by Joseph E. Patten, Manager, Shasta County Department of Water Resources 282 Letter Transmitting Butte County Farm Bureau Statement, September 24, 1958 283 Statement by Ralph W. Carlson, Butte County Farm Bureau 284 Verbal Comments Ralph W. Carlson, Butte County Farm Bureau __ 284 Fred R. Piatt, Agricultural Commissioner, Butte County 285 Mr. E. I. Lane, Butte County 285 John L. Moran, Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 286 Mr. Lee Fry, Farm Advisor, Tehama County 286 Mr. Harry D. Grace, United States Forest Serv- ice, Redding 287 Mr. Paul Stathem, United States Forest Service, Redding 288 Mr. James J. Herbert, Shasta County Planning Commission, Redding 288 Page Assemblywoman Pauline Davis, Portola 289 Mr. John F. Reginato, Shasta-Cascade Wonder- land Association, Redding 290 Mr. Roscoe Anderson, Shasta County 290 Susanville Hearing, September 5, 1958 Written Comments Statement by Tule Irrigation District, September 5, 1958 291 Statement by Jim Bronson, Chairman, Lassen County Water Resources Board 291 Verbal Comments Mr. E. J. Humphrey, Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Greenville 292 Mr. Jim Bronson, Lassen County Water Re- sources Board, Susanville 292 Mr. Julian Mapes, Litchfield 292 Assemblywoman Pauline Davis, Portola 294 State Senator Stanley Arnold, Susanville 295 Mr. V. A. Parker, United States Forest Service, Susanville 296 Mr. Alfred Stoloff, Tule Irrigation District, Susanville 297 Mr. Donald P. Cady, Susanville 297 Sacramento Hearing, November 6, 1958 Written Comments Statement by Plumas County Board of Super- visors 299 Statement by Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 299 Statement by Lake County Board of Supervisors and Lake County Water Commission 304 Verbal Comments Mr. Colin Handforth, Yuba County 305 Mr. Bernell Harlan, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 305 Mr. Charles M. Gordon, Yolo County Flood Con- trol and Water Conservation District 306 Mr. David J. Cox, Lake County Water Commis- sion 307 Mr. Randolph Dewante, Consulting Civil Engi- neer, Sacramento 309 Mr. George Mitchell, County Supervisor, Lake County 310 Mr. Kurt Schamber, Clear Lake Highlands 310 Mr. W. A. Barr, County Supervisor, Siskiyou County . 310 Additional Written Comments Letter from State Department of Natural Re- soiirces, June 2, 1958 311 Letter from Maurice K. Strantz, Tulelake Irriga- tion District, May 25, 1959 312 (267) ■;rfrrr'. FOREWORD In accordance with Section 12623 of the Water Code, the State Department of Water Resources and the California Water Commission held joint hearings on September 3, 1958, in Yreka, California; September 4, 1958, in Kedding, California ; September 5, 1958, in Snsanville, California ; and November 6, 1958, in Sacramento, California, to secure comments on the preliminai-y edition of Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation." After consideration of these comments, a number of revisions were made in the preliminary edition. This appendix contains the comments presented verbally and in writing at the public hearings, as well as written comments submitted to the Director of the Department of Water Resources and to the California Water Commission relating to the preliminary edition of the bulletin. Verbal comments contained herein are selected statements from the transcript of record. (269) YREKA HEARING JOINT HEARING OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Held at Courthouse, Yreko, California, September 3, 1958 WRITTEN COMMENTS STATEMENT BY T. W. WILLIAMS Chairman Water Problems Department Siskiyou County Farm Bureau Yreka, California, September 3, 1958 Bulletin No. 58 Northeastern Counties Investigation appears to be a very thorough study of the water needs of the Northeastern Counties. There are sev- eral items that should be studied further. One is on page 127, the figure shown is 52,800 acres as the probable ultimate irrigated land in Shasta Valley, Siskiyou County. This appears to be the land which can be irrigated by water developed within the Valley and does not include all the land that is irrigable which could be provided for by water developed from the Klamath River. Since this report will no doubt be used in setting reservations for water in the counties of origin, I believe, that any irrigable land, where it is engineer- ingly feasible to service with water, should be con- sidered as land that will be irrigated at the time of ultimate development. While at the present time financial feasibility of some of the local import water projects to serve this irrigable land which is in excess of land that can be developed by waters within these valleys may be in doubt, at sometime in the future this additional water may be developed at a price that the user can afford. I would like to recommend that all the land, that is irrigable and can be served by a source of water, be included as irrigated land in the ultimate develop- ment of the region. RESOLUTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SISKIYOU COUNTY Yreka, California, September 23, 1958 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 388 Sacramento 2, California Dear Mr. Banks: Enclosed please find copy of Resolution adopted this date by the Board of Super- visors of Siskiyou County in regular session, approv- ing the Comments on Bulletin 58 as made by the "Water Study Committee of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau, copy of which is also enclosed herewith. Yours very truly, Don S. Avery, Chairman Board of Supervisors Siskiyou County, California Resolution Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou County in regular session this 23rd day of September, 1958, that: 1. The allocation of ultimate irrigated acreage and ultimate water requirements for Siskiyou County, as contained in Department of Water Resources Bulletin 58, is inadequate. 2. No firm allocation of either ultimate irrigated acreage or ultimate water requirements be made until an exhaustive study of the situation lias been conducted. 3. We approve the Comments on Bulletin 58 made by the Water Study Committee of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau. Dated this 23rd day of September, 1958. Ayes: Supervisors Barr, Jackson, and Daly. Noes : None. Absent : Supervisor Ager. Attest : /s/ Don S. Avery Chairman of the Board of Supervisors /s/ Rachael N. Cordes Clerk of the Board of Supervisors STATEMENT BY THE WATER STUDY COMMITTEE OF THE SISKIYOU COUNTY FARM BUREAU Yreka, California, September 23, 1958 The Water Study Committee of the Siskiyou Countv Farm Bureau has carefullv reviewed the find- ( 271 ) 272 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION ings in Bulletin No. 58 and desires to protest some of the determinations made in this bulletin, as follows: 1. "We note in Chapter II, Table 35, that the gross irrigable acreage in Siskiyou County is listed as 432,420 acres while in Table 37 it has been de- termined that the probable ultimate irrigated acreage can be only 263,000 acres. We feel that it will be economically feasible in the future to irrigate a much greater acreage and that this determination deserves careful review. 2. In Chapter III, Table 54, the probable ultimate water requirement for irrigated lands, plus res- ervoir evaporation, has been set at 677,900 acre feet. This quantity of water would allow only 2.6 acre feet per acre for the proposed 263,000 acres of irrigated lands. Tran.smissiou losses, which are great, have not been considered, there- fore not even 2.6 acre feet per acre would reach the farm land. We feel that not less than 3 acre feet per acre of water should be available at the farm. 3. Table 44 shows the consumptive use of water by truck crops to be only 69 per cent that of alfalfa, while quite the rever.se is true. Potatoes, the prin- cipal truck crop, has been given a consumptive use value of 1.1 acre feet per acre and, with 50 per cent efficiency, would mean 2.2 acre feet per acre would be provided. Farm Advisor records show that 4 acre feet of applied water is neces- sary for potato production. 4. Professor Viehmeyer, of the University of Cali- fornia, reports errors in the Blauey-Criddle for- mula ranging from 14 to 38 per cent. It is known to be least reliable at higher elevations as found in the Butte Valley and Tulelake areas. 5. Seven atmometer station records were kept in 1955 but the season records were incomplete and in Butte Valley only one reading, in the month of July, was taken. Viehmeyer reports that errors in the atmometer method range from .2 to 8.5 per cent. We therefore recommend that : 1. The ultimate irrigated acreage figure for Siski- j-ou County be reconsidered. 2. Further studies be carried on to determine more accurately the consumptive needs of water and total water requirements for our crops. 3. No move be made to determine total water re- quirements or amount of surplus water until fur- ther studies have been made. Respectfully submitted, Glenn Barnes, Chairman Water Study Committee of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau STATEMENT BY W. A. BARR Supervisor, Second District Siskiyou County Mount Shasta, California, October 23, 1958 Mr. Harvey Banks Sacramento, California. Dear Mr. Banks : Referring to the notice of a meet- ing in Sacramento Nov. 6th, for the purpose of receiv- ing comments on bulletin 58. Our agricultural department as well as our board of supervisors feel that a more comprehensive study should be made before a firm allocation of water has been made. The allocations of water per acre for the ditfereut crops would, according to our best information be inadequate for even the number of acres shown in bulletin 58 as the ultimate maximum. Further the findings of our water resources men, and our depart- ment of water resources demonstrates the amount per acre allocated for various crops falls far short of even the minimum of water needed for prolific production. Our board of supervisors, under date of Sept. 23rd passed a resolution, concerning these shortages, your office with others being furnished copy of same. It may well be that Siskiyou county's needs com- pare favorably with that of other counties, in the pro- portionate allocation of waters. Perhaps our resolu- tion should have embraced the entire northern portion of the state. In any event we will have a representative there to present the matter before the meeting. Sincerely, W. A. Barr VERBAL COMMENTS MR. M. V. MAXWELL, FARM ADVISOR Siskiyou County Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, I really didn't come to testify. I really came to ask questions. However, I would like to make a few statements regarding the study. I want to say first that I think you have done a very excellent job in preijaring this study with certain reservations. The main thing I am concerned about is the con- sumptive use of water which you have set for dif- ferent valleys in the County. And I believe that is on page 154 if I am not mistaken. If we can just con- centrate for a minute on the consumptive use for alfalfa, for instance, I note there in the Tule Lake Basin you have determined that 1.6 acre feet are sufficient for the production of alfalfa. In Butte NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 273 Valley you have 1.4 acre feet. Now, in comparing those two valleys, Butte Valley needs a great deal more water for alfalfa production tliaii Tnle Lake. Butte Valley soil is principally very fine sandy loam with a low water holding capacity. Tule Lake is a "muck" with a liigh water holding capacity. So certainly Butte Valley should be allotted considerably more than Tule Lake. Now, let's go to Shasta Valley. You have 1.9 acre feet, and for Scott Valley you have 1.6 acre feet. Ordinarily we figure tliat about a quarter of an inch of water is needed daih- in alfalfa production, which means about three acre feet per year. Now, I happen to know the methods you used in determining con- sumptive use and one of them is the Blaney-Criddle formula which I am told is from 18 to 38% inaccu- rate. And another is your atmometer readings which are from ..5 to 8.5% inaccurate. Now, my opinion and not only my opinion, but our studies indicate that we should be allotted just about double the amounts which are contained here. Now, as far as truck crops are concerned you have allotted 1.1 acre feet for Tule Lake and Butte Valley 1.1 acre feet. Now, in our studies we find that they need about 4 acre feet for truck crops. As far as re-use of water in the Tule Lake Basin is concerned, it is not a very good practice to i-e-use it because of the total salt content of the water. Now, another point I had was your figures on evaporation losses from reservoirs. We figure here on Dwinell Reservoir, for instance, from 15 to 20% evaporation loss per month. I have a few figures here. Taking the total holding capacity of the reservoir at 40,600 acre feet, with evaporation loss of 15 to 20% of the water each month, there would only be 15,100 acre feet available at the ranch, and with 9,060 acre feet with 60% efflciencj' available for irrigation and your water losses b.y evaporation are very very much less than those figures. MR. EDSON FOULKE Gazelle Mr. Foulke : Edsou Foulke, rancher. Gazelle, Cali- fornia. Under Table 2 of this sheet I picked up here it shows projected ultimate irrigation acreage, Siski- you County, to be 263,600 acres. Table 4, Consump- tive Use . . . These are tables in this document — Table 4 of page 13. The ultimate consumptive use of water in Siskiyou County- is shown as 483,600 acre feet, which I figure to be approximatelj^ 1.9 acre feet. That is a consumptive use. Now, I will turn to Table 5 on page 14, line 1, irrigated lauds, which shows water reqiiirements now — as I understand this is not con- sumptive use, this is water requirements — as 611,200 acre feet, the ultimate. Now, that as I calculate the ultimate water requirement as shown in approximately 2.3 acre feet while the consinnptive use is 1.9. My (jucstion is : I understood from conversation here a short time ago that these figures, that the consumptive use was practically double to obtain the water require- ment and yet as I read these tables, the consumptive use is shown as 1.9 acre feet and the total require- ment is only 2.3. I may be confused on this, but I would like to be clarified if I am. MR. F. L. LATHROP Siskiyou County Water Board, Yreka Mr. Lathrop : Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle- men, we have on the county level prepared a state- ment which was not approved or adopted yesterday because we only had three members of the Super- visors. It was postponed until the following week and that final prepared statement will be forwarded to your office. . . . It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, it is on the basis of policies and overall position rather than on any criticism of any of the details contained in these two reports. We are thinking in terms of origin counties and in terms of Federal ownerships and in terms of our local problems here and what we may look toward in presenting favorable legislation on waters of origin and their disposition to deficient areas. I think you will find interest in it. We have at the local level another statement Mr. Williams might eare to make, but I would like to ask a question if I may. At the county level I feel that we have yet a lot of information that has not been provided us in the many studies we have had. I do not think we have any plans yet or any facts on which you can base your water problems in the Butte Valley. We have had very able underground reports that have been made by the U.S.6.S. groundwater studies and today I don't think we have full knowledge of the full yield of the under- ground basins, nor do we have full knowledge of their recharge and we have not anj^ plans for utilizing the vast flood waters that go into Mead's Lake and flood over the country. We have flood problems in Butte County. Those problems are beiug studied by the Bureau. The Bu- reau has promised to make a plan for that develop- ment of Butte Valley and part of the original 1905 projects, but our State has also made studies in there. The people of this County are very dependent upon Butte Valley's development. It is a vast area, very rich soil, very productive. It must have water and must have drainage. It must have flood control and I don't think the State or the Federal Govern- ment have as yet finished any plans that you can say are final because we have in no way as yet taken any stej^s to put those vast amounts of flood waters under- ground to recharge the underground. Whether it is geologically possible or engineeringly possible I do not 274 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION know, but it is a problem. Its got to be solved. We can 't do it at the local level. Another thing that we do know, is that every small upstream storage in this County has not been investi- gated. AVe are not interested whether it is financially feasible or not. We have surpluses of water in the spring and winter. We don 't know where to put them. We have six million acre-feet running out of this County every ^-ear on a normal year. We want small upstream storage. We want to know from some official source where that can be accomplished. I think that is a safe position for us to ride at this time. We would like further cooperation, may I say, in looking at these things from their ultimate standpoint because we are in that area where water may be ex- ported to other areas. We feel that those exportable waters should first be developed for full local uses, beginning at Northern California instead of other parts because Siskiyou County is the largest county — has the largest amount of surface water of any county in California. ASSEMBLYWOMAN PAULINE DAVIS Portola Assemblywoman Davis : The thing that I am in- terested in, Mr. Hill, is to see that to the very fullest extent the .small tributary streams that feed into the larger streams in Northern California are considered as far as small storage facilities are concerned. Now, I personally feel and I have always felt that if we are going to go into the thought of finances that we first must set up policy as far as the Legislature is concerned, and apply those policies to the financing and see if we can afford them and then after that see how we are going to raise the money to do these things, but I definitely feel that there are two scopes that we are endeavoring to undertake and one is that where there is an export project, that it be the re- sponsibility of the State of California to develop the full basin up above that export jjro.icct for ail uses of water with the cooperation of the local areas, but if they are not in the financial position to do so, it will be responsibility of the State then in other areas such as this where there may never be a direct export project as far as a large structure like Oroville Dam, that we should have something that is going to assist these people on a long-range basis for the eon- struction of some of these small storage facilities that are feasible so that they are not left out of the picture, because that is a verj^, very important phase. And I think that we are — I personally believe we are not going anywhere on this California Water Plan until we are willing to sit down and stipulate these policies and then apply these policies to money and then after that say where we are going to raise this kind of money to do this and that is, I feel very strongly about it, and I personally feel that some of the North- ern California counties have not been given adequate consideration for this type of concept and I say that with all due respect. I have discu.ssed this with Mr. Banks personally in his presentations throughout the entire state. I do feel that the Department of Water Resources, and I wish and I hope that you take this back to him — I discussed it with him at length that there is more emphasis being placed by the Department of Water Resources at the diversion point of water rather than to where it originates and all I am asking for is a fair play that just as much emphasis is placed on where the water originates and the necessity of the develop- ment. Now, we generalize. Mr. Banks does too. He has been very kind about it. He has recognized that the counties of origin must receive consideration. Reser- vations are fine but certainly they are not adequate, but of course, we have to have the storage facilities or your reservations are of no earthly good because it is going to be taken away from us in time anyway if we don't put it to beneficial use. So my point is, all I am asking for is the same fair play that is being given to more deficient areas than we are because we too during certain seasons are deficient areas and as far as the emphasis on the need of these storage facilities, they need to be developed and truly I be- lieve that we haven't had that. . . . Then, another comment too — I might as well take my time on the agenda right now . . . Comments are being made throughout the State that concern me very much relative to two items that Northern California is going to have to horse trade on. First of all, I feel that those choice of words are very poor. Secondly, I don't think that Southern Cali- fornia is offering to Northern California any trade issue, if you want to put it that way. For instance, they are saying to us, "You either take the wording that we are desirous of having in a constitutional amendment, or we will not renew the State Water filings that come up for renewal this legislative session." Both of them are a disadvantage to us, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing to compromise on and legislation is compromise. So, I feel that if Southern California, with all due respect to them, has the feeling of the pulse of the people of the en- tire State at heart, which I certainly hope that they have, that they first of all show good faith and renew all of the State water filings at the very earliest date when we reconvene in Sacramento, and then let us try to resolve the wording in a constitutional amend- ment, if that is what it must be, but I definitely feel that more emphasis and more studj^ should be placed on these areas such as Siskiyou County. You have had an independent study going in Shasta Countv which I know von are verv much aware of NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 275 and so am I, but some of the other counties have not had that advantage and I am going to have to smoke my own pipe here because the Division of Water Re- sources is taking credit for this Northern California investigation and they really were not the author of the legislation, I must admit. I recall when the Water Resources Board on which you had the privilege of serving and other members when it was enacted in 1933 had the responsibility of making an investigation of all the ultimate needs of water throughout the State, and I recognize that this area of the State just didn't have adequate in- formation, if any, to amount to anything. So I took it upon myself to present this Northern California investigation and I feel once again that we are going to have to urge the Department to appropriate more money to make a furtherance of these evaluations so we can have a true picture when we are in Sacra- mento, because we are not in a position to engage outstanding attorneys, outstanding engineers such as Southern California that come to Sacramento and say, "This is what we want," and try to establish the entire policy and impose it upon the State of California. We have to have some consideration from the De- partment of Water Resources which we have had as far as the staff is concerned, but we need more, and with that I will close. MR. T.W. WILLIAMS Siskiyou County Farm Bureau, Montague Mr. Williams : Mr. Chairman, if it is permissible, I would like to expand this question. I think it is very important, this question on what is going to be considered feasible. Now, in Shasta Valley there is 140,620 acres that is irrigable. That is from the re- port on ultimate development which is estimated at, I believe the year 2050, when they claim the ultimate acreage to be irrigated is 52,800. Now, that leaves a difference of 87,820 acres. Now, what concerns me is not so much what is being done as far as financial feasibility within the next ten or fifteen years, but if we are looking ahead to the year 2050 and we are going to use the feasibility figure of water that is in the area — I don't know how good their crystal ball is that sets the policy up, but I certainly don't want us in the north here to be stuck with this 52,800 acres. We don 't know what power resources are going to become available that might easily make it feasible to irrigate this 87,000 additional acres. Now, that is what concerns me. As far as the present survey that is going on in Shasta Valley now, we will get the information and probably the Legislatui-e will decide what kind of financial benefits we are going to get. I mean that is within the immediate present but what scares me is that if our kids in the future want to develop this land and the waters are gone we have no recourse. REDDING HEARING JOINT HEARING OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Held at Bridge Bay Resort Redding, California, September 4, 1958 WRITTEN COMMENTS STATEMENT BY JOHN F. REGINATO Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association Bridge Bay Kesort, September i, 1958 Gentlemen: For the record my name is John F. Reginato, general manager of the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association, with offlees in Redding, California. The association is made np of representative busi- nesses in the six counties of Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity. Basically, the association is primarily concerned with the development of tourism to northern Cali- fornia. In conjunction with that objective, we are vitally interested in the development of recreational facilities, both by public agencies and private enter- prise. Comprising an area that is to a large extent in federal ownership, a great deal of our recreational planning involves federal agencies, inasmuch as the growth of recreation in California hinges upon proper development of our natural resources, consistent with the multiple use philosophy. Properly planned development of our recreational resources is therefore of great importance to our area as envisioned under the California Water Plan. Ap- pendix A of Bulletin No. 58, Northeastern Counties Investigation confirms the belief held by many in the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association, that recrea- tion will provide a sound economic growth in our six counties — at the top of California. On page 114 under Becreation: "a new industry.", it states — "Historically, the economic life of the northern mountain counties has consisted of timber, mining, and agricultural operations and related serv- ice industries. In recent years, however, recreation activity has increased rapidly to a position of major importance in the region's economy. There is now every reason to believe that its future volume will surpass the visions of the far-sighted men who some time ago formed the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association to infoi-m the world of the resources of the nortlieastern mountain counties. "It appears evident the northeastern counties are on the threshold of enormous growth in the development and use of their recreation resources. These counties have some of the finest mountain countr.v in the state. All or parts of eight na- tional forests are included in their boundaries, plus one national park and one national monument. The pressure of popidation upon Ihe older, more developed recreation areas of the state is sending more people into the northeastern counties already each year in search of recreation opportunities." The report further states that by the years 2025-50, it does not seem unreasonable to estimate that the northeastern counties have the potential in natural resources to support recreation activity worth one billion dollars per year or more, at ultimate develop- ment and in present dollars, in gross receipts to the construction, retail and service industries of the area. To break it down further, figures show that the six counties this Association represents will garner 64.1 percent of the recreational dollar. The breakdown is as follows : Lassen County 7.9% $ 94,800,000 Modoc County 7.1% $ 85,200,000 Shasta County 14.7% $176,400,000 Siskiyou County 13.4% $160,800,000 Tehama County 11.5% $138,000,000 Trinity County 9.5% $114,000,000 The Division of Highways has taken cognizance of the importance of recreation in their $10 billion plan for State Freeways. J. W. Vickrey, deputy State Highway engineer told the Joint Interim Committee on Highwa.ys earlier this week, "Travel in this State is dominated by the metropolitan areas of Los An- geles and San Francisco Bay Region and residents of these areas generate two-thirds of California's vehicle miles . . . but trips extend to every region of the State and the increasing demand for recreation facil- ities have greatly accelerated travel in recent years." It is obvious the Department of Public Works has taken into consideration the need for freeways to take people to the recreation areas of the State. The reservoirs that will be created by the California Water Plan will provide millions of people through- out this State with recreational opportunities hereto- fore believed not possible. These recreational oppor- (276) NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 277 tunities will, however, only be available it' the State integrates recreational development plans with the overall objectives of the State's plan of diversion of irrigation, domestic and commercial water, flood con- trol, electrical energy production and the preserva- tion of fish and wildlife. It would indeed be a setback to California's poten- tial economic growth, and particularity northeastern California, if recreational planning was not integrated into the overall State Water Plan. To allay and quell any conception of the costs in- volved in the problem of recreational development, when we speak of recreational facilities we are con- sidering only the basic minimum facilities, such as access roads, campgrounds, picnic sites, organiza- tional camps, palatable water, launching ramps and parking areas. We do not concern ourselves here with resort type facilities, which can best be developed by private enterprise. It is most important that hasic minimum facilities be established at these reservoir sites. To show the value of the recreational opportunities of these res- ervoir sites, figures released by the Army Corps of Engineers show that attendance in 1957 at Corps constructed projects reached an all-time high of 84,- 704,800, an increase of 19.7 percent over the 1956 total of 70,800,000. In 1951 visitation was only 21,020,000. The Corps now has 126 civil works projects open to public recreational use. These projects contain 3,085 access points; 1,-346 boat launching ramps; 1,247 boat landings; 1,025 picnic areas; 616 campgrounds; and 220 organized camps. The use of these Corps sites by the public, as well as other facilities established by the Bureau of Recla- mation, U. S. Forest Service, State Division of Beaches and Parks and other agencies has been phenomenal. And, it would be greater if adequate facilities had been provided as part of the development program of the projects concerned. This problem is especially true here at Shasta Lake, where demand for facilities as mentioned above are lacking. For example, during the July 4 week-end this year, 20,400 man use days of just the camping facilities occurred, and it was necessary for the pub- lic to use areas that were not developed for recrea- tional use, creating a fire hazard, as well as a health and sanitation problem. Ina.smuch as the recreational facilities will be used by all of the people of the State, we believe that the State has a responsibility to provide basic tninimum facilifies on a non-reimbursable basis, as is the policy of some federal agencies, as well as state, county and city units of government. This cost of recreation de- velopment should be borne by all of the people of the State, and included as an overall cost of any projects. Precedent is set for development of basic minimum facilities on a non-reimbursable basis by both the fed- eral government and the State. The Engle Bill, which calls for construction of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project, clearly specifies that basic minimum facilities will be constructed. The Wildlife Conservation Board provides for construction of ac- cess facilities, parking and sanitation facilities on a non-reimbursable basis. A number of bills have been introduced into Con- gress this past session, which provides that from 10 to 15 percent of the overall cost of a project can be spent for development of recreation facilities on a non-reimbursable basis, and .shall be included as a cost of the project. A conspicuous number of Senators and Congressmen are looking favorably upon such legislation. One of the most recent pieces of legislation passed by Congress this session was a supplementary appro- priation bill, which provided .$750,000.00 to the Array Corps of Engineers for constructing such facilities as boat launching ramps, roads, water supplies and other basic services at Army Engineers built reservoirs. Congressman B. F. Sisk of Fresno won a major battle in his effort to have Congress establish a policy that the recreational potentials of flood control projects should be developed to meet the country's increasing population and the public's growing leisure time. The need for basic minimum facilities at reservoir sites is further enhanced by the increase in boating activities — a family type of recreation. Figures com- piled by the Outboard Boating Club of America showed that in 1957 35,000,000 persons participated in recreational boating, or about 20 percent of all persons living in the continental United States; $1,912,000,000 was spent at the retail level during calendar year 1957, and of this amount, $391,400,000 was silent for the purchase of new outboard boats, motors and trailers; a total of 7,071,000 recreational craft is in existence on all waters of the United States as compared to 6,686,000 in 1956; there is a total of 5,190,000 outboards in use, including 605,000 new units sold in 1957; and there are 1,300,000 boat trailers in use. California rates third in the nation in sales of out- board motors accounting for 6.92 percent of the total, exceeded only by New York with 9.41 percent and Michigan 7.26 percent. From 1947 through 1957, outboard motors in use increased from 1,857,000 to 5,190.000 ; outboard boats sold jumped from 143,000 to 320,000 ; and boat trailers sold skyrocketed from 3,790 units to 165,000. Unquestionably the development of basic minimum facilities at State built reservoirs will boomerang the use aud sale of boating equipment in California, and although the majority of reservoirs will be built in northern California, recreational use will be by all of the people in California. The Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association makes the following recommendations to the California Water Commission : 278 NORTPIEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION 1. Ill tlip planning of State Water Projects dovelop- ment of basic minimum facilities be integrated into tlie overall State "Water Plan. 2. That basic minimnm facilities be constructed as an overall cost of the project on a non-reimburs- able basis, inasmuch as these recreational facili- ties will be used by all of the people of Cali- fornia. 3. Once the basic minimum facilities are con- structed, the State give consideration to allow operation and maintenance of the facilities by another state agency, county, district or city governmental unit. 4. That in the acquisition of lands for state water projects sufficient lands be acquired around the reservoir site for development of basic minimjnn facilities, and that sufScient land be acquired around the perimeter of the reservoir to insure public access in perpetuity. 5. That inasmuch as the jn-eservation of our fish and wildlife is a non-consumptive use of water, spe- cial emphasis be placed on conserving this nat- ural resource. 6. That in the elimination or destruction of natural spawning areas, that consideration be given to restoring tributaries to provide suitable natural habitat, and where necessary hatcheries or egg taking stations be constructed, particularly for the preservation of the anadromous fisheries. We appreciate the privilege and opportunity of appearing before the California Water Commission. We sincerely hope that the Commission will e:ive con- sideration to meeting in the Shasta-Cascade Wonder- land area again in the near future. Thank you. STATEMENT BY TEHAMA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Bridge Bat Resort, September 4, 1958 We in Tehama County have two questions relative to the Northeastern Counties Investigation. First is in regard to the amount of land considered irrigable. Sheets 10, 11, and 13 of Plate 4 show rela- tively small amounts of hill land in hydrographic units 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been classified irrigable. In this area there ai-e considerable areas of land we believe to be irrigable but cannot be sure it has been considered such by the Department. Second is in regard to the amount of water allowed per acre. Table 37 indicates 297,200 acres may be irrigated in Tehama County under full development. Table 62 shows an allowance of 896,900 acre feet of water for irrigation. This is slightly over 3 acre feet per acre. On the basis of experience on lands we are now irrigating, we question the adequacy of this allowance. We recommend the Department of Water Resources make no projections of surplus water supplies until we can be certain that all potentially irrigable land has been included and that enough water has been allowed for it. /s/ Lynn Raymond Tehama County- Board of Supervisors /s/ John L. Moran /s/ 0. L. Sutfin Chairman ]\Iember Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District /s/ Alvin Lanphear /s/ Fred H. Weeks Chairman Member Tehama County Planning Commission STATEMENT BY HARRY D. GRACE Assistant Forest Supervisor Shasta-Trinity National Forests BRrocE Bay Resort, September 4, 1958 Chairman Hill, members of the Commission, Mrs. Davis and guests: My name is Harry D. Grace, Assistant Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forests with headquarters in Redding. I wish to make a brief statement concerning the need for studies of administrative impacts of water storage developments on National Forests lands, and which could apply to State, County and private lands. T^\'enty-five years ago the water development plan- ners interested in water storage facilities were prin- cipally concerned with one or two uses — water for irri- gation, flood control and hydro-electric generation. The job of the water development planner is now one of planning so that uses and services will be com- bined in such a manner that they are complimentary, insofar as obtainable. This is the multiple use concept. The Trinity River Project was one of the first to plan for these multiple use problems on National Forest lands. Shasta Lake is an example of an area which was not studied in detail before construction. As a result, recreational use is greater than the recrea- tional facilities will handle. Even though facilities are lacking, the public camps in the surrounding area, creating fire control and sanitation problems. In the early stages of planning for the Trinity River Project — 1950 to be exact — the Bureau of Recla- mation requested the National Park Service to make a study of the Recreational potential in the Upper Trinitj- River area. This study was completed in December 1951. This report established the need for more detailed recreation planning in the area. It also brought out possible conflicts with other planned uses of the area. In 1952 the Bureau included an estimate of the cost of recreational impact in their report to Congress. Then in 1954, the Bureau of the Budget included an estimate of $215,000 for recreation in its report to Congress. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 279 When Congress approved Public Law 386 in 1955, this amount of money was set up for Public Use mini- mum basic facilities. In addition, Public Law 386 also authorized the Bureau to finance an Impact study of the area. This study was made by the Forest Service at a cost of $45,000. The report, "Impact of Trinity River Project upon National Forest Administration" was prepared by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Two years were spent in studying the problems and outlining proposed solutions for the management of the local natural resources plus impact upon fire, roads, administrative improvements and ranger dis- trict work loads. It brouglit out the fact that the professional work load adjacent to the two proposed lakes would be increased by nearly 100%. A new ranger district was created and the two adjoining ranger district boun- daries were adju.sted. It is interesting that the greatest single impact on National Forest administration was created by the estimated recreational need. It was estimated that the annual recreational use of the area would jump from the present 3,900 camper-use days per year to 17,600 eamper-use days per year in 1970. This is seven years after completion of the dam. To handle the camper load alone would require 300 family campground units by 1970. Unfortuuately the $215,000 will only construct ap- proximately 30% of the facilities needed by 1970. However, it is a step in the right direction — that of planning the financing of such use. The Forest Service plans to construct approxim- ately 150 camp units with this money, plus roads to one summer home tract, one picnic area and two boat launching ramps. This type of study is now considered a must by Forest Service administrators. We understand it will continue to be a policy of the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct such a study on all future projects. We trust that the commission will consider studies of this type in their planning for California State Water developments. STATEMENT BY SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Redding, Ca-lifoknia, September 15, 1958 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director State Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 388, Sacramento, California Dear Mr. Banks: Enclosed for your consideration are the official comments of Shasta Coiinty on De- partment of Water Resources Bulletin No. 58, North- eastern Counties Investigation, and the statement prepared b.y Joseph E. Patten, ilanagcr of our De- partment of Water Resources. Our greatest concern regarding the contents of the report is related to the treatment of evaporation from reservoirs and the figiires used for consumptive use of applied water. It is our imderstanding it will be a relatively simple matter to make the necessary cor- rections to clarify the relationship of evaporation to other consumptive uses. In regard to the consumptive use figures for irrigation, however, we realize there is an extreme lack of basic data. In any event, it would appear revisions in these figures would tend to be upwards and for this reason we feel that the con- sumptive use figures appearing in the report may leave the wrong impression as to ultimate require- ments for the area. We will be very happy to work with your staff as may be necessaiy to work out any differences of opin- ion regarding these two items. Our Department of Water Resources has been directed to cooperate fully with you on tliis matter. Respectfully yours, A. T. Jessen, Chairman Shasta County Board of Supervisors STATEMENT BY JOSEPH E. PATTEN Manager Shasta County Department of Water Resources Bridge Bay Resort, September 4, 1958 My name is Joseph E. Patten. I am manager of the Shasta County Department of Water Resources and am appearing on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to again appear before the California Water Commission and the Depai-tment of Water Resources to express our views regarding investigations related to tlie planning and construction of The California Water Plan. In accordance with the Director 's letter of April 28, 1958, we have reviewed Bulletin No. 58, The North- eastern Counties Investigation, and are here submit- ting our comments for your consideration. I am not going to read all of these comments, however I do wish to discuss certain of the principal points contained therein. We are verv pleased to see the compilation of data contained in Bulletin No. 58, which is in much more detail than was contained in Bulletin No. 2 of The California Water Plan. This, of course, is of great interest to us as is well pointed out in the report itself because of the need for such information as related to the so-called counties-of-origin problem. We are well aware of the history of the Legislature declaring its position time after time in regard to the protection of the areas of origin as to its rights to water originating therein. We eertainl.y hope the Legislature will con- tinue to make this declaration and we as a county of origin are ready and willing to assist in any way pos- 280 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION sible to bring about a fuller understauding of the problems that are involved. So that you do not get tlie impression that we are only concerned about our own interests, let me say that we are also interested in the data which will be available in Bulletin No. 58 as a guide to that amount of water which is surplus to the areas of origin and could and should be made available to other areas where it can be put to beneficial use. Not only are we interested in this report from the standpoint of the so-called water rights issue, but as Appendix A so very well demonstrates, there is a great economic future ahead for all of the Northeastern Counties under this investigation which will result from the expansion of industry and recreation. The report refers to recreation as a new industry to the area. I prefer not to think of it as a new industry but rather one which is just now being visualized as re- gards its potential. I don't care to review the entire history of the economy of this area except to say that the rapid population migrations caused by the two world wars and abrupt initiation and cessation of various mining operations for gold, as well as other metals and minerals, have adversely affected the sta- bility of the area. We can look forward, I am sure, to a greater and more stable economy stimulated by both new industries and recreation. By far the greatest potential consumptive user of water in Shasta County is our land si;itable for agri- cultural development. Because we anticipated this at the beginning of the investigation we worked very closely with the staff of the Department making the land classification surveys throughout the area. In connection with this phase of the investigation we wish to commend the Department and the staff on their efforts to cooperate with us. Since this work was done here in the local area we were able to work with the field personnel and except for substantially minor differences of opinion we were able to reach rapid agreement as to irrigability of our lands. Also, in this connection I would like to take this opportunity to publicly express my appreciation for the cooperation of our own agricultural peoi^le in Shasta County and the Shasta County Water Resources Board. Becau.se of this cooperation we find no quarrel with the data contained in the report regarding any phase of the land classification survey. For all practical purposes, my discussion and our concern here today will center around the subject of water iitilization and requirements. More specifically, our interests are in : (a) The figures contained in Table 44, "Estimated Mean Seasonal Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Irrigated Crops Within the Northeastern Counties." (b) The manner in which you treat evaporation as a consiunptive use. Irrigafion Wafer Requirements The estimated mean seasonal unit values of con- sumptive use of applied wmter on irrigated crops within the Northeastern Counties as shown in Table 44, in our opinion, are entirely inadequate. Sufficient data are not presented in the report to substantiate the figures contained in this table. Until such data is presented to us in such a manner as to convince us of their validity we cannot accept them. It somewhat surprises me that under the heading of "Irrigation Wafer Use," page 149, you discuss the research pro- gram on consumptive use and soil moisture depletion caused by the growing of various crops under irri- gated conditions but do not tabulate data therefrom nor make use of it. In the paragraph discussing this .subject it is stated, "Although much valuable data was gathered during the three-year investigation period it was not adequate to provide the basis for new estimates of unit values of consumptive use through- out the northeastern counties." We seriously question the validity of this statement. Several atmometer stations were established throughout the county and fairly good records maintained. As a matter of fact, we cooperated on the maintenance of these stations. In addition, full season records of moisture depletion tests were kept and these also were substantially good records. These data were never published nor made available in full to our people in the local area. What fragmentary information we do have in this regard, however, indicates that the information should have been used in this report and would substantially in- crease the figures used in Table 44. Under this same heading, the Blaney-Criddle method of determining values of consumptive use is discussed as the method used in the report. This formula is not always re- liable because it is based on a limited number of ele- mental factors. Again we are particularly concerned with the ex- tremely low figures used for the hydrographic units such as McArthur, Hat Creek, Montgomery Creek, etc. This is probably because the Blaney-Criddle formula is least reliable at the higher elevations. I refer you to Shasta County's comments on Bulletin No. 3, The California Water Plan, just two years ago, September 7, 1956. At that time the same question was raised and it was raised on the basis of information that was available from the Northeastern Counties In- vestigation as related to soil moisture depletion studies. It was found at that time that the consumptive use for agricultural crops was approximately the same in the higher areas as it was for the Sacramento Valley. The figures in this single table have tremendous bearing on the figures in practically all of the follow- ing ones. They are of great interest to us because they affect the greatest potential consumption of water and we want to be realistic about the quantities that are NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 281 used in this report. We therefore request that appro- priate changes be made in these figures. Along this same line, may I call to your attention the fact that the conversion from Table 54, ' ' Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements," to Tables 55 and 56, which show Mean Seasonal Deple- tion of Water Supply, is not clearly explained in the report. There is insufficient basic data to check the conversion. It may not be necessary to include in the report such detail, however this information is neces- sar.v for us to properly analyze the figures presented in the final tables. Evaporafion There is serious need for clarification of the use of the terms "evaporation" and "net evaporation" as they apply to consumptive use and net depletion in water supply in this report. At one point in the text of the report it is stated that transpiration and evapo- ration from land surfaces that have been artificially wetted by irrigation are the only actual physical losses to the quantity of water in the stream basin. On the basis of this statement alone, the effects of evaporation appear to be somewhat belittled. Evaporation from the surface area of artificial reservoirs is a non-recov- erable consumptive use which is not of little signifi- cance. For example, documented records of total evaporation at Shasta Lake for the past five years indicate an average of over 108,000 A.F. per season. I fully realize the net evaporation is somewhat less than this figure; however, it is not zero as is indi- cated in the report. The term "net evaporation" is found in several points throughout the text of the report as well as in tables and is defined in the report as "the difi'er- ence between mean seasonal precipitation and mean seasonal water surface evaporation." As expressed in the report, this definition is used for evaluating con- sumptive use of evaporation from water surface areas of all reservoirs under ultimate development of The California Water Plan in the northeastern counties area. The application of net evaporation as defined and applied in the report technically is not correct. Total evaporation from reservoir surfaces is a com- plete loss and must be treated as a consumptive use charged against the project. Only evaporation which took place from the reservoir area prior to inundation can be considered a legitimate reduction in the total evaporation to arrive at a net figure. The generally accepted figure for net evaporation in the foothill areas in north Sacramento Valley is 3 to 34 feet of depth. This is predicated upon the fact that total evai)oration is in the neighborhood of five to six feet of depth, from which you would deduct that amount of precipitation which would not have appeared as runoff from the reservoir area under natural conditions. Within the Shasta County area we are quite con- cerned that there is no net reservoir evaporation listed in the report for the following hydrographie units: Montgomer.y Creek, MeCloud, Dunsmuir, Shasta Lake, Clear Creek, and Keswick. The areas for principal res- ervoirs as shown in the report for these hydrographie units total 38,300 acres. On the basis of a net evapo- ration figure of something over three feet you are talking about approximately 120,000 A.F. per year consumptively lost through evai)oration from these reservoirs. As applied to the total principal reservoir areas in the 15 counties, the report is short on net evaporation losses to the tune of approximately 1 million acre feet. We are vitally interested in presenting evaporation and its effect vipon reservoir operations, etc., in its proper perspective as related to who is charged with the loss. Basically, the bulk of the reservoirs consid- ered in this report for ultimate development are for export water. We must be careful not to neglect this loss, nor to commit water for export without its con- sideration as a reduction in the gross yield from projects. We as an area of origin do not want to be charged with those losses except as in relation to the pi-oportionate share of such reservoirs which are used for local purposes. Under the circumstances some clarification must be made of the treatment of evapo- ration as it is related to consumptive use in this report before it can be acceptable to Shasta County. Appendix A dwells in considerable length on the recreation potentialities of the area under investiga- tion and suggests that Shasta County has a slight ad- vantage over the others as to ultimate development. So also Bulletin No. 58 itself discusses recreation and its potentialities as an industry, utilizing the natural resources of the area. Because of many statements by various parties interested in water development which have emphasized possible conflict in use, I would sug- gest that more emphasis be placed upon the non-con- sumptive part recreation plays in water development. In the majority of eases the use of water for recreation purposes, or more properly stated, the greater realiza- tion of our natural resources through recreation by virtue of the presence of water, is a non-eonsuniptive use which is incidental to the primary purpose of the development. There are proposed such reservoirs as some of those in the upper Feather River Basin which would be designed primarily for recreation, or more specifically for stream flow maintenance. In this case there would be some net loss in water chargeable to recreation by virtue of the evaporation losses. The use of water for stream flow maintenance in the upper watershed generally adds to the total water supply downstream. To clarifj^ a misconception which apparently is widespread among even so-called water experts that large quantities of water are to be consumed by recre- ation, we feel that a .specific discussion of this pi-oblem 282 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION should be contained in the report. If there is eunceni regarding' financial responsibilities, etc., associated with recreation, that is another subject separate and distinct from the physical con.sumption of water. I have restricted my comments to the subject of Bulletin No. 58 — primarily, water utilization. In conclusion, I wish to thank the Commission and the Director for this opportunity to be heard and re- quest that they review Bulletin No. 58 figures on the net depletion in water supply, both as related to irri- gation water and net evaporation from reservoirs in Shasta County. We will be very happy to work with your staff toward agreement as to what figures should be used. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY JOSEPH E. PATTEN Manager Shasta County Department of Water Resources Bridge Bay Resort, September 4, 1958 Under the heading of "Agriculture" on page 37, the statement is made that "strawberry plants are a relatively new crop ..." Strawberry plant production on a commercial basis has been carried on for over 35 years in Shasta County, starting in the Sacramento River canyon near Delta. In Table 6 on page 37, Grover and Wilcox Ditch should be elianped to Gover and Wilcox Ditch. In addition, the Cook-Butcher Ditch, Bella Vista, serv- ing 300 acres, should be added to this list. On the bottom of page 37, reference is made to law suits resulting from smoke damage resulting from early copper smelter operations in Shasta County. Since it Avas the acid fumes that caused the damage it might be more appropriate to refer to this as damage resulting from air pollution. Reference is made on page 105 to the unfitness of Spring Creek water for most beneficial purposes dur- ing periods of low flow. Except after dilution by Sacramento River water these flows are not fit for any beneficial purpose during low periods of flow. Getting into the discussion of water utilization, and more particularly consumptive use, on page 148, it is stated "For practical purposes these two losses [tran- spiration and evaporation from land surfaces that have been artificially wetted] of irrigation water, known as 'consuni])tive use,' are the only actual phys- ical losses to the total quantitj' of water in a stream basin." Evaporation from the surface area of artifi- cial reservoirs is a consumptive use or loss of water which is not of little significance. Docmnented records of total evaporation at Shasta Lake for the past five years indicate an average of 108,000 A.F. per season. This is an irrecoverable loss. Under the heading of "Irrigation Water Use", page 149, there is a discussion relative to research on eon- sum])tive use and studies on soil moisture depletion caused by the growing of various crops imder irri- gated conditions. In the paragraph discussing this subject it is stated, "Although much valuable data was gathered during the three-j-ear investigation pe- riod, it was not adequate to provide the basis for new estimates of unit values of consumptive use through- out the northeastern counties". We seriously ques- tion the validity of this statement. Several atmometer stations were established and fairly good records main- tained. In addition, full season records of moisture depletion tests were kept and these also were sub- stantially good records. These data were never pub- lished or made available in full to any of the people in our area, however the fragmentary data that we do have indicates this information should be used. Under this same heading, on page 149, the Blaney- Criddle method of determining consumptive use of water is discussed as the method used in the report. The Blaney-Criddle formula is not always a reliable index of consumptive use of water by plants. In Hil- gardia, Vol. 24, No. 9, Veihmeyer and co-workers report errors ranging from 14 to 38 percent. By con- trast, errors by the atmometer method ranged from 0.2 to 8.5 percent. The formula is least reliable at higher elevations, resulting in an unreasonably low figure for consumptive use in the Fall River Valley. Table 44, on page 154, summarizes the estimated mean seasonal unit values of consumptive use of ap- plied water on irrigated crops within the northeastern counties. There are substantial difi^erences indicated for the same crop at various hydrographic units. It is our firm belief that the data gathered in the three year determinations indicate that these figures should be substantially higher, particularly in the area such as Fall River Valley. The Department's own figures on the atmometer readings would indicate this to be true. In addition, we note that the value for consump- tive use for deciduous orchards is only about 56 per cent of the consumptive use figure for alfalfa. Veih- meyer, using alfalfa as the standard, rates the con- sumptive use of walnuts at 101 per cent, peaches at 82 per cent and prunes at 81 per cent. Table 43 rates de- ciduous orchards at 76 per cent of the value for alfalfa. As discussed above, the data gathered from the moisture depletion studies was not made available to us in full but the fragmentary information we do have indicates that all of the figures in Table 44 are substantially low. In particular, we are concerned with the extremely low figures used for the hydro- graphic units such as McArthur, Hat Creek, Mont- gomery Creek, etc. I refer you to Shasta County's comments on Bulletin 3, September 7, 1956, at which time this same cjuestion was raised and it was raised on the basis of information that was available at the time from Northeastern Counties Investigation. In several places throughout the report, in tables as well as in the text, there are references to evapora- tion from reservoirs which is considered as a consump- tive use. This is an irrecoverable loss and is a substan- tial one which needs some clarification as to its NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 288 treatment throiaghout the report. In this regard there is a paragraph under the heading of "Use of Water for Recreation Development", on page 156, which deals with evaporation and gives a definition of the term as used in the report. This paragraph also im- plies that evaporation is a consumptive use chai-geable against recreation. There is no relationship between evaporation and recreation except in the case of a single purpose recreation reservoir and chances are that will be for the enhancement of fish and wildlife. In this same paragraph the term net evaporation is defined as the difference between mean seasonal pre- cipitation and mean seasonal water surface evapora- tion. This definition is used as explained on Page 162 for evaluating consumptive use of water by evapora- tion from water surfaces of all reservoirs under ulti- mate development of The California Water Plan in the northeast counties area. The ap]ilieatiou of net evaporation as herein used is not technically correct. Total evaporation from reser- voir surfaces is a complete loss and must be treated as a consumptive use charged against the project or the specific reservoir. Evaporation which took place from the reservoir area before inundation is the only legitimate deduction from total evaporation to arrive at a net figure. Generally, the evaporation under the natural condition is less than 2 feet. In the ease of some reservoirs which fill every year the precipitation occurring during winter months cannot be applied as a net reduction to the evapora- tion which occurs during the summer season. Even for reservoirs providing long term carry over storage the generally accepted figure for net evapora- tion in the foothill areas of north Sacramento Valley is 3' to 3V of depth. Precipitation occurring on these reservoirs during the winter months cannot be fully applied as net reduction in evaporation. The only effect as to net increase in precipitation by virtue of existence of the reservoir is the net decrease of losses experienced by the conditions of "before" and "after" reservoir. This effect is minor and applies only to that amount of precipitation which would not have appeared as runoff \inder natural conditions. Under the heading of ' ' Net Reservoir Evaporation ' ' in each of the tables from No. 48 through No. 54, figure.-; are shown which are not at all clear as to their derivation and in other cases true net evapora- tion is completely ignored. In Tables 50-51 and 53-54. net reservoir evapora- tion for Stillwater. Plains hydrographie unit is 26,000 A.F. We question whether there are reservoirs planned within this hydrographie unit sufficient to show such evaporation losses. In these same tables there is no net reservoir evap- oration for the following hydrographie units : Mont- gomery Creek, McCloud, Dunsmuir, Shasta Lake, Clear Creek and Keswick. As previously mentioned, total evaporation from Shasta Lake over the past five years has averaged 108,000 A.F. per year. Most of this is a loss of water over and above that which woidd have occurred under natural conditions and is therefore an additional consuniptive use. The low figures shown in Table 44 for consumptive use of applied water are reflected in all of the figures under the heading of "Irrigated Lands" in Tables 48 through 56. These figures should be raised in ac- cordance with revised figures for Table 44. There is insufficient data presented in the report to adequately explain the conversion of figures con- tained in Table 54 to those in Tables 55 and 56. There is some discussion as to use of return flows, etc. ; how- ever, it is totally inadequate to check one against the other. In the summary and recommendations on page 179 there is discussed principles adopted by the legis- lature re protection of areas of origin, etc. Referring to the principles in Section 11460 of the Water Code, the Water.slied Protection Act, the text uses the term "areas contiguoux thereto." This should be "areas adjacent thereto." Again there is reference to evaporation in the sum- mar.v and recommendations on page 182 under the heading of "Water Requirements." The term net evaporation lo.sses is used which needs to be clarified as to its application. In appropriate places throughout the report there is sub.stantial discussion regarding recreation and its potentialities as an industry utilizing the natural resources, particularly water to make it available. In the discussion of this subject, however, on page 171, under the general heading of "Water Requirements" there is no specific nor clear reference to the non- consumptive uses of reservoir waters for recreational purposes. Because of many statements made by vari- ous parties interested in water development which have emphasized possible conflict in use, it should be clearly stated in this report that such uses are inci- dental to the primary purpose of development. In such cases as reservoir developments primarily for recreation and for stream flow maintenance the only consumptive use of such water is the loss bj^ evapora- tion from the water surface. The use of water for stream flow maintenance in the upper watershed gen- erally adds to the total water supply available down- stream. STATEMENT BY RALPH W. CARLSON Butte County Farm Bureau Butte County Farm Bureau Oroville, California, September 24, 1958 Mr, Clair Hill, Chnirman California State Water Commission Sacramento, California Dear Sir: I am enclosing a written statement concerning reservation of water for Butte County. This is to 284 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION supplement my remarks at the hearing before yonr Commission at Shasta Lake on September 4, 1958. Yours truly, /s/ Ralph W. Carlson "Water Problems Department Bridge Bat Resort, September 4, 1958 As chairman of the Butte Coianty Farm Bureau Water Problems Department, I, Ralph W. Carlson, present the following remarks : Butte County Farm Bureau Water Department is a committee composed mostly of experienced agricul- turists. We have had — either sitting in on our com- mittee, or assisting us in our studies at various times — directors of irrigation districts, farm advisors, agri- cultural commissioners, the Butte County Public Works Department head, and also members of the State Water Resources staff. Our findings in regard to "Reservations for Water for Butte County" show that our conclusions differ from those of the State Deisartment of Resources. Our facts were arrived at after a careful survey by a qualified engineer who was also a former head of an irrigation system in this County. As a result of our study we find the "Reservations" by the State failed to provide water for some 84,000 acres of land which we consider irrigable and which is as follows: 62,000 acres foothill land approx. 7,000 acres shallow "doodlebug" dredge tailings appi-ox. 5,000 acres bucket-line dredge tailings The 62,000 acres mentioned above are easily adapted to clover or pasture land and, in some areas, deciduous and citrus fruits. I draw your attention to one particu- lar ranch in clover production as an example : very representative tyjie soil topograjDhy, which raised 400 lbs. seed per acre, valued at $480.00 per acre. We can point out hundreds of acres between Oro- ville and 99-E highway now in irrigated pasture or under development. The same is true of land east of the Feather River to a lesser degree due to lack of water. We can trace citrus production on similar land in the Oroville- Wyandotte SA'stom. Considering the 7,000 acres shallow dredge tailings in the Wyandotte-Honcut-Palermo area, we find much of this land has already been leveled ; some planted to olives and some planted to pasture grasses. The 5,000 acres of deeper tailings also show develop- ment. Much of this lies just south of Oroville. A con- siderable acreage has already been leveled and utilized as commercial and industrial propertj% for which water is also necessary. Area of this type can to some extent be utilized for deciduous fruit or nut trees, as evidenced by a small acreage planted east of the city of Biggs at the end of Walniit Avenue. Further evidence that these areas have not been given due consideration for water use : I recall — in answer to a question at a meeting of our Department on April 30, 1957— Mr. Teerink and Mr. W. Fair- bank of the Department of Water Resources stated that no water had been allocated for use in the area east of the Feather River. This is part of the area mentioned earlier in this rej^ort. I may also point out that possibly this area was omitted because it could not be served by water from Oroville Dam Project without reliftiug. We also believe a second look should be taken at the calculations of return flows and also of consump- tive uses. Butte County is concerned in the reserva- tion of adequate water necessary to realize full poten- tial production. Many crops will grow with little water, but production is increased by the addition and use of water in proper amounts. Production in many orchards has doubled by the addition of irri- gation. VERBAL COMMENTS RALPH W. CARLSON Butte County Farm Bureau Mr. Carlson : Chairman Hill and Commission, I have no written statement today, but I would like to make a few remarks regarding what we have found in Butte County in our studies. Unfortunately, of course, our County Department of AVater Resources Head is in Turkey at the present time and will be there for some time, and this meeting probably caught us in an awkward position. But, we are particularly concerned in regard to the unit water requirement as set up in the Bulletin. Our discussions with water district heads, directors and our studies on actual per unit use do not bear out the figures as set up in this Bulletin and Butte County has made a study as to irrigable acres, which do not coincide with the findings of the Department in that regard. Something around 84,000 acres that we in our studies show to be irrigable and of great value for agricultural land or pasture land, irrigated pasture, will need water and that is about all I have to say at the present time. I would like to send you a prepared statement right away. . . . At the time Mr. Marshall Jones was our Director of Butte County Water Resources Board, under his leadership this study was made and it was pretty conservative and pretty accurate and due to the NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 285 changes of type of agriculture and the type of land being used, we feel sure that figure is conservative, that figure of 84,000 acres. As a rule I would say they are on the margin be- tween — on the foothill areas between the upper lands and the valley areas. It is on the fringe. Tliere is quite an area that — some would go into citrus fruits and a great deal of it at the present time is being developed for irrigated pasture by using wells and so forth and other types of irrigation available to it, and I think our agricultural commissioner here who is a member of the County Water Resources Board will make the same report or similar remarks. . . . You probably know where the Oroville- Wyandotte District is. This is the area immediately below that in the low rolling foothill area primarily. I wouldn't say that is it in total. There is also considerable land, river bottom laud, that was originally dredged but it is being reclaimed and planted to orchards and also it is classed as non-irrigable by the Department and we are finding through practical uses that it is being developed and it is of considerable value. MR. FRED R. PLATT Agricultural Commissioner, Butte County Mr. Piatt: My name is Fred R. Piatt, Agricul- tural Commissioner and Secretary of the Butte County Water Board, and I am appearing in behalf of the Butte County Board of Supervisors. I will go into this item of soil, land classifications in a little bit. This prepared statement I will have mimeo- graphed and available for you. To the California Water Commission and the De- partment of Water Resources, Gentlemen : Butte County citizens are concerned about the present figures of the State Department of Water Re- sources for the ultimate water requirements for Butte County. We appreciate the untiring efforts of their per- sonnel and realize they worked with budget and time limitations plus method of observation and calcula- tion which did not give the proper answers in some cases. Crops and crop patterns have historically changed in agricultural areas. We must admit the pattern is now toward crops and double-cropping with as high or higher water use and it is safe to plan in this direction. But, the County is concerned about a number of items and methods used in Bulletin 58 entitled "Northeastern Counties Investigation" by the De- partment of Water Resources. We respectfully request that the following problems be restudied and more practical approaches be used. 1. That the necessary laws or machinery be de- veloped so that water requirements can be changed in the future as conditions change. 2. The farmers of Butte County have many misgiv- iug.s regarding the State's amounts of water for spe- cific crops. They feel some are not too far oft' while others are seriously deficient. 3. We are concerned about the efBcieney factors of irrigation which are too high for manj^ crops from a practical standpoint. 4. We would request a restudy of reservoir, canal and ditch losses through evaporation and seepage be- fore it reaches the farmer's headgates. The consump- tive use of the evaporation is of concern. 5. We request a restudy of the return flow of water use to surface streams as well as the underground. We feel the Department figures are too high for our County. 6. The shallow-type soils (often with some out- ci'oppings) of our low and medium foothills have thousands of acres classified by the Department as non-irrigable. Recently, our County Water Board made a survey in the field and found over 84,000 acres of irrigable land which the Department called non-irrigable. This figure is very conservative. The figure of 84,000 acres with Department figures for water use would require some 280,000 acre feet of additional water. We request a revision of the standards for lands called non-irrigable to be followed by a resurvey of these lands. 7. In conclusion, we must remember that acres of irrigable land and crop requirement of water quickly vary water requirements by tremendous amounts. We will be very happy to discuss these problems further with the Department personnel. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing at this hearing. MR. E. I. LANE Butte County Mr. Lane: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Commission, first my name is E. I. Lane, resident of Oroville, Butte County, and before I read mj^ little prepared statement I want to tell the Board that I live in about the middle of this disputed land, this 84,054 acres, and I am, I think, successfully farming it into almonds, oranges and olives, and Butte County in that particular locality has, we claim, the best olives in the State or as good as any at least and they are planted on this rocky land that the State has classed as non-irrigable. In fact, when I bought my land there I asked an old friend of mine, an olive grower for many years, about buying this particular place. He asked me if it had rocks or whether it was gravel and I in my ignorance thought the gravel land was the best, but I told him it was rockier than the dickens. He .says, "It is all right then, take it." And I did and I haven't been sorry for it and I could demonstrate that anytime to any committee that wants to come, not only on m.v place, but all the surrounding area. I am 286 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION an ex director of the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District and know pretty well that country. Now, in regard to the ridge lands, that is in this 84,000 acres, there are only a few thousand acres in- cluded in that and it can be and has been and is being reclaimed profitably now. In offering these figures of Butte County's water requirements I am taking the Department of Water Resources' own figures for acreages and crop pattern, with one exception as noted later. The State's figures were for water at farm headgate while my figures are for point of diversion, mostly from 5 to 25 miles distant, and are also based on the experience of actual users for the different crops and for rather large acre- ages up to a couple of thousand ; for while a test plot or small acreage may be able to get by with a certain amount of water per acre, that amount must be in- creased considerably in actual practice for larger op- erations, as you will no doubt agree. With the above in mind I submit the following fig- ures for the amounts required at point of diversion for Butte County water needs. Alfalfa, 17,800 acres at five acre-feet per acre, 89,000 acre-feet. Irrigated pasture, 102,100 acres at five acre-feet, 510,500 acre-feet. Deciduous fruit, 54,500 acres at three acre-feet, 163,500 acre-feet. Citrus fruit, 15,100 acres at three acre-feet, 45,300 aere-feet. Truck crops, 11,111 acres at three acre-feet, 33,000 acre-feet. Rice, 95,000 acres at three aere-feet, 760,000 acre- feet. Field crops, 50,000 acres at three acre-feet, 150,000 acre-feet. Hay and grain, 12,900 acres at two acre-feet, 25,800 acre-feet. Miscellaneous field crops, 50,000 acres at four acre- feet, 200,000 acre-feet. Urban uses, 41,200 acre-feet, which I have no fig- ures to dispute. In addition to the foregoing state figures on acre- age, there must be added the 84,054 acres that the State has classed as non-irrigable, but the county hired a competent irrigation engineer, who made a careful survey and sampling inspection of the area and is ready and available to substantiate its findings before your or any state board. This land is the same class as is now being irrigated in the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District with water costing $9.00 per acre-foot. That is what we pay for water, gentlemen, some of it being in said district. Some of this land is really in our Oroville- Wyandotte Irrigation District. The balance is ad- joining. On a recent landowner survey of future plantings in this area present owners stated they would plant over 85 per cent to irrigated pasture, and less than 15 per cent to fruit, and the survey covered over 30,000 acres, so using those percentages there would be irri- gated pasture at 85 per cent of 71,446 acres at five acre-feet per acre, which would make 357,230 acre-feet and 12,608 acres of fruit at three acre-feet per acre, a total of 37,820 acre-feet which together with the bal- ance carried from the previous total of 2,017,800 aere- feet makes a total of 2,412,854 acre-feet as now esti- mated. However, with new methods for uses of water this may be substantially increased and likewise if more land that is now classed as non-irrigable by the State is found to be irrigable enough to properly irri- gate such lands more water will be needed. Thanks for your consideration. MR. JOHN L. MORAN Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mr. Moran: We don't have this statement mimeo- graphed. We can get it mimeographed if it is neces- sary. That represents, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the feeling as represented here today by the Board of Supervisors of Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Tehama County Planning Commission. As Chairman of the Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis- trict I am not too familiar with this. Our District is one year old. We haven't had a chance really to get into this very much and we have brought along today from Tehama County a man who has studied this for many years and I am going to ask him to make the comments on this summary as we have presented it. Mr. Lee Frye, of the University Extension Service, who is a farm advisor of Tehama Count}' — Mr. Frye. MR. LEE FRYE Farm Advisor, Tehama County Mr. Frye : Like Mr. Moran said, we don 't have mimeographed copies of this to pass out. However, one has been passed forward. I will first read this brief statement and then if there are questions, we can elaborate on it from that. "We in Tehama County have two questions rela- tive to the Northeastern Counties Investigation. "First is in regard to the amount of land considered irrigable. Sheets 10, 11, and 13 of Plate 4 show rela- tively small amounts of hill land in hydrographic units 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been classified irri- gable. "In this area there are considerable areas of land we believe to be irrigable but cannot be sure it has been considered such by the Department. "Second is in regard to the amount of water al- lowed per acre. Table 37 indicates 297,200 acres may NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 287 be ii-rigated in Tehama County under full develop- ment. Table 62 shows an allowance of 896,900 acre feet of water for irrigation. This is slightly over three acre feet per acre. On the basis of experience on lands we are now irrigating, we question the adequacy of this allowance. We recommend the Department of Water Resources make no projections of surface water supplies until we can be certain that all potentially irrigable land has been included and that enough water has been allowed for it." I might add in regard to where this land lies, start- ing in about immediately from Red Bluff and from there south, in the study it shows stringers of land running up into that area has been classed as irri- gable. Now, within that area there are considerable areas of a deep soil out there, that really are good class of land. As near as we can tell from the maps they have not been included. Unless there ai'e ques- tions, that concludes the statement. MR. HARRY D. GRACE United States Forest Service, Redding Mr. Grace : Chairman Hill and members of the Commission, Mrs. Davis and guests, my name is Harry D. Grace, and I am assistant supervisor of the Shasta- Trinity National Forest and you are our guests today here within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Our headquarters are located in Redding. I want to make a few brief comments which tie in with the statement prepared by Mr. Reginato of the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association. I will be quite brief here. I don't have this typed as j-et, but I will and give you a copj' of it, Mr. Chairman. I want to comment briefly upon the need for studies of impacts upon water storage developments, espe- cially as it pertains to national forest lands and it would pertain to other lands, state, county, private or however you wish to apply it. About 25 years ago I believe the water development man who was interested in planning or was in charge of the planning was principally concerned with the phase of water flood control, irrigation and hydro- electric generation. Today that has changed consid- erably and he is now concerned with land use problems brought about by other agencies and the general pub- lic, and we of the forest service are especially inter- ested in these land use problems as they pertain to the multiple use concept of land management. Now, he has to consider all of the uses and all of the services of that water and the adjoining land and consider the various things that are going to conflict within these uses and try to make them fit together into a workable pattern. In planning for water devel- opment reservoirs, the first I believe our national forest land reaUj^ went into this problem in detail on was the Trinity River Project, and, of course, Shasta Lake here was one on which no detailed plans were made in advance for the recreation use wiiich we are experiencing right now, and without those plans and without the development, the public, as you would see here on Labor Day and the P'ourth of July use the facilities as best they can. Some of them camp in undeveloped lands and cause sanitation and a fire problem. On the Trinity Project the Bureau of Reclamation early in its study, in fact in 1950, I believe, asked the National Park Service to make a survey of the Upper Trinity River Basin from tlie standpoint of recreation use. Tlie Park Sei-vice made this study at which time they pointed out many of the problems which would result not only from recreational use but the other land uses. Then in 1951 or thereabouts, December, the report was submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation and in early 1952 the Bureau included an estimate prepared by the National Park Service for the amount of money needed to construct the minimum basic public use facilities, and when we speak of minimum basic use facilities Mr. Reginato brought out the use of camp grounds and also the construction of roads, boat launching ramps and items of that type. In 1954 the Bureau of the Budget included an amount of $215,000 in its report to Congress for recreational use as well the sizeable amount for fish and wild life and also for problems that thej' would create within Trinity County. In 1955, when public law 386, the Engle Bill, was passed this $215,000 was included in that particular bill. In addition, the bill also authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to make a study or have some other agency make a study of the impacts upon Natural Forest Administration as well as public use in that particular area and they set up a total of $45,000 which was given to the Forest Service to make this study. The studj^ was started in 1955, and after a period of two years we came out with our report on the impact of Trinity River Project upon National Forest Administration, and it brought out many interesting facts, all of which are going to be helpful to us in planning the area as well as administration. Starting just, well even before the report was com- pleted we recognized many problems which we had attempted to solve at the present time. For instance, the work-load from an administration standpoint, the National Forest Administration standpoint, more than doubled in that particular area. It was neeessarj' to create a new ranger district as well as adjust the boundaries of the two adjacent ranger districts so that we would have suitable personnel located close by to administer the area, and when I speak of administer- ing the area, I don't mean particularly from the standpoint of recreation, because recreation is only one of the many impacts upon the area, but also those impacts upon the grazing industry, the timber iudus- 288 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION try, as well as fish and game and general water management. The recreational iise in that particular area at the time of the study, 1957 when the study was completed, showed 3,900 camper use days in tlie upper Trinity River Basin adjacent to what would be the lake shore. And our study showed that even at a very minimum use in there we would receive at least 17,600 camper days on or about 1970. This was based upon recrea- tional, the rates of recreational use here on the Shasta Dam as well as other reservoii's on which we have figures available to use in our study. This is all within a period of seven years after the completion of the dam. To handle this load we estimated we would need as minimum basic facilities 300 camp units. Now, a camp unit is a stove, a table and a place for an in- dividual to put up his tent and also the necessary sanitation facilities. When the project money was allotted here about a year ago for the completion of some of these minimum basic facilities, we received this $215,000, plus the increase in dollar value which made it $234,000, to construct the minimum basic facilities. Unfortunately the $234,000 will only con- struct about 150 camp units of what we figure we will need 300. Now, this type of planning not ouly considers the recreation impact, but also as I mentioned before timber, grazing as well as the impact upon administra- tion of those lands from the standpoint of fire, which is a definite problem in this area, as well as transpor- tation and general water use, and especially from the standpoint you mentioned, water use from the stand- point of erosion control, just how we would cut our timber, harvest our crops and jirevent this additional erosion in depleting the storage area of this dam. Now, we feel tliat this type of study is a must for all National Forest lands and we feel that we have benefited greatly from the study. We have a plan now which has been approved by the National Park Serv- ice and the Bureau of Reclamation and our own For- est Service Organization, and we are starting at the present time and have started six months ago to con- struct these minimum basic facilities. Thank j'ou. MR. PAUL STATHEM United States Forest Service, Redding Mr. Statheni: I would like to elaborate on Harry's remarks this morning. If we created the impression at all that what we are doing in addition to these reservoir areas was just something nice, we want to dispel any such idea. It is not optional. It is a job that is there and it is created by the creation of these reservoirs and we found it to our sadness, I guess you would call it, the fact that when we weren't pre- pared on Shasta Lake the cost of administration with- out this preplanning was greatly in excess of what we hoped it will be on Trinity Reservoir, so if we did create the impression we are trying to do something that is nice, while it may be nice, it is not optional. The job is going to be there whether we do it or not. It is going to be harder to take care of it if we don't plan ahead before the construction of the dam. Chairman Hill: I am glad j'ou commented on that and that is one of the reasons that I thought it was desirable for j'our organization to discuss the sub- ject here, because it has not been customary, and the private companies building reservoirs as well as the government have all been faced by the necessity of doing something and a comment was made a while back on the use of power company reservoirs for recreational purposes and who is going to pay the cost of that ? To my knowledge there are none of the power companies ' reservoirs that aren 't available for reci'ea- tional purposes, but by the same token there is a lot of cost involved in preparing for recreation. There is a lot being done on that up in the Northwest by the power companies up there and huge picnic areas which seem to be in tremendous demand, so it is a problem. I have here a whole list of questions that if we have any time this afternoon I would just like to throw out for consideration of the people here — as to just who is going to do the planning and Avho is going to pay for the planning on this development, on this recreational development of reservoirs in the State regardless of who builds them, and my feeling is that certainly the agi'icultural and power and municipal and industrial users of water can't — there is a limit to what they can go on and I think there are some very pertinent questions that some of the Legislative Committees are going to be asking, and there are going to have to be some answers very shortly. Thanks for your remarks. Mr. Statheni: We used this as an example. It is immaterial whose lands these reservoirs might be de- veloped upon. If it is completeh' outside, the same problems are going to be created. I am sure that you have similar problems wherever you build regardless of the ownership of land. MR. JAMES J. HERBERT Shasta County Planning Commission, Redding Mr. Herbert : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement and I will provide you with a retyped copy as soon as possible. The statement is as follows : Shasta County's Planning Commission appreciates the efforts of the California Water Commission and the Department of Water Resources in compiling Bulletin 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation" and Appendix A, on future population, economic and recreation development. This studj^ appears quite com- prehensive and from the viewpoint of the Planning Connnission will serve as a welcome addition to avail- NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 289 able statistics as well as fulfillinn: the objective of stating ultimate water needs. Tlie data on natural resources, lands, population, employment and recrea- tion use in arriving at ultimate water needs will greatljf assist in guiding phj'sical development within the County of Shasta. We concur that the Northeastern Counties are on tlie threshold of substantial growth and believe that sufficient and suitable quality of water must be re- tained for beneficial uses. Your policy states that no assignment of water appropriations will be made which will deprive the county of origin of the water necessary for the devel- opment of the county. This policy should be retained. Shasta County is vitally interested in the development of the industry and natural resources. In line with the potential recreational uses shown in Appendix A which indicates Shasta County has the most recrea- tional potential of the 15 northeastern counties, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission have recently adopted a master plan of recreation, and Unit 1 thereof is the recreation plan of "WTiiskeytown Reservoir. In these plans the phenomenal increase in the boating use of large man-made lakes by sportsmen, vacationists and tourists, is recognized, as well as in- creases in camping, riding, hiking and stream fishing, all of which depend upon the non-consumptive bene- ficial use of water. Now, while recreation is a proper function of county government to assist in meeting this basic need, there is also State interest in State water projects and there is a State obligation to pro- vide basic minimum facilities for recreation on a non- reimbursable basis. The Federal Government has rec- ognized this premise. Recreationists can no longer find their own ground bvit must be provided with improved recreational fa- cilities including access roads, potable water supply, sanitary facilities, boat launching ramps, parking, camp sites and picnic areas. As indicated in your studies, recreation users originate on at least a state- wide basis. It is hoped that the investigations of the California Water Resources Board will continue to be reviewed periodically. Updating of statistics is of great importance in the State of California where unprecedented growth and change has become the ordinary course of events. Thank you. ASSEMBLYWOMAN PAULINE DAVIS Portola Assemblywoman Davis ; Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Commission. At the very outset of my remarks I want to thank you and the members of the Commission for taking the time to make this tour throughout our Northern California area and for holding these hearings. I personally feel not merely because it happened to be my legislation to some extent that created this investigation that we are discussing here today, but I do want to stress to all of us here the 10—16762 very important role that I feel that this Northeastern Counties Investigation is going to play in the legis- lation that is going to be presented to us this year in Sacramento. I attended the Siskiyou County Meeting yesterday in Yreka and in listening to the testimony here today I sincerely request that the members of this Commis- sion consider advising the Director who is here today that you consider some re-evaluation of your criteria that you have used for this report should be made and perhaps make a further analysis in the areas, the field, that it is inadequate as far as the recommenda- tions in the Northeastern Counties Investigation per- taining to those areas. I say that for this reason because I know as a legis- lator that this year we will be faced with legislation that will stipulate the renewal of the State filings throughout the State of California and also there is no doubt there will be one or more constitutional amendments before us. I feel that it is very important that the entire state look at the renewal of these State filings as something that is very important to the entire state and that Southern California does not use it as a vehicle or a club, if you please, if I might use that expression, over the heads of Northern California and say to the Northern California Counties, "If you do not give us the provisions that we are desireous of obtain- ing in a constitutional amendment" which would then nulify the now existing counties of origin, "We will not consent to renew the State filings that are before us. " I think that that would be very poor philosophy to use in Sacramento and I certainly urge upon the southern part of the State and the people throughout the State to see that this does not occur. Then again, I feel that this report and the recom- mendations that will be made of its contents is going to play a very important part in whatever recom- mendations might be made for reservations of water for the counties of origin. Since we are gazing into a crystal ball and since it has been stipulated that as far as the people are concerned this report is not adequate as far as the water supply that will be necessary, I feel that it is very important to once again take a good look at it because I think that we all recognize that juany of the proposals in The California Water Plan are being based on an interim use of water and certainly it should be pointed out that since the concept is that these projects might become a reality on the interim use of Northern California's water that we should be very, very careful as to what our needs are and if and when we have the financial ability to build them that we are able to recapture this water, if you please, without throwing the northern California counties into court litigation against the State of California. I personally feel that before we nulify the county of origin law and adopt perhaps a constitutional 2no NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION ameudnieut which I have been very reluctant in ac- cepting any that have been proposed so far, that we take as an example the City of San Francisco, if I may. Years aji'o before the county of origin statutes became a reality, the City of San Francisco filed nnder the civil code for the water rights on the Tnolnmne River and certainly those are very firm water rights and deprive the counties of origin of their adequate development in those areas that will never become a reality because they can never recapture that water. Then as another example also take the East Bay Municipal Utility District which did the very same thing on the Mokelumne and the same situation ap- plied there. So I think that calls to the attention of Northern California the necessity of watching very, very closely what legislation is going to be contemplated, M'hat is going to be considered, and also I would suggest to the Northern California people that they start count- ing noses as far as votes are concerned for Northern California from a practical standpoint in the State Legislature. Now since I see two or more supervisors here, may I say this in closing, that I urge upon the Northern California Supervisors Association, if they are not in- dividually, that they post themselves very, very thor- oughly on every piece of legislation that is going to be introduced on water policy this year in Sacramento and evaluate it yourself because between the siipervi- sors and the Legislature we are going to have the stake of Northern California in our hands. MR. JOHN F. REGINATO Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association, Redding Mr. Reginato : I believe the big problem is that basic capital outlay, the basic minimum facilities that the majority of these counties or cities or districts are not able to meet. They are not able to meet that par- ticular phase of it, and I believe that you will find that the majority of counties, the majority of cities, that they will gradually assume the maintenance and operation of those facilities once they are established by the state agency. MR. ROSCOE ANDERSON Shasta County Mr. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I might make a few comments, but I am not going to stick to the subject. I am going to give you a little history way back. I am not a young fellow any more. In 191.5 the Legislature passed a resolution creating the California "Water Problems Conference. Assemblyman Ellis presented the legislation creating a board of 16, 10 of them ex officio members because of their official positions and six of us were appointed. I was one of those appointed by Governor Hiram Johnson. We served for 18 months on that without any salaries, but we did have expenses. Our object was to try to co-ordinate the various water agencies of the State into one institution if we could. But being ten ex officio members, and I think some of them felt that thej^ didn't want to legislate themselves out of a job, we didn't get very far, but we six that were appointed did hold for a consolida- tion at that time. However, we did get agreement from practically all of the members that was the ideal and it should be accomplished, but the time wasn't yet ripe. Three of us wrote minority opinions criticising the stand taken, but nevertheless we didn't get very far. I think I gave you a copy of that report over 40 years' ago. Well, I want to congratulate you and com- mend the Legislature for having passed the measure that now makes you the sole head of the water condi- tions of the State and I think we are now getting some- where. I think you are doing a good job and God bless you, keep going, because it is the big problem of California and j'ou now have an organization that can solve them. Even though we can't make everybody happy, you are going to make the great majority happy if you keep going through with it, and you gentlemen and Harvey over here, I want to commend yon for your great work and go ahead. SUSANVILLE HEARING JOINT HEARING OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Held at Mt. Lassen Hotel, Susanville, California WRITTEN COMMENTS September 5, 1958 STATEMENT BY TULE IRRIGATION DISTRICT TuLE Irrigation District Susanville, California, September 5, 1958 California State Water Commission State Department of Water Resources Sacramento, California Tule Irrigation District is a political subdivision of tlie State of California organized in 1923 under the Irrigation Districts section of the Water Code. Since 1917 it has been operating under the control of the Federal District Court and a trustee in banki'uptcy, due to financial difficulties. Under supervision of the Federal Court and the trustee Tule Irrigation District has been reorganized, and is functioning. Assessments have been levied and collected for the past two years, and a levy for ex- penditures during the calendar year 1!)59 will be made at the meeting of the Board of Directors to be held in Susanville on September 6, 1958. The District comprises about 3700 acres of the ap- proximate potential value of $750,000 lying generally between Litchfield and Wendel. The land is classified as irrigable in current Department of Water Re- sources bulletins, as well as in the original studies made of the entire area prior to and as a condition prece- dent to certification of the original bonds. It owns a tunnel about 8,000 feet long which diverts water from Eagle Lake to upper Willow Creek, a by-bass canal, water and flooding rights, and ditch rights. Its laud owners are in large part the holders of the original bonds of the District, the default of which caused the District to become bankrupt, and whose eventual re- imbursement depends entirely upon the ability of the District to put water- to beneficial use. The District has consistently urged the full eco- nomic utilization of Eagle Lake waters. This envisions multiple use features of the existing facilities of the District, and any other structures which may be built in connection with the utilization of the lake surface. Fishing, hunting, boating, recreational, and other non- consumptive uses of the water of Eagle Lake appear to be fully consistent with beneficial consumptive use of water released for essential agricultural use on lands lying below the lake in Willow Creek Valley and the lower Susan River area. Bulletin No. 58 contains very valuable data on the availability of water for all purposes from Eagle Lake. The studies currently under way by the Depart- ment of Water Resources will add more valuable data, and enable the fullest economic use to be made of the area and the investments which have been, and Avill be made in the future. The District will be pleased to work with all other agencies and groups interested in securing the soundest long time development of Lassen County. It is fundamental knowledge that with full development of the presently unirrigated, arable land susceptable of economic development using Eagle Lake water, there will still be insufficient water for full agricultural needs of the area. With this knowledge in mind it is proper that all factors be carefull.y evaluated in making plans for long range investments in the many purposes to which Eagle Lake waters ultimatelj' will be put. Respectfully submitted, Tule Irrigation District /s/ LoREN B. Blakeley by Loren E. Blakeley, President STATEMENT BY JIM E. BRONSON Chairman, Lassen County Water Resources Board Susanville, California, October 30, 1958 The Lassen County Water Resources Board had the opportunity to appear before the California Water Commission and the Department of Water Resources at a joint hearing held in Susanville, California on September 5, 1958 at the Hotel Mt. Lassen. At that time the chairman of the Lassen County Water Re- sources Board, Jim E. Bronson, appeared and a.sked (291) 292 NOETHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION permission to file a written statement regarding Bul- letin No. 58. The Lassen County Water Resources Board appre- ciated the opportunity to appear before the California Water Commission and the Department of Water Resources and asks that you continue your investi- gation pertaining to the planning and the execution of the California Water Plan as compiled in Bulletin No. 58 and Appendix A thereof. Lassen County Water Resources Board Recom- mends : 1. That adequate funds be made available to further agricultural and recreational development in the Northern part of Lassen County on the Pit River watershed, including Horse Creek, Davis Creek, Juniper Creek, Willow Creek and Ash Creek, and Cedar Creek on Tule Lake. 2. That adequate funds be made available to further the agricultural and recreational development possi- bilities on creeks and rivers draining into Honey Lake, namely, Susan River, Willow Creek, Balls Canyon Creek, Pete's Creek, Baxter Creek and Long Valley Creek. 3. That survej's of underground water reservoirs in the La.ssen County area be completed. 4. That in connection with the recreation possi- bilities of Eagle Lake it be recommended that the high level be maintained so that resorts and boat harbors can be established on the lake, also that the Tule Irri- gation District be dissolved and surplus water from Eagle Lake, if any, be stored in accordance with the California Water Plan in Pete's Valley Reservoir for irrigation in Honey Lake Valley. 5. That estimates of the ultimate water require- ments of Lassen County, for domestic, irrigation and recreation purposes be periodically reviewed in order to assure the availability of adequate water supplies for tlie future development of the county. VERBAL COMMENTS MR. E. J. HUMPHREY Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Greenville Mr. Humphrey : I have our Resolution Number 1002 which reads as follows : "WhereaS;, notice has been given that the Cali- fornia Water Commission, and the Department of Water Resources wiU conduct a joint public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on Bulletin No. 58 'The Northeastern Counties Investigation' preliminary edition, and the appendix thereto, the 5th day of September, 1958, at the hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M., at the Mt. Lassen Hotel in Susanville, Lassen County, California, being the time and place fixed for said hearing; and Whereas, it appears from statements made in said Bulletin No. 58 that adequate data was not available to determine definitely the consumptive use of water ; Now Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Plumas, State of Cali- fornia, that .said Board hei-eby approves recommenda- tions Nos. 1, 2, and 3, appearing on page 183 of said BuUetiu No. 58. The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Plumas, State of California, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 3rd day of September, 1958, by the following vote : Ayes: Supervisors Cloman, Flanagan, Blackman, Donnenwirth and Humphrey. NoES: None Absent : None E. J. Humphrey Chairman of said Board of Supervisors.' MR. JIM E. BRONSON Lassen County Water Resources Board, Susanville Mr. Bronsou : While our Committee has reviewed Bulletin 58 at this time we have not prepared a writ- ten statement to present to you and we would like to present that at a later hearing or send it to you for a later hearing that you might have in October or some other time. . . . ... In commenting, if it is all right to make a com- ment or two, our Recreation Resource Board feels that some of our water is more suitable for recreation than irrigation and then we also feel that further studies of the Susan River, and tributaries upstream could be made and also the Pete's Valley Water Site for further study. MR. JULIAN MAPES Litchfield Mr. Mapes : Mr. Chairman, I don 't know that I have prepared a statement quite in line with the trend of thought right now, but this has definite and restricted comments toward Eagle Lake. It is something I wanted read into the record and it has no ulterior motives whatever. I just represent myself as an indi- vidual. Chairman Hill : You are from Litchfield ? Mr. Mapes : Yes. Chairman Hill : And you are a farmer there ? Mr. Mapes: Yes. I will read this brief letter. It kind of sums up my thoughts on the agricultural use of Eagle Lake. "September 5, 1958 "State Water Resoukces Board "Sacramento, California "Gentlemen : "This letter will express my views concerning the development of the Eagle Lake water for agriculture use. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 29:3 "It is evident tluit the watershed for the hike extends over a considerable area, accumulating water which has some poten- tial agriculture use. This was proven by its past use when the Irrigation District was in full operation. It is my firm convic- tion that some agriculture beneficial use can be made of these waters and on this reasoning provision was made for the passage of these waters through a proposed Willow Creek dam. This was done by acquiring a head gate large enough to allow for passage of water greater than would be required for the im- pounded waters. "It is of paramount importance that all potential agriculture water be preserved for future use. The vested rights that are held by the Tule Irrigation District places the waters in Eagle Lake under the status of appropriated rights thereby for the present, safeguarding future agriculture use of these waters. Until agreements can be developed with competing interests that may in the future acquire priority rights based on other than agriculture use, these rights should be preserved. "In no way should these comments be construed as opposing the development of other beneficial uses of the waters of Eagle Lake. It is hoped that these thoughts will further the complete development of the entire resources for the benefit of Lassen County and all people who may want to enjoy the Lake in any manner they desire and wherever they may reside. "Yours very truly, ".JlTLI.\N W. MAPES" Julian W. Mapes: I can discuss any part of this tliat might bring up a question. Chairman Hill: Well, since you have put that in the record and it certainly, I think, is proper, it seems to me that for the benefit of the Commission somebody should more or less review the history of that Eagle Lake in the water development there and also point up its present status. Could you do that? Mr. Mapes : Well, I don 't know whether I am thor- oughly qualified to review all the history. Chairman Hill : Well, I don 't mean an extensive historj^, but there are several here who don't know the background of this Eagle Lake development and to understand what you are talking about I think they should have some statement concerning it. In other words, prior to diversion, the Lake had no outlet? Mr. Mapes : That is right. Chairman Hill : And what then controlled the water level ? Mr. Mapes : Evaporation. Chairman Hill : And that is what kept it in balance, is it? Mr. Mapes : Yes. Chairman Hill : And then the diversion was made and when was that made ? Mv. Mapes: I think in 1922. Chairman Hill: And tlien tliat drew tlie Lake down to how far ? Mr. Mapes : I think 74 feet, I am not sure about that. It drew it down say 30 feet. Chairman Hill : And where is — is any being di- verted now? Mr. Mapes : No. Chairman Hill: And where is tlie Lake level now? Did it ever come clear back up ? Mr. Mapes: Yes, I think it is about 84 to 86', some- where in there. Chairman Hill: Where was it before jou started diverting ? Mr. Mapes: The liighest was 109, T think around — roughly let's sa,y 110 feet. Chairman Hill : And liow long has it been since you diverted for irrigation purposes? Mr. Mapes : Twenty years. Chairman Hill : And then since that time the Lake has never in spite of the wet ycai's quite filled to where it was ? Mr. Mapes: We didn't have any wet yeai-s until tlie last three or four. Chairman Hill: Well, you say 20 years. We have had a state-wide wet period in that time. Mr. Mapes: In that time, but it has been on the tail- end of the 20 years here. We had one in 1937 or was it 1938 and 1939 that caused all the disastrous floods which brought it up, but at one time it was below the outlet of the diversion point. In other words, they were bringing up red ink. Chairman Hill: Is it now below or above the diver- sion point? Mr. Mapes : Yes, six or eight feet. Chairman Hill : Above or below ? Mr. Mapes: Above, but prior to that time it is my understanding that there was exorbitant waste of water. In other words, they didn't cut the water oflE when they got through irrigating. It ran all winter. So then during the 30 's, during that dry period and in the early 40 's, well, it wasn't enough to replenish all of that. It took all of that to bring the water back up to its present status. It would be hard to go into tiie intricate phases of it, but one of the main faults of the whole district is that they had too much laud for the amount of water. There is some beneficial use. The headwaters of Eagle Lake extend back 40 or 50 miles above Eagle Lake or so and the watershed between that and the area we propose to put our own dam in had a watershed— I think the engineers esti- mated—of 100 square miles or something like that. In other words, I believe that a complete study should be made of Willow Creek. Everyone discussed Susan River, but here is a watershed that is several miles long and contains several hundred square miles up the Willow Creek and Eagle Lake which is one channel now if you consider the old tunnel and it does have potential. How much, I am not prepared to say, but it certainly has some. In other words, a foot or two on Eagle Lake would probably irrigate 8 to 10 thousand acres. Chairman Hill: Is that tunnel still useable? Mr. Mapes: I think so with a little repair. However, they don't have a head gate in it. As I said before, they didn't have one before. They just let the water run out. Chairman Hill: Why doesn't the water run out now ? 294 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Mr. Maizes: They have a bulldozer dam across it. It is just a levee. I mean they didn 't have a manually controlled gate. At one time they had, but as they lowered the cut they just kept cutting enough for each year 's irrigation and let the balance run out. Mr. Frew : Is there any of that land under irrigation that was formerly under irrigation at Eagle Lake ? Mr. Mapes: Yes. Mr. Frew: Where are they getting their water from ? Mr. Mapes: They have a riparian right from the Susan River and "Willow Creek natural flow and what they did was augment that with their Eagle Lake water. The lands that were absolutely dependent on Eagle Lake are barren now. Chairman Hill: Well, thank you very much. Mr. Bunker: I would like to ask Mr. Mapes a ques- tion. Did the quality of Eagle Lake — does that stay pretty good or does it get pretty salty? Mr. Mapes : Well, the only thing I can review in my own mind is the quality of crops grown. I saw mighty fine fields of alfalfa. There was an old Dane, a professional gardener, who lived above us. I think if you check the records he took several purple rib- bons, for example eggplants, watermelons. The salinity in the lake is no doubt strong, but many, many plants have a great deal of tolerance for that salt. And I believe it will grow plants — for how long, I do not know. It isn't as salty as Honey Lake and they are pumping out of Honey Lake to start crops. Chairman Hill : You speak of Honey Lake. It was pretty dry for a long time. Mr. Mapes : Yes, but I am talking about the quality of the water. Certainly Honej^ Lake is more salty or basic than Eagle Lake. Chairman Hill : Any further questions of Mr. Mapes? Senator Arnold. Senator Arnold : Mr. Chairman, I believe this Bulle- tin 58 in some place or other, which I can't locate at the moment, states that the quality of the water of Eagle Lake has deteriorated since the outlet has been lowered to where the outlet should be shut off. And also it states somewhere that the quality of the water would not sustain an imrestricted irrigation use. And in regard to the Willow Creek, I would like to have if we could, Mr. Horn tell us what, if any, considera- tion had been given to Willow Creek when the entire area was gone over and the projects recommended that are in Bulletin 3. Mr. Horn : Well, I would first like to comment on the water requirements investigation and Bulletin No. 3. As Mr. Pyle indicated, the water requirements of this hydrographic unit were based on the availa- bility of the water supply. It was considered that the plans that were presented in Bulletin 3 were the methods of development for that water supply. One of the plans presented in Bulletin 8 was the reduction in the surface area of Eagle Lake plus a storage at Pete's Valley and by the combined use of off-stream storage and Eagle Lake a yield which I don't have on the tip of my tongue was developed and that yield was utilized as the basis for providing a future supply of water. Senator Arnold: That was in connection with a di- version of Pine Creek, w^as it, and the lessening of the area of Eagle Lake? Mr. Horn : Yes, that is correct. Senator Arnold : That would raise the quality of the water. Mr. Horn : That is right, it would provide a greater yield and would aid the quality by using surface streams. Chairman Hill : Anybody wish to discuss that sub- ject further? If not, those are all that are here who expressed a desire to be heard on this particular bulle- tin, except Senator Arnold and AssemblywomanDavis. ASSEMBLYWOMAN PAULINE DAVIS Portola That is right, but getting back to the report that we are considering here today, may I state here that even though perhaps there aren't too many people testifying here today the interest is very intensive, and I might say to my surprise I understand that a few people did write to the Department of Water Re- sources for these reports and they didn't receive them in what they felt was sufficient time to adequately study them. So from now on I have suggested that they contact me and of course I will be haunting the staff of the Department of Water Resources and per- haps we can analyze this report a little bit more thoroughly and we might make another presentation. That depends upon the desires of the counties at your Sacramento meeting. I do feel that this area, particu- lai'ly Lassen County, if I might take that at the very outset, comes in one of the categories that I think I commented to you gentlemen about in the City of Yreka, relative to the policy question that wherever there is an export project being considered by the State of California for the exportation of perhaps large quantities of water, that the State of California, if the local agencies and individuals are not in the position of financing the small structures, that should be considered to be a State responsibility to develop the entire basin. I think this area comes into the second category that I mentioned and that is that we should set up an appropriation within what is many times referred to as the Grunsky Bill that I am quite familiar with and which I hope to amend so that it is operative this next j'ear, actually giving areas such as this that perhaps will never have a direct export project — by direct I mean a large reservoir NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 295 sueli as Oroville Dam and others that arc contem- plated thronyhont the northeastern and northwestern part of the State, and so they should come in the possible category that if they do not have the financial ability and it is so proven that they have the oppor- tunity of nsin1 Orchard and Vineyard 1 . 18 Rice 9.1.3 Miscellaneous crops 1. 30 It should be called to the attention of this com- mittee that with the exception of rice, well water is used to supplement Clear Lake water in most in- stances. Therefore, for crops other than rice, the water deliveries shown are less than the farmers actu- ally use. A survey of farmer's actual water use was made, at the request of the chairman of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation Committee, by the Agricultural Extension Service in Yolo County. A letter and return survey card was sent to about 500 farmers requesting, for each irrigated crop grown, the number of irrigations, the number of hours per irrigation, and the flow of well or head of water. From these data, water use by crops was calculated by one of the following formulas : (1) cu. ft. per sec. X hrs. acres (2) gal. per min. X hrs. 450 X acres Table V gives the acreage by crops and the applied water per acre. It is anticipated that the above survey will be car- ried out more completel.y when farmers are less busy with their harvest and more time is available for this stud}^ Data contained in Table V represent replies from 70 farmers. Table VI summarizes the irrigation requirements data taken from Bulletin 58 and Bulletin 20 based on theoretical consumptive use (columns 1 and 2) with comparisons with farmers' actual water use taken from Clear Lake Water Records and the Agricultural Extension Service Survey (columns 3 and 4). TABLE V WATER USE SURVEY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE September 1958 No. Crop (1) Acres (2) .Acreage X Ac. ft. per acre (3) Weighted average, ft. (2)/(l) 1. Alfalfa 6,198 145 1.716 179 190 979 43 937 1,657 262 603 ' 75 208 4.2a3 3,160 1.710 2,272 279 28,572.46 2.32.00 3.089.19 216.68 150.30 3.238.53 157.54 2,697.61 4,354.07 618.34 2.160.65 221.87 .395.12 36.565.07 7.836.00 6.566.08 8.317.27 1.198.00 4.43 .) 1.6 3. 1.8 4. 1.21 Barley _ 0.79 0. 3.3 7. Clover . 3.66 8. Corn.. 2.87 9. Milo 2.62 10. 2.36 11. 12. Improved pasture Peaches 3.58 2.95 13. 1.9 14. Rice . . .. 8.53 15. 2.48 16. Sugar Beets 3.84 17. 3.69 18. Walnuts - 4.29 Average (unweighted) - 3.11 4.2 302 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES TXVESTIGATION Recommendations 1. Due to discrepancies iu the data presented in Bul- letin 58 and Bulletin 20, and with actual farmers' survey, further water use studies should be carried on by the Department of Water Resources on water requirement for Yolo County. 2. It is recommended that the water use values con- tained in Bulletin 20. Cache Creek Investigation, with an average efficiency of 70^( be used. 3. It is recommended that the efficiency factor for tlie Woodland and Capay Hydrographie Units iu Bul- letin 58 be reduced from' 85% to 70-757o. In conclusion, I would like to again commend the Department of Water Resources on a job well done on a difficiilt assignment. Any statement contained in this report should be taken as constructive in nature and iu no way critical. Any difference can be resolved by further study and cooperation. /s/ J. Bernell Harlan Chairman, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District No. 10. 11. 12. 1.3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. TABLE VI IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS Summary Sheet Crop Alfalfa, Improved pasture. _ Grain and grain hay Tomatoes Truck crops Sugar Beets Sudan Grass MUo Corn Beans Field crops .Almonds .4pricots Prunes Walnuts Vineyard Deciduous Orchard, Rice Alfalfa Seed Clover Peaches Miscellaneous Average all crops (Unweighted) , . Average all crops (Weighted) Average total water requirement (1) Bull. .58 State Dept. Water Res. 3.15 3.76 .76 1.16 1.44 2.27 5.76 2.46 2.59 (2) Bull. 20 State Dept. Water Res. *2. 1 2.0 2.7 2.7 t3.3 3.34 J:4.42 (3) 1948-19.57 Clear Lake Water Co. * Includes milo. t Inchidcs pe-iclics. j See Appendi.x B. T[ Does not include supplemental water supplied from wells. 2.50 2.43 2.55 1.55 1.51 1.18 9.13 1.30 2.77 4.51 (4) Ag. Ext. Service Study tSept. 1958 4.45 3.58 0.79 3.69 1.80 1.21 1.90 4.29 2.36 8.53 1.6 3.66 2.95 3.11 4.2 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 303 APPENDIX A AVERAGE COUNTY IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY (WEIGHTED) (Data from Deportment of Water Resources) APPENDIX A-Continued AVERAGE COUNTY IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY (WEIGHTED) (Data from Department of Water Resources) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Hydro- Present Weighted graphic Effi- crop effi- Crop unit ciency acreage (2) X (3) ciency Alfalfa.. West Yolo.. 55% Capav 85% 610 508 Woodland.. 85% 23.770 20.200 East Yolo.. 70% 13.750 9.620 Colusa 70% 12,820 8.980 Cortina 50% 250 125 Arbuckle... 60% 2.850 1,710 54.050 41,143 76% Improved pasture West Yolo.- 55% 60 33 Capay 85% 400 340 Woodland.. 85% 12,010 10,210 East Yolo.. 70% 14.840 10.400 Colusa 70% 53,330 37.300 Cortina 50% 290 145 Arbuckle 60',"t, 3,930 2.360 84,860 60.788 71.5% Grain and grain West Yolo.. 55% Capay 85% Woodland.. 85% East Yolo.. 70% 6.410 4,490 Colusa 70% 5.650 3,960 Cortina 50% Arbuckle — 60% 200 120 12,260 8,570 70% Truck. _ West Yolo.. 55% Capay 85% Woodland.. 85% 11,450 9,740 East Yolo.. 70% 15,850 11,100 Colusa 70% 32,440 22.740 Cortina 50% 10 5 Arbuckle — 60% 2,750 1,650 62.500 45,235 72.5% Field. West Yolo 55% Capay 85% 70 60 Woodland.. 85% 10.000 8,500 East Yolo.. 70% 24.510 16,650 Colusa 70% 26.660 18,680 Cortina 50% 50 25 Arbuckle — 60% 2.210 1,327 63.500 45,242 71% DeL-iduous orchard West Yolo.. 55% 200 110 Capay 85% 970 824 Woodland.. 85% 7,380 6,270 East Yolo.. 70% 650 455 Colusa 70% 11.590 8,120 Cortina 50% 1.460 730 Arbuckle — 60% 7.840 4.700 30.090 21.209 70.5% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Hydro- Present Weighted graphic Effi- crop effi- Crop unit ciency acreage (2) X (3) ciency Rice West Yolo.. 55% Capay 85% Woodland.. 85% 17.870 15.200 East Yolo.. 70% 25.900 18.140 Colusa 70% 199.980 140.000 Cortina 50% 40 20 Arbuckle 60% 6,310 3,780 250,100 177.140 71% Vineyard West Yolo.. 53% Capay 85% Woodland.. 85% 280 238 East Yolo.. 70% Colusa 70% Cortina 50% Arbuckle 60% 40 24 320 262 82% Total irrigated West Yolo.. 55%, 200 143 Capay 85% 2,0S0 1.785 Woodland.. 85% 82,980 70.500 East Yolo. . 70% 101.930 71,300 Colusa 70% 342.890 210,000 Cortina 50% 2.100 1,050 Arbuckle 60% 26.150 15,700 558.360 400,478 72% APPENDIX B WEIGHTED AVERAGE WATER REQUIREMENTS IN CACHE CREEK SERVICE AREA (From Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 20) Crop Alfalfa Irrigated pasture Truck crops fTomatoes 1 Melons Field crops fSugar Beets \Beans. Milo, Corn. [Almonds Deciduous orchard. ! Apricots I Prunes [Walnuts. Peaches . Rice 24.380 12.410 11.430 10,070 17,870 (2)t Farm delivery, acre-feet 3.5 4.3 2.7 2.3 2.6 Weighted average. (3) (1) 84..530 374.800 84,530 (3) (1) X (2) 85,000 53,300 31.000 23,100 100,800 374,800 4.42 ac. ft. • Column (1): Bulletin No. 58, t Column (2) : Bulletin No. 20. 304 NORTHEASTERX COUNTIES INVESTIGATION STATEMENT BY LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND LAKE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION Lakeport, California, November 9, 1958 Parti The County of Lake submits to the above named State agencies jointly conducting this hearing the fol- lowing points for their consideration : 1. This County wishes to compliment the State De- partment of "Water Eesourees on the completion of this difficult and monumental project. It shows careful study, excellent planning and thorough consideration of the problems involved. 2. However, there are several points which we feel should be emphasized and brought to the atten- tion of all agencies aud parties concerned. The first of which is our feeling that the future his- tory of this whole area will be greatly influenced by the findings of this hearing as they affect the final draft of Bulletin #58. 3. Knowing the importance of water we have been vitally interested in the water problems of our County for many years. This County already has a long range water development plan and com- pleted a study of its water needs by a private agency as early as November 1957. 4. It is the differences and discrepancies between the above mentioned study together with your own observations and the findings in Bulletin #58 to which we wish to call attention. They are : (a) The sum total of ultimate needs for this County, according to Bulletin #58 show 305,000 Ac. Ft. Our estimate is 520,000 Ac. Ft. This is too great a difference, especially where both agencies qualify as experts in the field. (b) Lake County has 92,000 acres of irrigable land with a mean of 3 Ac. Ft. per acre. This would require 276,000 Ac. Ft. To use our minimum estimate of ultimate acreage at 72,000 acres it would still exceed the estimate of 203,000 Ac. Ft. in Bulletin #58. (e) Lake County is geographically located ad- joining the vast metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area. "When that area becomes saturated population-wise it will have an effect on Lake County far greater than on any other county in this investigation. Therefore we feel that the iiltimate population will be greater than estimated in Bulletin #58. (d) Relative to needs for recreation areas it is a fact that at present recreation is one of our two principal resources. In the future, with proper water development, it will surpass agriculture. Therefore the estimate of 4,400 Ac. Ft. for recreation areas is too small. To it should be added 3,700 to care for recreation visitors in addition to the above. Lake County already has approximately 750,000 visitors days annually, which will ultimately become millions. (e) Lake and proposed reservoir evaporation (not including many reservoirs included in our long range water development plan) would require a minimum of 191,000 Ac. Ft. Bulle- tin #58 shows only 79,000 under the heading "Net Reservoir Evaporation." Clear Lake alone, with an area of 64 Sq. miles and using a mean evaporation of 3 feet would require a minimum of at least 125,000 Ac. Ft. (f) Lake County's only source for supplemental water is the Eel River. If future estimates peg our needs as lower than we feel we need then we should now reserve an additional 200,000 Ac. Ft. from that source. Bulletin #58 shows Lake Pillsbury as needing only 2,100 Ac. Ft. (g) In summary. Lake County feels that the esti- mate in Bulletin #58 is too low. "We feel that the estimate arrived at by private agency more closely approximates our true ultimate need. That figure is 520,000 Ac. Ft. Part II Proposals and Recommendations to the State of California as represented by its agencies whether Legislative, Judicial, Executive or administrative, or in quasi form of any of the above. (If they have juris- diction pertaining to Avater problems.) 1. That if and when Lake Comity mutually agrees with the authorized State agencies as to the amount of water needed for its ultimate develop- ment said amount of water will be reserved by the State for this County from waters originating within its boundaries. 2. If such amount is not available due to present export then the State will guarantee sufiieient water to meet its ultimate needs. 3. If more water originates within its boundaries than is required for its ultimate needs according to the above agreed-upon estimate the State will resei've an additional 10% as a reserve for con- tingencies and error in estimate. All water above NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 30.1 this amount to be made immediately available for export to areas of need. Lake County will be forever estopped from claiming any of said water made available for such export. 4. If there be disagreement between Lake County and State agencies as to amount required for ultimate need the State will reserve as a safety measure the amount of water the County feels it will ultimately need. 5. Lake County will be required to submit an over- all long range plan of water development which will be filed with the State. The State will recog- nize the plan and use it as a basis for reserving in perpetuity that amount of water. 6. Lake Count}' will be required to show reasonable progress in carrying out its plan. 7. Nothing in the agreement shall prevent the loan for beneficial use by the State or Lake County of such reserved waters until such time as they will be needed by Lake County. 8. In summary : If the State will reserve in perpe- tuity the amount of water we iieed plus 10% for safety; Lake County will: (1) cooperate and re- lease all claim to waters over and above the amount reserved; (2) agree to a loan of such reserved waters until needed; (3) submit a plan for the development of said reserA'cd waters; (4) begin immediate work toward the completion of its water program subject as rapidly as its re- sources will permit. 9. The above points or a modification of them might meet the needs of other counties listed in Bulle- tin #58 and are considered as possibilities in helping to resolve our present stalemate in water problems of Northern California. VERBAL COMMENTS MR. COLIN HANDFORTH Yuba County Mr. Handforth: Gentlemen, I'm Colin Handforth, representing Yuba County. We don't have a specif- ically prepared statement. I didn't get word of this, personally, until too late to do that — dislocation in communication inside the coianty. However, we did prepare a brief summary for the Senate Interim Com- mittee on prepared water projects, and I'd like to submit a copy of that as something in writing. Yuba Coimty feels that, in the main, this Bulletin 58 is very good and agrees with almost all the information in it. The County has taken exception to a couple of points and has presented some figures in this report which was submitted to the Senate Interim Committee which are in conflict with figures in Bulletin 58, not so much as to present authoritative figures differing with the bulletin as to point up the fact that a little bit different interpretation of a different point can result in quite different figures, and a couple of spe- cific points which illustrate this are in the efficiencies involved in two specific areas, the Marysville and Challenge Areas, and the State has in Bulletin 58 allowed efiSciencies of 75 and 80 percent, respectively, in those two areas. We feel that those are somewhat high. Another point, we found that in dealing with the figures and tabulations in Bi;lletin 58, there was some difficulty in finding ju.st exactly how those figures had been arrived at, not that we quarrel with the figures but we had a hard time in some cases tracing how those figures had been arrived at ; and even on calling the Department of Water Resources and talking with the people who had assembled them, we still had diffi- culty in finding just where the figures had come from. Other than that, we have no objections, and we think it's a very commendable effort and certainly an exhaustive study. MR. J. BERNELL HARLAN Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mr. Harlan : We have a prepared statement with a few brief comments. We, too, want to commend the Commission and the Department for making this thorough investigation and feel that they have done an excellent job, and as Yuba has presented, we do have some reservations about the ultimate needs. In the first place, we as a board, and I refer to the board as the Yolo Comity Flood Control Water Conservation District, are reluctant, don't feel that we're qualified to say that we can accept an exact number of acre- feet as anything that will be our ultimate requirements or needs, that we feel that for comparative and plan- ning purposes, why, this figure is quite fine, but when you come down to saying that, "This is all we'll ever need," we don't feel qualified to say that this is ex- actly the fact. We're inclined to believe that agricul- ture will intensify in the future as we have seen it do at the present time, and in Yolo County, why, there 's a large number of fields at the present time vinder- going major leveling operations, which indicates we're in that same trend, and also the fact that we're doing a lot of double-cropping in the face of all these sur- pluses. The tendency for double-cropping is increasing rather than decreasing, which you'd think the oppo- site would be true in these surplus conditions. Also, we're short of using our full energy on this, hoping to develop Cache Creek on the local interest basis, 30(; NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION which will probcibly take care of the needs of Yolo County for 20-sonie years or better, and we feel that even thonj^h we're short on onr ultimate needs in the County, that eventually by the time we actually have to have them, probably the North Coast Area or some other thing' will be tapped, and we haven't filed on those future long distance deals, because actually where you're not going to do anything for such a long period of time, why, it just kind of clouds the issue and probably the Water Rights Board wouldn't appre- ciate it either. I think tliat Bulletin 58 is, in essence, an attempt to see what are going to be the ultimate requirements of these counties, and then thej' can use that for pur- poses of planning and that sort of thing, and I think we 're satisfied at the moment to let it go on that basis. We're pretty familiar with your Cache Creek Pro- gram reports and have been studying them, and there is a little difference in the actual water requirements for the crops in that and in Bulletin 58, and your Cache Creek Program reports come more nearly agree- ing with what we, on a practical basis, feel are the ac- tual needs for the crops themselves. And in addition, why, when we knew this hearing was going to come up, why, we asked the Extension Service to go out and make an immediate survey of what we were actually using in the County, and they did this, and they wrote to some 500 growers and com- piled the results and weighted averages and have done a very, very excellent job, and this is also compiled in this written statment we have, so we've got a pretty good idea of what the actual farm practices at the moment are, and we feel that from a practical stand- point that, perhaps, in Bulletin 58 you're a little bit low; and again, as the people from Yuba County in- dicated, we weren 't quite sure how they arrived at the actual figures, that we feel that it was more or less of a theoretical type of use than an actual multiplica- tion, and we feel that the actual crop practice in our County tends to use more water and that, perhaps, the efficiencies are just a little bit high. We're not in sub.stantial disagreement with the total acreage and total water requirements, however. It's some 2.9 acre- feet per year, per acre, for the irrigable acres; and we, as is pointed out in our written statement, have talked in terms of around three acre-feet, and so we're not in substantial disagreement. But again, we just don't believe it's quite practical to say, "We'll accept a figure and say this is the ultimate needs," and just in exact number of acre-feet; hence, to substantiate that, I think we have to view that there are shifts in agriculture, that there are changes in irrigation prac- tice, and it may be that due to increased efficiency and that sort of thing that we can materially reduce the amount of water that will eventually be required. Then, there's varietal developments in research by the University, and that sort of thing, which tends to have a difference in water requirements by the differ- ent crops. We may eventually have weather modifica- tion, we don't know. It's certainly a pos.sibility, and there are probably many others. So I think with this brief summary of what is in our written report, that that is the comments I have to make to this Committee, and I believe Mr. Gordon, another member of our board, may have a few brief connnents. Thank you very much. Mr. Hill: Thank you very much, Mr. Harlan, for your comments. We know that you people in Yolo County have done a tremendous amount of work on your own over there. I would like to ask, in many areas that we've seen, there seems to be quite a tendency to use exce.ssive amounts of water. Mr. Harlan : I think that is going on in Yolo County in certain instances. I think there 's no question about it. Mr. Hill : Actually, to the detriment of the land, let alone excess use of water. Mr. Harlan: That's right. I think you'll find in areas wliere the water is relatively cheap, that that does happen, that the cost of actual labor involved and cost of water is a matter and that j'ou'll get an excessive use of water where water is quite cheap, rather than more supervision and labor to try to control that thing, because of the cost of water, and I think Yolo County is still pretty fortunate in their water situation. In fact, as I've indicated to the chairman and several others, that is one of onr prob- lems, that there's a little complacency in our County because we are so fortunate, and we have to look into the future, and I feel we probably can increase our efficiency quite a bit in the future. And as I say, some of these new crops and things will make a difference in the thing, but again I repeat, we're not in substan- tial disagreement with the ultimate figure on the thing ; but on the practical basis, I think it amounts to 129,000 acre-feet, but that again is a theoretical figure. We haven't got the actual research behind that, but we did go to the trouble of sending out and getting what is the actual use of the present time, and I think that as you point out, that there are in some instances probably some excessive uses of water in that. Probably it will average out more nearly though because there 's probably .some of these because of penetration problems, land compaction, with this heavy machinery, and that sort of thing, which is going the other way. People think they're getting penetration when they actually aren't. MR. CHARLES M. GORDON Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mr. Gordon : Charles Gordon, another member of the board of Yolo County. I'd like to just make a statement that I feel that Bulletin 58 doesn't bring out possible economic changes that can take place. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— roPUL AT ION AND DEVELOI'JIKXT 307 that can affect the future tremendously. For example, we'll say, one hundred years ago, Los Angeles City could solve its water problem by just adding another burro with a couple of jars tied on the side, and who at that time would dream that water was going to come from the Colorado River, and as far north lati- tude as the City of San Francisco, from the east side of tile Sierras, and for us to say the absolute future of Yolo Countj- water is just so much; for example, there's an economic trend going on in Yolo County that is possibly going on in others, but it 's just in the last few j'cars more and more farmers are double- cropping, and that means that they are using just that much more water. It will possibly be, if the re- turns warrant, there'll be even triple-cropping in some crops. The County is expected to grow tremendously in population, as you can see on the chart here, and what industries coming in can affect it. We're not too far from San Francisco, with the port and witli deep sea vessels coming into Sacra- mento area here, why, that will possibly affect the amount of water that Yolo County consumes, so I don't feel that that is covered as fully in Bulletin 58 as it might be, but it's looking into the future, into the crystal ball, that none of us can do very well. MR. DAVID J. COX Kelseyville, Lake County Mr. Cox: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you would take time to read it [a prepared statement], or should I speak at this time and yoix can go over the items as I cover them ? Again, Lake County wishes to compliment those who are responsible for this investigation. I'll not attempt to be repetitious of things that are in black and white on the first page of this statement, and in the second paragraph we make this statement : "However, there are several points which we feel shoTild be emphasized and brought to the attention of all agencies and parties concerned. The first of which is our feeling that the future history of this whole area will be greatly influenced by the findings of this hearing as thev affect the final draft of Bulletin No. 58." I'd like to speak on just one sentence on that, Mr. Chairman. As an illustration, Yolo County and Lake County are working now on interconnty agreement. That will, in part, be based iipon what we feel our needs are in these t-wo counties relative to that par- ticular watershed, and I think that in the course of law and future hearings, whatever the final tab is relative to the amount of water needed is going to be used as evidence, and I think it is vei-y important that the final amounts or the final decisions relative to tho.se amounts should be pretty clearly put, because 50, 75, or 100 years from now, we may be a long way off and some of ns might have agreed to certain amounts that are in error and will have to be corrected, and that is something tliat I'd rather make a statement tiiat it's far better to use foresiglit than hindsight in lliese matters. Statement No. 3, Paragraph No. 3 : "Knowing the importance of water we have been vitally interested in the water jjroblems of our county for many years. This county already has a long range water development plan and completed a study of its water needs by a private agency as early as November 1957." And that is where Mr. Dewaiite will come in sometime during this recapitulation. Niimber 4: "It is the differences and discrepencies between the above mentioned study together with j-our own observations and the findings in Bulletin No. 58 to which we wish to call attention. ' ' First: "The sum total of ultimate needs for this County, according to Bulletin No. 58 show 305,000 ac.-ft. Our estimate is 520,000 ac.-ft. ..." The discrepancies or range that wide must be recon- ciled in some way or another. I think there is a possi- bility that they can be reconciled. To just make a bald statement that there is that much difference between the judgment of two sets of experts is really almost making a joke of it. There couldn't be that great a range, so there must be an explanation there some- where. Now, Lake Couut.v, as you know, is a rather hilly type of county. Those of you who have not been over there have missed something, becau.se you ought to go over there. Lake County has 92,000 acres of irrig- able land with a mean need of 3 acre-feet per acre, whether you use the Atmometric sj-stem — you gentle- men from the University of California and Utah State and others — or whether you use Blaney and Criddle and some of the other estimates that were used. Prior to that, I think a mean of 3 acre-feet wouldn't be too far off, plus or minus. I'm not going to quarrel with that, but we do have out of that 92,000 acres a strong possibility that ultimately we will actually put into operation through irrigation about 72,000 acres, and taking that again and multiplying it by three, rough- ly, you'd find some 203,000 acre-feet, that can come somewhere near the approximation in Bulletin 58, but we still think it is a little bit low. We're not quarreling too much with the estimates in Bulletin 58 ; on that matter, there's another point that we must consider a little later. Now, another item that you have is various cate- gories of our future population needs, recreation needs, and so on. Let me back up just a little bit and make this statement. Lake Count}' is, I think, different from any other county in this whole Northeastern Counties Investigation for three or four reasons. In the first place, it is very close to the vast metropolitan San Francisco Baj^ Area. TNTien Lake County popula- tion becomes saturated, one of the principal places of overflow is going to be in the adjoining county. The 808 NORTHEASTEKN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION far pomities in the north end are not affected by that. Secondly, we are in a peculiar situation in that we have a vast potential as well as present lake area or reservoir area that must be considered, and that is a very important point. We feel that the population estimate in Bulletin 58 is considerably smaller. Our population will not in- crease immediately, for the simple reason that until that Bay repion reaches apj^roximately 15,000,000 peo- ple, which has been predicted, we will not have too much from there. We have Napa Valley, we have So- noma Valley, we have the areas up and down the Sac- ramento River. All of those will be pretty well filled out before they decide they're going to live in Lake Count.y and work somewhere in the Bay region. Of course, we do have situations there now, and a lot of them are semi-permanent as against purely a summer- resident type of individual. The next point I would like to make — Avell, I can read it. "Relative to needs for recreation areas it is a fact that at present recreation is one of our two prin- cipal resources." In Lake County, agriculture would be number one and recreation very close as number two. "In the future, with proper water development, it will surpass agriculture," because of limited areas that can be devoted to agriculture. "Therefore the estimate of 4,400 ae.-ft. for recreation areas is too small." Now. Mr. Dewante's report shows something else, but I think Mr. Dewante can explain that in just a moment, in that it pertains more to use for the areas themselves rather than lakes, ponds, and so on. At least, that is subject to Mr. Dewante's comments. "Lake County already has approximately 750,000 visitors days annually," and eventually with the development of our water program, which we at present have already set up, we feel that the potential is just unlimited because of the possibilities in that County for recreation. It's a natural, and it certainly will surpass agriculture, in our estimation. And here's another statement : "Lake and proposed reservoir evaporation (not including many reservoirs included in our long range water development plan) would require a minimum of 191,000 ac.-ft.," plus or minus, and that pretty closely approximates Mr. Dewante's statement, but we have a number of reser- voirs planned at the present time in our recently formed Ultimate Development Plan that would exceed the area there, and so it very probably could go above that. Bulletin 58 shows 79,000 acre-feet for evaporation, and you take again the mean in Lake County, whether you Tise one fornnila or another, is approximately 3 acre-foet per acre of surface evaporation there. I think the State authorities — and again I'm saying this with tongue in cheek — have gone as high on estimates as 3.5. Clear Lake estimates have been as low as 2.8, but the mean would be plus or minus 3 feet. Clear Lake alone, with an area of 64 square miles, which is roughly 41,000 acre-feet, per surface, and three times that would still give yoii one hundred twenty-some thousand acre-feet at the minimum, the very mini- mum. That doesn't include other reservoirs present, Lake Pillsbury and other reservoirs, small ones, but some of the proposed reservoirs, and those are not even listed in either Bulletin 58 as a potential or in Mr. Dewante's study, so we feel that there mu,st be some explanation to that. In other words, does the 305,000 acre-feet exclude all of this evaporation? Cer- tainly, we must reconcile that in some way or other, because that discrepancy is intolerable, in my esti- mation. The next point. Lake County's only source for some supplemental water is the Eel River. If future estimates peg our need as lower than we feel we need, then we should now reserve an additional 200,000 acre- feet to make our future supplemental water supply safe, and I 'm speaking now to the Water Commission and the State Department of Water Resources and all of California, as far as that goes, because there's no other place for las to get water. So if we make a mistake on this estimate and we accept it, we're sunk, that is all, or we're "blown" away, whichever you want to use. "In summar.y, Lake County feels that the estimate in Bulletin 58 is too low. We feel that the estimate arrived at by private agency more closely approxi- mates our true iiltimate need. That figure is 520,000 ac. ft." That takes care of evaporation and every- thing else. That is the figure arrived at in Mr. Dewante's study. This Part II is something I would like to hold until Mr. Dewante, if he has any statements on any of those comments. And again, Mr. Dewante, if I'm in error, I will bow to yon as the expert. I am the layman. And that is, iu general, what the ease is, that there's too large a discrepancy between what we feel is our estimate of need, by private engineering expert study as well as our own estimates, lay estimates, practical estimates, and that set up in Bulletin 58. . . . 1 have one point I'd like to make under Number II. As I say, that possible explanation on Clear Lake and evaporation could very possibly be reconciled. . . . Getting back to the point I made earlier, relative to the importance of this investigation and its poten- tial in the future, we iu our Count}' have a statement here that is partly hypothetical, but it is still, I think, relevant to this situation, and it will take me just a minute to read it, and then I'll keep still from here on out. . . . It's their proposals here, and those proposals are based entirely on Lake County's viewpoint. In other words, we want to get before the Legislators and the NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 309 various State agencies our tliiiiking and possibly what might come out of this, and I'm speaking speeifieally for Lake County. If anyone else wants to kic'k those things around, that would be up to them. This Part II, I'll read verbatim. "Proposals and Recommendations to the State of California as represented by its agencies whether Legislative, Judicial. Executive or administrative, or in quasi form of any of the above." So that pertains to the whole State hierarchy of officials and agencies, providing, "they have jurisdiction pertaining to water problems. "1. That if and when Lake County mutually agrees with the authorized State agencies as to the amount of water needed for its ultimate development said amount of water will be reserved by the State for this County from waters originating within its bound- aries. "2. If such amount is not available due to present export then the State will guarantee sufficient water to meet its ultimate needs. ' ' In the case of Lake County, it would be the Eel River. That is our only possible supplemental source. "3. If more water originates within its boundaries than is required for its ultimate needs according to the above agreed-upon estimate the State will re- serve an additional 10 percent as a reserve for con- tingencies and error in estimate. All water above this amount to be made immediately available for export to areas of need. Lake County will be forever stopped from claiming any of said water made available for such export." That is a pretty strong statement, but see how strongly this whole document may affect the future of our County and possibly some of the others. "4. If there be disagreement between Lake County and State agencies" — that is the point I'm bringing up here now — "as to amount required for ultimate need the State will reserve as a safety measure the amount of water the County feels it will ultimately need. ' ' 520,000 acre-feet, plus or minus, depending on that evaporation factor. "5. Lake County will be required to submit an over-all long range plan of water development which will be filed with the State. The State will recognize the plan and use it as a basis for reserving in perpe- tuity that amount of water. "6. Lake County Avill be required to show reasona- ble progress in carrying out its plan. "7. Nothing in the agrev,ment shall prevent the loan for beneficial use by the State or Lake County of such reserved Avaters until such time as they will be needed by Lake County. "8. In summary: If the State will reserve in perpe- tuity the amount of water we need plus 10 percent for safety; Lake County will: (1) cooperate and re- lease all claim to waters over and above the amount reserved; (2) agree to a loan of such reserved waters until needed; (3) submit a plan for the development of said reserved waters; (4) begin immediate work toward the completion of its water program subject as rapidly as its resources will permit" and need, of course. That is a typographical error on that; my apology for that. "!). The above points or modification of them might meet the needs of otlier counties listed in Bulletin No. 58 and are considered as i)ossibilities in helping to resolve our present stalemate in water problems of Northern California. ' ' Well, gentlemen, I want to apologize in that I've not closely examined your duties and functions, and I apologize for that. It may be that you have recom- mendatory power. It may be that otlier State agencies will ask your opinions, if you want to refer to Lake County. We're not putting it on the line. It is just some of our own thinking, and we'd be willing to go along with something equivalent to that if the State authorities say, "Well, what is your recommenda- tion?" — the California Water Commission. At least, that is our thinking, and someone else might want to iise the same or a variation of it. Thanks for taking that extra time, Mr. Chairman, but we feel that it is a ver.y important point. MR. RANDOLPH DEWANTE Consulting Civil Engineer, Sacramento Mr. Dewaute: Well, actually, I really did not in- tend to go into a detailed discussion of the discrep- ancy in these figures. I don't think that, perhaps, this is the time or place to do that. The actual difference between the figure is composed of a number of items involving unit values, areas of land, assumptions as to water consumption, water efficiences, and numerous other items, the sum total of which accounts for the difference; and as I say, I think that it would be a little bit too involved to go into a detailed discussion at this time. I think that is a matter more for discus- sion at this time. I think that is a matter more for dis- cussion between our people, engineers of our organiza- tion and engineers of the Department of Water Re- sources, concerning some of these specific items. A lot of the difference might be explained simply in the definition of water supply and water require- ments, because, particularly in the case of evapora- tion, it depends on the evaporation that is included in the water supply, what figure you use for a water requirement. In other words, the two are interrelated, and that again is a rather involved subject which I think should be discu.ssed between engineers of the State and our staffs. I'd be glad to answer any questions that anybody may have, but I 'm not prepared to go into a detailed, technical discussion of these matters at this time. 310 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION . . . Another item which, of course, accounts for a sizable amount — it doesn't bring the figures right in line — ^bnt oITe item which we have included is a con- tingency reserve of 10 per cent. Now, in other words, we take the position that the estimate of water re- quirement is much like tlie estimate of cost of a proj- ect or any otlier estimate. It's subject to error, and, of course, the tendency is to underestimate, because you don't realize there are so many things which you don't expect to develop. You certainly take care of all the tilings which you know are going to happen or think are going to happen ; if you err, it is going to be on the low side, just as if you were making an estimate of the cost of a house, so we have included a 10 per cent contingency to allow for such possible errors we feel are proper. Now, that alone in this ease accounts for 47,000 acre-feet. I mean, it's a sizable item, but that is what I mean when I say that the discrepancy is actually made up of a number of items, some due to different assumptions, some due to different definitions, no doubt. A lot of the basic land classification data, though, I think should be in fairly close agreement, because we discussed tliat with the State people, State Department of Water Resources people, during the program of our investigation. MR. GEORGE MITCHELL County Supervisor, Lake County Mr. Mitchell: I didn't have any prepared statement, but I want to go on record as believing that we shouldn't make any firm commitment at this time until further study is made into our water needs in Lake County. MR. KURT SCHAMBER Clear Lake Highlands, Lake County Mr. Schamber: I'm not the spokesman. "We agreed that George Mitchell will do our talking ; but yet when I sit here, I can't help but boil once in awhile, and I want to say a few things. I want to compliment Mrs. Davis on her statement in regard to our water require- ments and our commitments. Have you folks any pic- ture of Lake County? I mean a horizontal picture of our lake up there which is made by rainfall entirely and some springs in it, and we have approximately 64 square miles of lake water. Now, that flows into Cache Creek, in through the dam, and down the Cache Creek, and Yolo County at this time is getting our surplus waters already, and has a right to them, which they have filed back in 1912, as I understand it. I think it was deeded to them, you might say, wheii they got the water right. Now, comes North Pork of the Cache Creek, which at this time Lake County isn't using to any great extent, perhaps, at the sources. Now, Wilson Valley Dam is proposed there, and that would be impounded. And then certain statements here said that Clear Lake will stabilize that lake. We can't afford to stabilize any lake. At this time, we have three feet of water above zero on the Rumsey Gauge. Now, again back to the jiicture. You have a lake tliere Mr. Hill: We're quite familiar with it. We've all been up there and we're quite familiar with your geographical situation. Mr. Schamber: You know that? Mr. Hill: Yes, sir; and we've been through those hearings on that, and we're familiar with that situ- ation there, the outlet to Clear Lake. Mr. Schamber : When our water is at zero on the Rumsey Gauge, it's pretty darn low water, and that is when people really start raising a rumpus up there. When it's high, then the other side starts in yelling when they get flooded out. They've built on low tide, you might say, and even against the advice of people up there, but they would build on low water because they wanted to be able to throw their fishline out and catch fish through the back window. Now, those people, I don't think, should have too much consideration in regard to floodwater, because there's plenty of high land there they can build on ; and if they built low, let them put a jack under it and jack the house up; but we feel we cannot affoi'd any water. Our potential is twice as great, or greater, than our intake in that lake. We figure here we have 422,000 acre-feet coming into that lake every year. Our needs, according to this gentleman there, Mr. Dewante, I believe, are 459,000 acre-feet. Now, how can you give any water away. But we already are giving our surplus away. And how can you give any more? And anywaj-, I want to say this, there's a lot of water flowing down the Sacramento River going in the San Francisco Bay, and you can pump it out of there for Yolo County and the rest of them. MR. W. A. BARR County Supervisor, Siskiyou County Mr. Barr: Mr. Chairman, I won't take much of your time. We've already had our hearing and made a presentation. I was instructed to come down here by the Board of Supervisors, simply to reiterate our position in regard to the allocation of waters in Siski- you County. I have a little additional information here, and I'll present this to the Chaii-man. As stated in that, of wliieli you have a previous copy from my Water Board there, we feel that the allocation of water is insufficient in most every category. Our Farm Adviser comes up -with a little further information here that you didn't have before on a variation of a flow of water throughout the years. You may have it and you may not, I don't know, but I'd like to give it to j'ou anyhow. NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES— POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT 311 Tlie Klamath River on an average from 1920 to 1954 varied from a high of 1,428,000 aere-feet to 800,000 aere-feet, and the Shasta Kiver near Yreka varied from a high of 261,000 to 101,000, and the Seotts River near Fort Jones varied from a high of 832,000 acre-feet to 92,000 acre-feet. Now the question that comes to onr mind, what condition are yon going to allocate that water nnder? Most certainly, you can't give people in that conntrv sufficient water if you allocate the water on a minimum flow. Now, who knows how much water is going to fall, what our pre- cipitation is going to be any one year? It seems to me there must be some arrangement arrived at to determine under what conditions these allocations are going to be made. And as I said, you alread.y have our presentation, Mr. Banks has a letter from myself on this meeting, and I haven't anything further to say except to repeat that we wish to keep our position before this body. Mr. Hill: Thank you very much, jVIr. Barr. I note in your paper you handed me two statements. "Fur- ther studies be carried on to detei-mine more accu- rately the consumptive needs of water and total water requirements for our crops. " I believe that Mr. Banks and others have asked that those studies be carried on, not only in Siskiyou countv but State-wide to get better information that is available, and it's been pointed out that it does take considerable time. And I gather from your last state- ment here: "No move be made to determine total water requirements or amount of surplus water until further studies have been made." 1 presume by that, you are stating, if I read it right, that if reservations are made, that they shall be general reservations in- stead of specific reservations, based on your first state- ment that you think that yon feel you have more re- quirements than his studies show? Mr. Barr: That is right, and there's one little thing I would like to add to this, and that is the fact that there's 13,000,000 acre-feet of water going to waste on the Klamath River all the time, and they're bat- tling over taking water from Lake County to Yolo County, and this county and another. There you've got 13,000,000 acre-feet of water going to waste in the foreseeable future, and according to the best informa- tion that I can get, there never will be any use for it in that particular country up there after it passes Somnes Bar, so it seems to me that in view of the fact that the population and wealth of Southern Cali- fornia has increased to the point that it has, I don't believe it would cost them but very little more per capita to get from Klamath River more water now than it did when we perpetuated it on Owens Valley. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS State op California Department of Natural Resources Sacramento 14, California, June 2, 1958 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks Director, Department of Water Resources Piiblic Works Building Sacramento, California Subject: Bulletin No. 58, Northeastern Counties Investigation Dear Mr. Banks : Thank you for submitting subject to this office for onr information and review. Our Divisions of Beaches and Parks. Forestry, and Soil Conservation have re- viewed the report and have submitted the following comments : Beaches and Parks "The report is informative and of great interest to this division, and the wealth of information set forth will furnish background information for any investi- gations that may be undertaken in any of the counties covered by the bulletin. "I am sure we will find the information on land use, rainfall, topography, recreation and associated subjects most useful in the future." Forestry "We are particularly pleased that the bulletin gives full recognition of the timber resource in the north- eastern counties since it is the mainstay of the econ- omy in most of the area. Similarly, we are pleased that the Department of Water Resources saw fit to isolate the water requirements for the forest products industry from other uses. The estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal water requirements for this industry took into consideration the recently com- pleted pulp and paper study sponsored by the State Water Pollution Control Board and appear to be reasonable. "One item we failed to find in the report is mention of the importance of watershed protection and man- agement in maintaining optimum water quality and yield. The State si)ends a good share of its 18 million dollar annual forest and watershed fire protection budget in these counties. On page 108 of the bulletin there is listed various factors of water qualitj- impair- ment. We feel that erosion and flood ruu-ofl:' caused by improper protection and management of the water- sheds are important considerations in water quality and quantity planning. "One rather small point we would like to comment on is a statement made on pages 31-32, in discussing 312 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION timber in Lassen County. The last sentence says: 'The overeutting will remove the mature and overripe trees and promote increased growth. ' In our opinion this is not quite true. What is meant is that the conversion of stagnant old-growth stands into thrifty young stands by harvesting will increase growth. "We have previously discussed these points wir.h Assistant Director William Fairbank of the Depart- ment of Water Resources. "On the whole the report is good and it provides much valuable data for use in water planning and development. We appreciate the credit the division received for its cooperation in the acknowledgment." So/7 Conservaf'ton "The bulletin represents a rather comprehensive compendium of basic data on both water resources and requirements for the study counties. . . . The bulletin contains a wealth of basic information and may be useful in future work in this division." DeWitt Nelson, Director By: Edward F. Dolder Deputy Director TuLELAKE Irrigation District TuLELAKE, California, May 25, 1959 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director Deijartnient of Waier Besources 401 Public Works Building P.O. Box 1079, Sacramento 5, California Dear Mr. Banks: We have read and reviewed with interest a copy of your bulletin #58, showing the water requirements for the Northeastern counties area. We generally be- lieve that the report shows a satisfactory analysis of the needs and requirements of the area. I would like to suggest that as future reports such as this are drafted that they be specifically circulated to the agencies specifically concerned with water develop- ment with a request for study and comment. One comment which we would like to make and sug- gest for change in the Tulelake Irrigation District is to show that Tulelake comprising some 13,200 acres will probably be drained in the near future and con- verted into irrigable land. There would then remain about 600 acres in the present refuge which we would expect to be converted into a balancing reservoir. We believe that the ultimate use should show 30,000 acres of present public land would become irrigated private land rather than for use as a waterfowl sanctuary. Similarly with regard to the storage reservoir at Clear Lake Reservoir of approximately 527,000 acre- feet and embracing approximate!}' 25,000 acres, it is our plan coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation that this be turned into a jointly used waterfowl ref- uge comprising irrigated land and a small balancing reservoir of approximately 25,000 acre-feet. We would then propose at the boundary site or near Clear Lake that an irrigation flood control, and power reservoir of approximately 100,000 acre-feet would be con- structed. This plan we believe would provide land de- sirable for waterfowl use and would reduce markedly the evaporation losses at Clear Lake Reservoir. Respectfully j-ours, /s/ Maurice K. Strantz, Manager printed in California state printing office 16762 4-60 IM ; N T PLATE I R E S N LOCATION OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES AND INDEX TO SHEETS SAN MATE Oal TQ ^ IGNflTION OF iR BASINS ille Valley Valley • Valley omi LEGEND RECENT AND SOME OLDER ALLUVIUM, ALLUVIAL FANS AND TERRACE DEPOSITS LARGELY FLUVIAL BUT INCLUDES PLAYA LAKE DEPOSITS, MARSH DEPOSITS, PLEISTOCENE LAKE BEDS, AND GLACIAL MORAINES AND DRIFT CONSISTS OF GRAVEL . SAND. (SOME TUFFACEOUS), SILT, CLAY, AND LACUSTRINE MARL, AND CLAY THE AREAS OF Qal ARE IN GENERAL GROUND WATER BASINS IN MOOOC, SISKIYOU AND LASSEN COUNTIES THE GROUND WATER BASINS IN- CLUDE SOME RECENT WATER-BEARING VOLCANICS UNDIFFERENTIATED PLIOCENE AND SOME PLEISTOCENE NON- MARINE SEDIMENTS OF VARIABLE LITHOLOGY INCLUDES CACHE, TEHAMA AND TUSCAN FORMATIONS WATER- BEARING IN PART UNDIFFERENTIATED OLDER TERTIARY (MOSTLY EOCENE OR PALEOCENE), MARINE AND NON-MARINE SEDIMENTS OF VARIABLE LITHOLOGY INCLUDES THE lONE MONTGOMERY CREEK, WEAVERVILLE, CAPAY, AND MARYSVILLE FORMATIONS, BUTTE GRAVELS, AURIFEROUS AND ANDESITiC GRAVELS, AND HAY FORK BEDS GENERALLY NOMWATER- BEARING UNDIFFERENTIATED TERTIARY AND QUATERNARY VOLCANIC ROCKS MOSTLY NONWATER-BEARING, BUT SOME BASALT FLOWS ARE VERY HIGHLY WATER-BEARING UNDIFFERENTIATED JURASSIC AND CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTARY, VOLCANIC METASEDIMENTARY, AND META VOLCANIC ROCKS INCLUDES THE KNOXVILLE AND FOREMAN FORMATIONS, SHASTA SERIES AND THE FRANCISCAN GROUP GENERALLY NONWATER- BEARING, BUT LOCALLY CONTAIN CONNATE WATER BASEMENT COMPLEX INCLUDES METAMORPHIC AND INTRUSIVE IGNEOUS ROCKS CRE- TACEOUS AND OLDER GENERALLY NONWATER-BEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION generalizedTeologic map of the northeastern counties TQv JK be SCALE OF MILES 6 12 IS CRAMENTO NUMERICAL DESIGNATION OF GROUND WATER BASINS 5-15 Kolsyv.lleVfllUy 5-17 Burns Valley 5-18 Coyole Valley 5-19 Colloyomi LOCATION OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES AND INDEX TO SHEETS roin mn RECENT AND SOUE OLDER ALLUVIUU. ALLUVIAL FANS AND TERRACE DEPOilTS LAftCEL' f LWVUI. BUT INCLICES PtA" LAKE OEPOSI'S, HAWM DEPOSirV PLEIiTOCfNE LtEE BEDi, AND CL*CI>L WOR^INEi AWOBIFT CONJISIt Of GRAVEL. MFC. 'SOHf TumCEOUJ), SILT, CLAI, *>« LACUilHIMe MABl, AfOCLAI THE AMIJ Of 0^1 *RE IHCENERAI. GROUND HATEii BAilM IN bCOOC, IIMIIOUAICLI^EN COUNTIES THE GBOUIODATER ftAilNS IN- ClUOe SQ« RECENT -AIEB BE'RINC UOLCAKICS UNDIFFERENTIATED PLIOCENE AND SOUE PLEISTOCENE NON- OF VARIABLE LITHDLOGY IE. lEMUUtlCIUlCNfQHlUTIOfa ■■It*. [,,^ - ;n UNDIFFERENTIATED OLDER TERT1ART (MOSTLY EOCENE OB V.vV//a PALEOCENEI. MARINE ANO NONMARINE SEDIMENTS OF VARIABLE '' '•' '^^ LITMOLOCV INCLUDES THE lONE MONTGOMEfll CHEEK. HEAVERVILLE. CAPAT. AND IrWHnVILLE FWWATIOHJ. BUTTE CSAVtlS, lUHIf EOOIS AfC INDESITIC GRAVELS. INDHAT fEPRK BEDS GENESALL' NOMTATER I TQV I UNDIFFERENTIATED TEBTIAHT AND OUATERMABY VOLCANIC ROOH ' ■ ' KKTLT MON*AIER-BEARI«, 6UT SOW BASALT fl.O« ABE VERT MICHLT ■AtER'BEARlHi; UNDIFFERENTIATED JURASSIC AND CRETACEOUS SEOIMEHTART. VOLCANIC, METASEOIMENTART, AND META VOLCANIC ROCKS INCLUDES THE ICMllVILLE >M) FCOEUAH FMUATIOU. IHAITA SERIES AW THE 'RANCIiCANWIOU'' CENERALk.' NOMIATEB ■ EARING. Bin LOCALLY CONTAIN COW*»TE "ATEH BASEMENT COMPLEX INCLUDESUETUCMPHIC AM) INTRiaiVE ICNEOUSSOCKS CDE TACEOUS INC OLDER GENERALLY MOMCATEA BEARING fW=\ STATE OF CALIFOHNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES PLATE I PLATE I ^ Ri-^ ^ ^Lr\i. ,Ayfeg^ GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP SHEET Z OF 3 SHEET SCALE OF MIlES 6 J 6 i: J^ 2 I IW '-^ -:i-Ji2t: l!0 I _TQyl ^1 PLATE I PLATE I INDEX TO SHEETS \ 69 70 WW • .^s. PLATE 2 BownieviUe -^-_v .—^ ' >. Placen-ille rf.'. , , -ft «. > - j lMarklc\iIle'^ / y (aL P I n""' , ^ f V.\Andreas' AiS^ HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN 35 Olindo 51 Corning 1 Tulelake 26 Redbank Creek 52 Los Molinos 2 Bull* Villay 27 Elder Oeek 53 Fruto 3 Klamath Rivar 2S Themes Oeek 54 Orlond 4 Shoila Valla, 29 Stony Creek 55 Durhom S Scon Valley 30 Cleor Lake 56 Colusa 6 Salmon Rivar 31 Middleiown 57 Gr.dley 7 Uppar Trinil, Ri.., 32 Stillwater Plains 58 Browns Volley 8 Lower Trinity Rivar 33 Cow Creek 59 Con, no 9 South Fork Trinity Rrver 34 Beor Creek 60 Arbuckle 10 Soothem Trinity County 35 Battle Creek 61 Sutter 11 Loke Pilllbury 36 Paynes Creek 62 Morysvill. CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN 37 Antelope Creek 63 Pleasant Grove 12 Goose Lako 38 Mill Geek 64 West Yolo 13 Jess Valley 39 Deer Oeek 65 66 Copoy Woodlond 14 Aituros 40 Chico Oeek 15 Big Volley 41 Paradise 67 East Yolo 16 McArthor 42 North Fork Feothar River LAHONTAN DRAINAGE BASIN 17 Hat Creek 43 East Branch Foother River 68 Surprise Vollay 18 Montgomery Creek 44 Srerro Volley 69 Modeline Plains 19 McClourl Rivar 45 Middle Fork Feather R.ver 70 Eagle Lake 20 Durtsmuir 46 South Fork Feather River 71 Willow Creek 21 Shosto Laka 47 North Yuba River 73 Secret Volley 22 Cleor Creek 4S Challengo 73 Suson River 23 Keswick 49 Wyandotte 74 Herlong 24 SO Anderson 75 LiMie Truckee River LEGEND * BOUNDARY OF INVESTIGATED AREA ' BOUNDARY OF MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS ■ BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC UNIT WITHIN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF FiESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES SCALE OF MILES ZO 40 60 PLATE 2 {MAfiJel^ :xX-JiJ 72 IX^ E SR R aN Placerville /fMarklevi?^\ / y' |(!al PI n"°""' oj3- r Vj HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN 25 Ol.ndo 51 Corning I Tulelake 26 ReiJbank Creek 52 Los Molinos 2 Butl0 ValUy 27 EltJer Creek 53 Ffuto 3 Klomolh Riv«f 28 Themes Creek 54 Orlond 4 Shaila VolUy 29 Stony Creek 55 Durhom 5 Scott Vall«y 30 Cleor Loke 56 Colusa 6 Salmon River 31 Middlelown 57 Gridley 7 Upper Trinity River 32 Stillwater Plains 58 Browns Volley 8 Lower Trinity River 33 Cow Creek 59 Cort.na 9 South Forte Trinity River 34 Beo, Creek 60 Arbuckle 10 Southern Trinity County 35 Battle Creek 61 Suner 11 Lake Pillsbury 36 Paynes Creek 62 Morysville CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN 37 Antelope Creek 63 Pleasant Grove 12 Goose Lake 38 Mill Creek 64 West Yolo 13 Jess Valley 39 Deer Creek 65 66 Copoy Woodlond 14 Alturos 40 Chico Deek 15 Big Volley 41 Poroijise 67 East Yolo 16 MoArthur 42 North Fork Feolhet River LAHONTAN DRAINAGE BASIN 17 Hot Creek 43 East Branch Feother River 68 Surprise Volley 18 Montgomery Creek 44 Sierro Valley 69 Madeline Ploins 19 McClourl River 45 MirJdIe Fork Feother Rrver 70 Eogle Lake 20 Dunsmuir 46 South Fork Feather River 71 Willow Creek 21 Shasta Lake 47 North Yuba River 72 Secret Volley 22 Clear Creek 48 Challenge 73 Suson River 23 Keswick 49 Wyandotte 74 Herlong 24 Cottonwood Creek 50 Anderson 75 Little Truckee River LEGEND ' BOUNDARY OF INVESTIGATED AREA ' BOUNDARY OF MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS ■ BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC UNIT WITHIN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES SCALE OF MILES 20 40 _f_.__ G N A^-^-v, « -^^ (' /^ h^/ \h \ >L \ 69 ^ HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN Coming Lo. Molifio. Butte Vall«y Klamolh River 54 Orlond 29 55 Duihom Scon Volley 56 Coluio 31 57 G'idley Uppar Tf rnity Riv«f 32 Still-eter Plaint SS Browra Valley 8 Lower Tiinily River 33 59 Cor lino 9 South Fo.k Trm.ly River ■ii 60 Arbuchle 10 35 Bottle Creek 61 Sutter 11 Lolie P.IUbury 36 Poyno. Creek 62 Maryiv.ll. CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN 37 Antelt^e Creek Pleotont Grove 13 Je«t Volley 39 Deer Creek 65 66 Copoy Chico Creek 15 B19 Valley 41 Perodiie 67 Eoii Yolo 16 McAnhur 42 North Fork Feather River LAHONTAN DRAINAGE BASIN 17 Hot Creek 43 Ea.t 6ror ^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION tOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ZONES OF INTENSITY OF PRECIPITATION MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FOR 50 YEAR PERIOD 1897-1947 I LESS THAN 10 INCHES 10 TO 20 INCHES 20 TO 50 INCHES MORE THAN 50 INCHES eOUNOARY OF INVESTIGATED AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION sanfpa^jcjs^ojp^ geographical distribution of precipitation IN northern CALIFORNIA SCALE Of MILES DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1957 PLATE 4 T 42 N R 7 W R 6 W NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET I or 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 R B W T 42 N R 7 W R 6 W NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET I OF 17 SHEETS INDEX TO SHEETS LEGEND |. I u«B»>< •*€») ^^^H FREIENTLT IRItlOATEO L*NDI I I IMIO«BLE V»LLEir LIHOI y :"'! '""I^BI.E HKL L*NDi ^^^B OTHER iddicMlC linos BEST aiB^B BOUNDAHV OF INVESTIOalEO ME* — ^^^ eot>ND«m OF u*jon diuinase b*sih eoUMMflf Of «I0nO0R»PMIC UH'T 17 NORTH COUTU. DfUIKACE a CENTtUL VALLEY WAIIUGE BUIN 17 jt«,i« STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES NORTHEASTEfiN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE PLATE 4 NORTH COASTAL DRAIh 1 Tul.lolie 2 Butt« Volley 3 Klamath Rjv«r 4 Shasta Valley 5 Scott Volloy 6 Salman Rjvor 7 Upper Tflnity River 8 Lower Trinity River 9 Soolli Fork Trinity Ri 10 Southern Trinity Couni 11 Lake Pillsbury CENTRAL VALLEY DRAI 12 Goose Loke 13 Jess Valley 14 Alluros 15 Big Valley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Morttgomery Creek 1' McCloud R.ver 20 Dunstnwir 21 Shasta Lake 22 Cleor Creek 23 Keswick 24 Cottonwood Creek R S E R 6 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 2 or 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 NORTH COASTAL DRAIh 1 Tol.lok. 2 Butfe Valley 3 Klomoth Rivar 4 Shoito Volley 5 Scott Volley 6 Solmon River 7 Upper Trinity River 8 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity Ri 10 Southent Trinity Couni n Loke Pilltbury CENTRAL VALLEY DRAI <2 Goose Loke >3 Jesi Valley 14 Alturos >S Bi, Volley 15 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montgomery Geek 1' McCloiiil River 20 Dunsimiir 21 Shorn Loke 22 Cleor Creek 23 Keiwick 24 Cottonwood Creek R 6 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 2 OF 17 SHEETS INDEX TO SHEETS LEGEND [— D ™„ ..... ^^^H PRESEMTLT INNIBlTtD LANDS I I lBHie»eLE WtLET L«NOS EU ?;:s': IF INVESTIOATED *AE* • BDUNDMV OF UAJOR DHAINAOE BasiN 17 HTDI)OCRAf>MIC IWITi NOSTM CCASTAL DRAIHACE BMIN CENTRAL VALLEY DRAIWtCE B * '-^ '"^ ">■• UMOMT*H OBilrUCE B^ STATE OF CALirORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF BESOUnCES PLANNING 19i? R S E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATtON CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE £;::>. #7N PLATE 4 t NORTH COASTAL DRAIli 1 Tutelake 2 Butto Val)«y 3 Klamath River 4 Shasta VoHfty 5 Scott Valley 6 Salmon River 7 Upper Trirtity River 8 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity R, 10 Southern Trinity Cour n Lak« Pillsbury CENTRAL VALLEY DRA 12 Goose Loke 13 Jttia Volley t4 Alturoi 15 Big Valley 16 McArthur 17 HalCrwk 18 Montgomery Oeek 19 UcCloud River 20 Dunsmuir 21 Shosto Lake 23 Clecr Creek 23 Keswick 24 Cottonwood CrMk R 15 E PLATE 4 t E — }-*z''oo' T 49 N T 46 N T 45 N NORTH COASTAL DRAIff 1 Tuleloke 2 Butte Voli.y 3 Klomoth Ri«.r 4 Shasta Votley 5 Scott Volley 6 Salmon River 7 Upper Trinity R 8 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity Ri 10 Southern Trinity C 11 Lake Pillsbury CENTRAL VALLEY DRA 12 Goose Lake 13 Jess Valley 14 Alturos 15 Big Valley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montgomery Creek 19 IfcClourl River 20 Dunsmuir 21 Shosto Lake 22 Clear Creek 23 Keswick 24 Cottonwood Creek R 15 E R 16 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 3 OF 17 SHEETS INDEX TO SHEETS LEGEND ^^^H PRESCNTLV IRRIOMEO LANDS |i I IIBIBMLE V*LL£T t«NOS IZZl' l^^^l OmiMBLC HILL L*HDS ^^^B OIHEH IRniSASLE IINDS BEST ^^^H SUITED TO FOREIT MaNaCEMEMT ^~^~ B0UNB4RY OF INvEST'OBIED »RE* ^—^— eOUNDlRI OF MAJOR ORSinAQE BIS __,^ BOUNMRT OF HtOMORAPHIC UNIT WITHIN kUJOH DOAIHAGE BAStNS 17 MTOHOSRaPHIC UNfT NUUBER HTOBWRAPHIC WITS NORTH COUTU DRAINAGE BASIN CEKTHAl VAU.ET OHAIIUCE ftASIN }J a„,s^ o-b > U.re™chF„B»B, LA MONT AN DRAIHACE BAtlH PLATE 4 T 42 N NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 4 OF 17 SHEETS i PLATE 4 R 8 W R 7 W NORTH COASTAL 1 Tuldoke 2 Bulte Valley 3 Klomalh River 4 Shaslo Valley 5 Scott Valley 6 Salmon River 7 Upper Trinity R 8 Lower Trirjify fi 9 South Forli Tr 10 Southern Trin 11 LoliePillsbvry CENTRAL VALLEY 12 Gooie Loire 13 Jeis Volley 14 Alluras 15 Big Valley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montgomery Crer 19 McCloorl River 20 Ounimuir 21 Shoito Loire 22 CleorDeeh 23 Kei.iclr 24 Cottonwood Crei northe:astern counties investigation CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 4 OF 17 SHEETS \^ INDEX TO SHEETS LEGEND ^^^^ PDESENTll inniB*TED L'MDS IHIMBLE WLLEr LINDS I IRHICULE HILL LINOS ABLE LINDS ^OHEST HUtI IF INVCSTlOATED UlE* F UAJOH OH*lf(«GE SkSIN 17 HKORtWRAPHIC UMlIi "M CO»ST*L OtUIHUGt GUm CENTRAL VAUETORAIMGE B*S1K n A.r.1^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IJJVI^IO^ UF BESOUBCFS fLANSrN'; 1957 NOHTHEASTEBN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE PLATE 4 r Az u NORTH COASTAL I 1 Tulelolca 2 Bimt Valky 3 Klomoth Rivof < Shmm VolLy 5 Scon VolUy 6 Solnxm Riv»r 7 Upper Trmity R 8 Lovnr Trinity ( 9 Sovlb Fork Trin 10 South«m Jtinit 11 Lak« PilUbury CENTRAL VALLEY 13 Goes* Lolca 13 J.si Volley 14 Alturoi 15 Big Volley 16 McArthur 17 Hoi Oeeh IB Montgomery Craa 19 McClourlRivi 20 Ounsmuir 21 Shoito Loke 22 Cleor Creek 23 Keiwick 24 Cottonwood Cree -J- T 37 N R 4 E R 5 E R 6 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 5 OF 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 R 4 E NORTH COASTAL ij^- 1 Tulalolco 2 Bim* Valley 3 Klomoth River 4 Shasta Vall«r 5 Scan Volley 6 Solnwn Rivef 7 Upper Trinity R _ 8 Lower Tiirtity i: 9 South Fork Tr< 10 Souftiem Trin>t> I 11 Loire Pilllbury CENTRAL VALLEY 13 Goose Loire 13 Jess Valley 14 Atturos "". P^^m PRESENTLY mmeATED L>NDS [ I IB(llO»BLe V*LLE» L«NOS 1:. "7^lj HIBIO»BI.£ HILt L.«NOS ^^^^B OTHER IHniC ^^■■V BOUNDOV OF INVESTIB»I£I ^— ^— BOUMOAAT or MSJOB ^_ iOOMOABl' Of HIOnOSBiPMIC I }7 HVOnoSFtAPHIC UNIT NUHBCI) HTD«OGB*PHIC UHlTi NORTH COUTM. DRllHAOt BUIH CGNTIUt. VALLEY DUIHACE B LAHONTkM Df>tlHlCE BASIH » Cm— H^&Ht STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF BESOUfiCES PLANNING 1^6? NOHTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE NORTH COASTAL DRAINAG 1 Tulaloka 2 Butt* Vallty 3 Klamath Rivar 4 Shasta Vallay 5 Scott Valley 6 Salmon Riv<. 7 Upper Trinity River 6 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity River 10 Southern Trinity County 11 Lake Pillibury CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINA^ 12 Gooie Lake 13 Jen Valley U Alturot IS Big Valley li McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montgomery Creek 19 MeClood River 20 Duntmuir 21 Shoito Lake 22 Clear Creek 23 Keevrick 24 Cottonwood Crvek f'^PX i w NORTH COASTAL DRAINAG^^ 1 Tul«lak« 2 ButtttValUy 3 Klomoth Rjvar 4 Shosfo Volley 5 Scott Valley 6 Salmon Rivar 7 Upper Trinity Rivar 8 LowAf Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity River 10 Southern Trinity County 11 Loke PillsWy '/>^ CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAi 12 Gooi> Laka 13 J>is Vollty U Alruroi 15 Big VnlLy 16 McArthuc 17 HatCrMk 18 MDnlgwnafy Cr*«k 19 McClouil Rivar 20 Dunimuir 21 Shoilo Loka 22 CI«ot Oxk 23 Kaiwick 24 Cottonwood Crook fcv 3 W INDEX TO SHEETS LEQENO I ' ] UOMM UREAS ^^^1 PNEIEHILT iKiKOaTrD LaNM I I lS«H)»8t.E MILET L«ND1 [ZZI-— " •' UTEO TO fOBEST MANtGCUEHI F INVESTIOATES ARE< r u«JOR onaiMaE B*siN F HYDBOOSAPmC UNIT 17 HYDftOCRAPHIC UNin HOfiTM COUTU. DftAtNkCE &Aim n TI_nCn* CEHTRM. VALLEY ORAIHACE BASIN m lb— LtKOMTAN DRAtHAW BASIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of resources planning I9i7 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE ^^ PLATE 4 T 36 N NORTH COASTAL D 1 Tul.lol<> 2 BuHA Vatl«y 3 Klamath River 4 ShaitoVallay 5 Scan Vall.Y 6 Salmon River 7 Upper Tririity R 8 Lov^er Trinity R 9 South Fork Tr.n 10 Southern Trinity 11 Loke Piiisbury CENTRAL VALLEY 12 Gooie Lake 13 Jen Valley 14 Alluroi 15 Big Volley 16 Mi:Arthur 17 Hot Creek 16 Montgomery Cre 19 McCloud River 20 Dunimuir 21 Shoito Lake 22 Clear Creek 23 Keiwick 24 Cotfonweod Cre T 35 N Ff 4 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET e OF 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 R 6 E T 36 N NORTH COASTAL CENTRAL VALLEY 12 Gocso Lak* 13 J>i> Voll«v 14 Alturat 15 Big Vollay U McArthuc 17 H'- LAHONTAH DRAINAGE BASIH STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES oi/isioN Of nesouncES planning 1957 NOnTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTICATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE PLATE 4 R IS E R 16 E NORTH COASTAL DF 1 Tul.lol<> 2 Butl« Valley 3 Klomolh River A Shaito Valley 5 Scot! Volley 6 Solmon River 7 Upper Trinity Ri 8 Lower Trinity R 1 South Fork Trinil 10 Southern Trinity ( I 11 Lake PilUbui CENTRAL VALLEY C 12 Goose Loire 13 Jen Valley 14 Alluras 15 Big Volley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 16 Montgomery Oeek 19 McCloud Rive 20 Ounsmuir 21 Shoito Lake 22 Cleor Creek 23 Koterick 24 Cottonwood Creek T 32 N T 31 N R 15 E -j-40*30' R 16 E R 17 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 9 OF 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 R 15 E R 16 E NORTH COASTAL OR ? TuUlok. 2 Butt« Valley 3 Klamath River 4 Shasta Valley 5 Scatt Valley 6 Salmao River 7 Upper Trinity Ri 8 Lawet Trinity Ri 9 Sooth Fork Tririit 10 Soothem Trinity n Lake Plllibury CENTRAL VALLEY D 12 Goose Lake 13 Jess Valley 14 Alluros 15 Big Valley 16 McArthor 17 Hot Oe«k 16 Monlgamery Creek 19 McCloirrl Rivei 20 Ounsmuir 21 Shasto Lake 22 Cleor Creek 23 Keswick 24 Cottonwood Creek R 15 E R 16 E R 17 E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 9 OF 17 SHEETS ^^^ INDEX TO SHEETS [ij.afil| JXRIMBLE VALLE1 ■ BOUNMBI Of INVC3IIO»T£0 »BE« • BdUNPAHY OF UAJOA 17 mOROeRlPHIC UNIT NUweER m COASTAL DRAIKACE BAJIN CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BAJIN LAHOUTAH DRAINAGE B STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of ftEsoufces planning i9!7 CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE r?> PLATE 4 R 8 W R 7 W R 6 W NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 10 OF 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 INDEX TO SHEETS LEGEND ^^^H PKESENTiv inniflkTED LI I I IB«.&• UMNTUtCIAIlUCE UilH DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE r rr> PLATE 4 j T 24 N R 15 E *RI6E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 14 OF 17 SHEETS R 17 E PLATE 4 f INDEX TO SHEETS I I" czi- CerUAl VULUT MUUCt BUM £T\ PLATE 4 22 = 00' R I W R I E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 15 or 17 SHEETS PLATE 4 R 2 W R I E NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHtET 15 OF 17 SHEETS INDEX TO SHEETS m COUTM. WtyUIUGE USIH CEHKOU. VALLEY DeAIMGE e. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES /^ SIN FRANCISCO INDEX TO SHEETS 17 LEGEND URBAN AREAS PRESENTLY IRRIGATED LANDS IRRIGABLE VALLEY LANDS IRRIGABLE HILL LANDS OTHER IRRIGABLE LANDS BEST SUITED TO FOREST MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY OF INVESTIGATED AREA BOUNDARY OF MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY OF HYDROGRAPHIC UNIT WITHIN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS HYDROGRAPHIC UNIT NUMBER HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN I TuUloIca 7 Butle Vall«y 3 Klamath River 4 Shosta Vallay 5 Scon Vallay 6 Solmon R,v„ 7 Upper Trinity River 8 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity River 10 Southern Trinity County 11 Loke Pillibury CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN 12 Gooie Lake 13 Jess Valley 14 Alturos 15 Big Valley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montgomery Creek 19 McCloud River 20 Dunsmuir 21 Shaelo Loke 22 Clear Creek 23 Keiwick 24 Cottonwood Creek 25 Olinda 26 Redbonk Creek 27 eider Oeek 28 Thomes Creek 29 Stony Creek 30 Clear Loke 31 Middletown 32 Still.oter Plaint 33 Cow Creek 34 Beor Creek 35 Battle Creek 36 Paynes Creek 37 Antelope Creek 38 Mill Creek 39 Deer Oeek 40 Chioo Geek 41 Porodise 42 North Perk Feather River 43 Eost Branch Feather River 44 Sierra Valley 45 Middle Fork Feather River 46 South Fork Feather River 47 North Yube River 48 ChoMange 49 Wyondotle 50 Anderson 51 Corning 52 Los Molinos 53 Fruto 54 Orlond 55 Dijrhom 56 Colusa 57 Gridley 58 Browns Volley 59 Cortino 60 Arbuckle 61 Suner 62 Marysville 63 Pleosonr Grove 64 West Yolo 65 Capay 66 Waodlond 67 Eost Yolo UHONTAN DRAINAGE BASIN 6B Surprii* VolUy 69 Mod«llr>e Ploini 70 EogU Lok* 71 Willow Cr«*k 72 S«cr«t VolUy 73 Suaon Rlvtr 74 Hcrlong 75 LinU TrucliM Riv«r " E ° N SAN FRANCISCO INDEX TO SHEETS 17 LEGEND URBAN AREAS PRESENTLY IRRIGATED LANDS IRRIGABLE VALLEY LANDS IRRIGABLE HILL LANDS OTHER IRRIGABLE LANDS BEST SUITED TO FOREST MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY OF INVESTIGATED AREA BOUNDARY OF MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY OF HYOROGRAPHIC UNIT WITHIN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS HYOROGRAPHIC UNIT NUMBER HYOROGRAPHIC UNITS NORTH COASTAL DRAINAGE BASIN 1 Tul«lol« 2 Butle Volley 3 Klomoth Riv«r 4 Shosia Vallay 5 Scoti Valley 6 Salmon River 7 Uppar Trinity River 8 Lower Trinity River 9 South Fork Trinity River 10 Southern Trinity County 11 Lok. Pillibury CENTRAL VALLEY DRAINAGE BASIN 12 Goote Lake 13 Jes> Valley 14 Alturoi 15 Big Volley 16 McArthur 17 Hot Creek 18 Montsomery Creek 19 McCleuiJ River 20 Dunimuir 21 Shoito Loke 22 Clear Creek 23 Keiwick 24 Cottonwood Creek 25 Olindo 26 Redbonk Creek 27 Elder Creek 28 Thomes Creek 29 Stony Creek 30 Clear Lake 31 Middletown 32 Stillwoler Ploins 33 Cow Creek 34 Bear Creek 35 Battle Creek 36 Poynet Creek 37 Antelope Creek 38 Mill Creek 39 Deer Creek 40 Chlco Creek 41 Porodite 42 Noftli Fork Feother River 43 Eoit Branch Feather River 44 Sierra Volley 45 Middle Fork Feather River 46 South Fork Feather River 47 North Yubo River 46 Chollenge 49 Wyondotte 50 Anderion 51 Coming 52 Loi Molinos 53 Fruto 54 Orlond 55 Durhom 56 Coluio 57 Gridley 58 Browne Volley 59 Cortino 60 Arbuckle 61 Suner 62 Maryiville 63 Pleosont Grove 64 Weit Yolo 65 Copoy 66 Woodlond 67 Eoil Yolo LAHONTAN DRAINAGE BASIN 68 Surprlie Volley 69 Modeline Ploina 70 Eagle Loke 71 Willow Creek 72 Secret Volley 73 Sueon River 74 Herlong 75 Little Truckee River INDEX TO SHEETS CZl- CIMTUL ViLLFt DSUUn i. LUMMTtHOailUCI BltlH NOHTHEASTECN COUNTIES INVESTIOATIO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE 4 T 8 N NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEE.T 17 OF IT SHEETS PLATE 4 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR WATER SERVICE SHEET 17 OF 17 SHEETS 10 til , 12_C INDEX TO SHEETS IZD- CEKIKU. VILLET OUUUCE Bi r\ r PLATE 5 i. i i f ^ £_ PLATE 5 PLATE 5 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1957 PLATE A-3 SHEET I . LEGEND URBAN AND SUBURBAN: URBAN CENTERS. LANDS ADJACENT TO PRESENT URBAN CENTERS, AND AREAS LIKELY TO BECOME URBAN AND SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER. NO POPULATION DEN- SITY IS SPECIFIED AND IN SOME CASES WOULD INCLUDE WIDELY SCATTERED RESIDENCES. HIGH INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TION POTENTIAL THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR VEHICLE I DURING THE ENTIRE VACATION SEASON. MOST AREAS SUBJECT I TO DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL RESORTS. PRIVATE SUMMER HOMES, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPING AND PICNIC GROUNDS WOULD BE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION. MEDIUM INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TIONAL POTENTIAL NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR I VEHICLE. THIS INCLUDES PRIMITIVE AREAS BUT WOULD ALSO [include some areas ACCESSIBLE BY JEEP. TO A LIMITED EX- TENT THIS AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR RESORTS. SUMMER HOMES AND CAMP GROUNDS. LOW INTENSITY RECREATION AREAS: ACCESSIBLE AREAS HAVING LIMITED RECREATION POTENTIAL SUCH AS THE WIDE JUNIPER-SAGE PLATEAU OF THE LAHONTAN BASIN. THE DRY RANGES OF THE EASTERN CASCADE SLOPE, AND THE MIDDLE I ALTITUDE MESQUITE AND MANZANITA FOREST. WILDLIFE AREAS ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. PRIMARY RECREATION USE WOULD BE FOR HUNTING AND FISHING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR RBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RECREATION USE 1957 SCALE OF MILES 4 e PLATE A-3 SHEET I I ^Tt-^'' . LEGEND URBAN AND SUBURBAN: URBAN CENTERS. LANDS ADJACENT TO PRESENT URBAN CENTERS, AND AREAS LIKELY TO BECOME URBAN AND SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER. NO POPULATION DEN- SITY IS SPECIFIED AND IN SOME CASES WOULD INCLUDE WIDELY SCATTERED RESIDENCES. HIGH INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TION POTENTIAL THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR VEHICLE I DURING THE ENTIRE VACATION SEASON. MOST AREAS SUBJECT I TO DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL RESORTS. PRIVATE SUMMER HOMES. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPING AND PICNIC GROUNDS WOULD BE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION. MEDIUM INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TIONAL POTENTIAL NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR I VEHICLE. THIS INCLUDES PRIMITIVE AREAS BUT WOULD ALSO I INCLUDE SOME AREAS ACCESSIBLE BY JEEP. TO A LIMITED EX- TENT THIS AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR RESORTS. SUMMER HOMES AND CAMP GROUNDS. LOW INTENSITY RECREATION AREAS: ACCESSIBLE AREAS HAVING LIMITED RECREATION POTENTIAL SUCH AS THE WIDE JUNIPER-SAGE PLATEAU OF THE LAHONTAN BASIN, THE DRY RANGES OF THE EASTERN CASCADE SLOPE. AND THE MIDDLE ' ALTITUDE MESQUITE AND MANZANITA FOREST. WILDLIFE AREAS ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. PRIMARY RECREATION USE WOULD BE FOR HUNTING AND FISHING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR RBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RECREATION USE 1957 SCALE OF MILES 4 e J ^ PLATE A-3 SHEET I < pi Sui P»dn Cioisified by HAROLD F WISE AND ASSOCIATES mis in Pionning ond UrBon Economics Burllngameo \^-<-, ^ DEPAfiTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1957 PLATE A-3 SHEET 2 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION IIRRAN