THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION EDWARD HYATT, STATE ENCilNEEH BULLETIN No. 13 QZ AT. The Development of the Upper Sacramento River By PAUL BAILEY An Appendix to the Summary Report to the Legislature of 1927 on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for Their Development Containing Cooperative Report with U. S. Bureau of Reclamation on Iron Canyon Project By WALKER R. YOUNG CALIFORNIA STATE PRINTING OFFICE SACBAUENTO, 192 8 50667 o < u o y % < < m I— ( H Eh I— I in < Q H K •^ Mllfel TABLE OF CONTENTS. Pag.- FOREWORD ■> ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7 ORGANIZATION LIST OF PLATE'S II CyHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 13 Chapter II. THE MAIN SACRAMENTO RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 16 Drainage area between Red Bluff and mouth of Feather River 16 Drainage area upstream from Red Bluff 16 Water supply 17 Reservoir sites 24 Chapter III. KENNETT RESERVOIR SITE 25 General 25 Reservoir capacity 25 Water supply 26 Water jdeld for irrigation 29 Power yield 39 Flood control 44 Improvements flooded by reservoir 45 TjTDe of dam 47 Layout at dam 47 Cost estimates 49 Dam height selected for "Coordinated Plan" 51 Chapter IV. GEOLOGY OF KENNETT DAM SITE 55 Diamond drill explorations 55 Report of Prof. Geo. D. Louderback, Geologist 55 Chapter V. REPORT ON IRON CANYON PROJECT, OCTOBER, 1925, BY WALKER R. YOUNG, ENGINEER, U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 61 Letter of transmittal 62 Table of contents 63 Synopsis 70 Summary of results 72 Conclusions 77 Recommendation 78 Body of report 80 Exhibits 153 Preliminary estimates 176 Water supply and power studies 190 Chapter VI. REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON THE IRON CANYON PROJECT, MAY 7. 1920 201 FOREWORD. This bulletin is one of a series appended to the "Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for their Development" that was presented to the Legislature of 1927. It is part of the investigation of the water resources of the State com- menced in 1921. This investigation comprised a survey of water sup- plies and flood flows throughout the State, a determination of their characteristics, an estimate of the present and future needs for water, and the formulation of a comprehensive and coordinated plan for future development in order to insure adequate water supplies for all purposes. The 1927 report concludes this investigation. The entire series of bulletins pertaining to the 1927 report are : Bui. 12 — "Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for their Development." (A report to the Legislature of 1927.) BUL. 13— "THE DEVELOPMENT OP THE UPPER SACRA- MENTO RIVER." Bui. 14— "The Control of Floods by Reservoirs." Bui. 15 — "The Coordinated Plan of Water Development in the Sacramento Valley." Bui. 16 — "The Coordinated Plan of Water Development in the San Joaquin Valley." Bui. 17 — "The Coordinated Plan of Water Development in South- ern California." Other bulletins pertaining to these investigations published prior to the 1927 report are : Bui. 4 — "Water Resources of California." (A report to the Legis- lature of 1923 on the first two years of investigation.) Bui. 5 — "Flow in California Streams." Bui. 6 — "Water Requirements of California Lands." Bui. 9 — "A Supplemental Report on the Water Resources of Cali- fornia." (A report to the Legislature of 1925.) Bui. 11 — "Ground Water Resources of the Southern San Joaquin Valley." The first appropriation for the investigation of the water resources of California was made by Chapter 889 of the 1921 Statutes, in the amount of $200,000. This resulted in the publication of Bulletins Nos. 4, 5 and 6. These contain a complete inventory of all the waters within the State's boundaries, an estimate of the future needs of water for all purposes, and a preliminary comprehensive plan for ultimate development that will secure the greatest public service from the State's limited water supply. No provision was made for the continuance of the investigations by tlie 1923 Legislature, but at the urgent request of the farmers of the southern San Joaquin Valley the Chambers of Commerce of San Fran- cisco and Los Angeles advanced $90,000 for the study of a first unit of the comprehensive plan that would relieve the stress in a section of the State most in need of an imported water supply. With this money, works were planned that would transport the surplus waters of the FOREWORD— Continued. Sacramento drainage basin into the San Joaquin Valley and make a new supply available for the southern half of the valley. An account of this work is published in Bulletin No. 9, a report to the Legislature of 1925. Chapter 477 of the 1925 Statutes made $150,000 available to the Divi:sion for completion of the work. Parallel with the Avater resources investigation, the Division entered into a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation in Janu- ary, 1924, for further study of the Iron Canyon project. Although this study has been pursued as an individual project for irrigating a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor and generating incidental power, since it concerns a reservoir site on an accessible stream con- taining a large surplus of water, it is of material interest to a "Coordinated Plan" of development for the Great Central Valley. Therefore, the entire report on the Iron Canyon project has been included in this volume. ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. This bulletin has been ])repared in consultation with a eoniniittee of engineers, who advised in tiie preparation of the "Coordinated Plan." They are : Louis C. Hill B. A. Etcheverry J. B. LipPiNCOTT F. C. Herrmann Wm. Muliiolland Walter L. Huber A. J. Cleary a. Kempkey G. A. Elliott Cooperating- with committee : F. E. Bonner, District Engineer, U. S. Forest Service, representing the Federal Power Commission in California. A. V. GUILLOU, Assistant Chief Engineer, State Railroad Commission. L. S. Ready, Formerly Chief Engineer of State Railroad Commission. C. S. Ridley, Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, member and secretary of California Debris Commission. ORGANIZATION. B. B. MKKK, Director of I'uhUc M'orks EDWARD HYATT .S'/«/e Engineer With the exception of tlie cooperative report on the Iron Canyon project Avliich was made by the organization of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, Walker R. Young in charge, this bulletin and the "Summary' Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for their Development" have been prepared by: PAUL BAILEY* A. D. Edmonston, Principal Assistant. T. B. Waddell Wm. S. Post A. N. BuRCH Gerald Jones Chief Assistants. Percy Jones A. M. Wells Chester Marliave J. J. Haley, Jr. C. B. Meyer J. H. Peaslee R. L. Wing Senior Office Engineers. W. A. Perkins E. W. Case G. Stubblefield Junior Office Engineers. T. Neuman L. C. JOPSON E. W. Roberts U. B. GiLROY L. N. Clinton C. W. Roberts Laura Munson Thomas Claussen B. A. Reber A. W. Reber L. E. Anderson P. T. Alexander C. F. Marshall Wm. J. O'Connell 11. M. Sturges Harold White P. L. Blair n. S. Marshall Oscar Blumberg J. R. Jahn D. S. Hays A. P. BOSWORTH J. R. Meskimmons W. A. Dorcas II. Gerharz J, H. Knapp M. H. Blote P. H. Lovering Thomas Lewis W. R. McLean P. W. Porter H. N. SULLIGER V. GiVAN J. H. McCORMICK D. S. Cleavinger H. L. Butler * Formerly Director of Public Works and State Engineer (resigned August 31, 1927). Manuscript completed for publication, after resignation, through the courte.sy of B. B. Meek, Director of Public Works. 10 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. Delineator's. Jos. T. ]\Iaottire C. L. Greene E. X. Sawtelle J. W. McPartland Field Engineers and 'Topographers. 11. S. Williams F. L. Elam E. D. Stafford J. H. Gibson J. F. Taylor Millard Dawson C. C. Vance Ray Vernon Glenn Lang Ward Eisan D. E. Frazier Engineering Aids. V. L. FiREBAUGH E. R. IIlNNANT E. H. Ford G. R. King C. W. Frazier F. Montealegre Geo. Garlinghouse Cleo C. Osborne C. R. Haoberg D. G. Spellman C. A. Harper Dewey Turner Leslie Helgesson G. Zucco D. J. Stout H. Neuman J. G. Meyer R. H. Wight W. J. Feeney W. L. Pease S. E. Perkins LIST OF PLATES. PLATES ACCOMPANYING REPORT ON UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER BY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION. Plate No. Page A — Three units of comprehensive plan on upper Sacramento River 14 B. — Space required in Kennett reservoir to control floods on Sacramento River 44 C. — Layout at Kennett dam and reservoir area and capacity curves 48 D. — Cost of reservoir capacity and unit yield of water and power from Kennett reservoir. . . 52 E. — Location of diamond drill borings at Kennett dam site 56 F. — Log of diamond drill borings at Kennett dam site 56 PLATES ACCOMPANYING REPORT ON IRON CANYON PROJECT BY WALKER R. YOUNG. Plate No. Page 1. — General location map 69 2. — Iron Canyon project map 78 3. — Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District soil map 192 4. — Capacity and area curves — Iron Canyon reservoir 193 5. — Rating curve — Red Bluff aaging station 194 6.— Rainfall, run-off curve 195 7.— Run-off of Sacramento River at Red Bluff 196 8. — Graphs of operation — Iron Canyon reservoir _. 196 9. — Power demand curves 197 10. — Power output curves 198 11. — Spillway crest gates for Iron Canyon dam — crest at elev. 400 198 12. — Spillway crest gates for Iron Canyon dam — crest at elev. 405.5 198 13. — Movable drum gates for Iron Canyon dam — crest at elev. 405.5. 198 14. — Bend embankment 198 15. — Cross section of Iron Canyon dam and power plant 198 16. — Red Bank Creek diversion site — topography 198 17. — Diversion works — general map and layout 198 18. — Diversion works — details 198 19. — Diversion works — details 198 20. — Diversion works — East Side dike 198 21. — Mooney Island power plant and wasteway 198 22. — Profile of Sacramento River — Red Bluff to Mooney Island Slough 198 23. — Key to canal profiles 199 24. — Canal profiles 200 25. — Typical sections — main canal 200 26. — Tj^iical sections — Red Bank pump canal 200 PLATES ACCOMPANYING REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON IRON CANYON PROJECT, MAY 7, 1920. Page Exhibit A. — Geologic cross-section of lower Iron Canyon dam site and geologic profile of Sacra- mento Canyon through Locations I, II and III 203 Exhibit B. — General location map, Iron Canyon dam site 205 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 13 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY. The Sacramento River, upstream from the mouth of the Feather, is the most important of all streams tributary to the Great Central Valley of California. With 12,100 square miles of mountain and foothill drainage area, it produces a mean seasonal run-olf of 12,400,000 acre- feet, one-half of the run-off from the entire Sacramento drainage area and one-third of all the waters of the Great Central Valley. The bulk of the waters surplus to the future needs of the Sacramento Valley lies in this stream. Large reservoir capacity will be required to equalize its flow in order that this surplus may become available for use. Therefore, a major project to develop the surplus waters of the Sacra- mento Valley is contingent upon the feasibility of constructing storage works of large capacity on the main Sacramento River. A reconnaissance survey was run the entire length of the main channel in search of possible reservoir sites. Only one site of large capacity was found. Its dam lies five miles below the confluence with the Pit River and backs water up the upper Sacramento, the Pit, the McCloud, Squaw Creek and numerous small streams and gulches so that, although the reservoir is comparatively narrow, it has a large capacity. The dam foundations have been explored with the diamond drill and have been found adequate for the construction of a reservoir up to 10,000,000 acre-feet capacity. Such a reservoir would yield each year, in addition to present use, 4,600,000 acre-feet of water equalized for the requirements of irrigation and would warrant a power plant of 500,000 k.v.a. capacity below the dam. This site is called Kennett, from the nearby town of that name. Two other sites were located in the Sacramento Canyon, but the cost of storage would exceed that at Kennett and they would overlap the larger Kennett reservoir. Fifty miles downstream from the Kennett site on the main channel of the Sacramento River is the proposed Iron Canyon reservoir. Topographically this reservoir could be constructed to a capacity of 3,000,000 acre-feet. However, the none too favorable foundations for a dam limit its capacity to 1,120,000 acre-feet. The Iron Canyon project, including both the reservoir and the lands to be irrigated from it, has been under investigation at intervals since 1902 by the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the State Engineer in cooperation. The latest report, recently completed by Walker R. Young, engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation, is included in this volume. This report estimates the yield of a 1,120,000 acre-foot reser- voir at 800,000 acre-feet of water per year additional to present use and equalized for the needs of irrigation. It finds that a power plant of 100,000 k.v.a. capacity would be warranted at the foot of the dam. One-third of the area of the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District would be flooded by this reservoir. Both the Kennett and the Iron Canyon reservoir sites lie upstream from the main body of agricultural land on the floor of the Sacramento Valley and are in the physical position to serve any part of these lands 14 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. with irrigation water. Both of these reservoirs are included in the preliminary comprehensive plan* for ultimate development of the State's "waters presented to tlie 192.'> Leg:islature. They both will be required ultimately because the Iron Canyon site, being 50 miles MoAvnstream, has 2609 square miles of drainage area tributary to it that is not controlled b}^ Kennett. Tliis produces an average run-off of 2,536,000 acre-feet per year. Tlie Iron Canyon reservoir is not included in the "Coordiiuited Plan" presented to the 1927 Legislature, however, since its capacity is insuffi- cient to meet the needs of this plan. The "Coordinated Plan" selects ihe units of tlie comprehensive ])lan for ultimate development from which the greatest public service ma\- be obtained through the next half century. It provides for coordinating the operation of these units to secure the solution of tlie outstanding water problems that threaten future growth. It provides for all the needs for water on the floor of the Sacramento Valley during the next half century, including irrigation, navigation and salt water control, together with a surplus for use in the San Joaquin Valley. It would cut flood flows in lialf on the ui)per part of the Sacramento River and develop a large amount of electric power. All these things could not be accomiilished M-ere the smaller Iron Canyon reservoir substituted in the "Coordinated Plan" in place of Kennett. Further, the dam foundations are more favorable at Kennett than at Iron Canyon and no agricultural lands are flooded, Avliile the unit cost of producing water and power is about the same. Therefore, the interests of the State are best served by giving preference to the Kennett site. Undoubtedly at some time in the future the run-off from the drainage area between these two reservoirs will be needed. The only way it can be obtained is through the construction of the Iron Canj'on reservoir. The "Coordinated Plan" proposes the construction, amongst others, of a dam at the Kennett site to the initial height of 420 feet. At this height the reservoir Avould have a capacity of 2,940,000 acre-feet, large enough to yield annually, over and above present use. 2,838,000 acre- feet of water equalized for irrigation needs when operated primarily for this purpose. A power plant of 400.000 k.v.a. capacity would be constructed below the dam. SluiccAvays would be constructed in the dam for controlling floods. ()i>erated in accordance with the "Coordinated Plan," the Kennett reservoir would reduce the maximum flood flow in the Sacramento River at Red Bluff from 278,000 to 125,000 second-feet. The locations of the Kennett and Iron Canyon reservoirs are shoAvn on Plate A, "Three Units of Comi>reheusive Plan on Upper Sacra- mento River." The third unit is the diversion of the upper section of the Trinity River into the Sacramento Valley. This diversion is also a unit of the "Coordinated Plan" for development of the State's waters. It would introduce an annual supply of 870,000 acre-feet into the Great Central Valley that would otherwise flow through a moun- tainous country into the Pacific Ocean unused except for the generation of electric power. The Trinity diversion is fully described in Bui. No. * Chap. VI, Bui. No. 4, "Water Resources of California," a report to the Legis- lature of 1923 by the Division of Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. PLATE A f^wrsiCAL SCIENCES LIBRARY ToAvns Railroads Highway Canal and Penstock '— •"" '^ Tunnel Power House Resen'oir Dams U.S.G.S. Gauging Stations. Agricultnral lands flooded bv Iron Canyon Reservoir THREE UNITS or COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER KENNETT RESERVOIR TRINITY RIVER DIVERSION IRON CANTON RESERVOIR Scale of Miles 2 4ft I I I U> 50667 — pag-ei tlltjT I !^ ^'^'. jlRON CANYON RESERVOIRl ' » .* J^ ,•* BUUY HILL SMELTER- _ _' toff tv * „♦ , ^^ (^ uses 6AU6£{BAIR0 ^ S55 6AUG£ i^uALPOMJ IRON CANYON, ^:S&. ASRICUITURAL LANDS. ■^Red Bluff KENNETT RESERVOIR S V 4 E R P r*^ ^OUTHE^^ , PA <:'f^y Ch^V w Ji^/vi:H^ >.' I i ©ftf/J 5 GAUGE USSS. iAUSC aw J S GAUGE - *^ ■? ^ rt ^^lirt ^^ C ^ . ■* . t KESWICK DAM Z #, J"V. 4 , ''*l-~* * -^ ^* V >aI II/ POWER HOUSE N' 4 / •-"vj- ^\ i^-lf V,,,^^. [POWER MOUSE N» 3 ■\ ^ ^h. PLATE A "^, 'Teha f'l-.'rSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY LEGEND To^vns Railroads Higlnvay • anal and Penstock L^^"*^ Tunnel I ° I Power House I ^ B ^BI Resen-oir I ( i Hams I • I U.S.G.S. Gauging Stations. jjjj^^^^ Agricultural lands flooded bv luuiUKKR JJ.JJJJ Canyon Reser\T)ir THREE UNITS or i COMPREHENSIAE PLAN y 4 v< IFAIRVIEW I I LEWISTDN DIVERSK am4 (/5 « 5 CAVSS <,■ »^* 'rT^' lU- ■-' ■»■— '^^'" »'''^- . ("'■?-*■ <<-* .i . w : f: J *"^- ^ . ^ ON UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER KENNETT RESERVOIR TRINITY RIVER DIVERSION IRON CANYON RESERVOIR Scale of Miles 110 2 4 6 t ID ' — pages 14-15 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 15 15. "Tlie Coordinated Plan (»f Water Development in the Sacramento Valley." In addition to the fore: water on the main Saci-aiiiento Kivci-. there are several lare i-eservoir on the main channel. These smaller reservoirs will be useful princii)ally in development of the 26(),Q00 acres of irrigable land in the basin of the U])i)er Pit Kiver. 16 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. CHAPTER 11. THE MAIN SACRAMENTO RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN. Drainage area between Red Bluff and mouth of Feather River. The Sacramento River, upstream from its coiifluenee witli the Feather, lias a mountainous di-ainage area of 12,100 square miles. Of this, the run-off from 9258 square miles concentrates in the main chan- nel upstream from the city of Red Bluff. The run-off from the other 2842 square miles enters the channel at intervals from a large number of smaller streams along the entire length of 168 miles from Red Bluff to the mouth of the Feather River. Although these streams drain areas extending into considerable altitude on the easterly .side of the Coast Range and the westerly sl()])e of the JSierra, their descent to plains level is steep and direct .so that the run-off of each is compara- tively small and subject to large variation. Reservoir sites for conserv- ing their waters are few and generally costly. The waters of these streams can be used most advantageously on foothill and plains areas adjacent to their canyon mouths. Therefore, these streams do not enter into a state-wide plan of development. Drainage area upstream from Red Bluff. The 9258 square miles of the Sacramento watershed whose run-off concentrates in the main river channel up.stream from Red Bluff is the part of great importance to a state-wide plan of conservation. Because the run-off from this area concentrates in the main channel before the river debouches on the valley floor, i>hysical conditions are favorable for equalizing these waters in reservoirs and making them available for use in large quantities. The drainage basin upstream from Red Bluff is bounded on the west by the Trinity Mountains, which rise to an elevation of 9000 feet on the divide separating it from the Pacific slope of the Coast Range Mountains. To the north the mountains separating this basin from the Klamath River culminate in Mount Shasta, a peak having a crest 14.162 feet above sea level. To the east and south of Mount Shasta is an extensive plateau varying from four to five thousand feet in eleva- tion. This plateau extends easterly to the Warner Mountains, near the State's border, that rise to elevations of 9000 feet or more. With the exception of the plateau areas east and southeast of Mount Shasta, practically the entire area is mountainous. The agricultural lands are 350,000 acres scattered in parcels along the upper Pit River and 490,000 acres of foothill and plains lands lying in the vicinity of the cities of Redding and Red Bluff". In the latter area is located the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District of 31,400 acres, in which lies nearly all of the land now intensively farmed. Elevations within the drainage basin vary from 300 feet near Red Bluff to 14,162 feet at the top of Mount Shasta. One-half of the area lies between the elevations of 2500 and 5000 feet above sea level, as shown by the following table : DEVELOPMENT OF I TI'KH SACKA M F.NTO KMI'.R. 17 ELEVATION OF DRAINAGE AREA MAIN SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN. Upstream from Red Bluff. Dr.iiiiaBC area I'.lrvatioii: in siuare miles Below 2500 feet 2.100 Between 2500 and 5000 feet 4,620 Above 5000 feet 2..53S Total 9,258 Precipitation in the main Sacramento basin varies widely between the mountainous area north of Redding, where tlie mean seasonal rainfall ranges from jIO to 65 inches, and the plateau region east and southeasterly fi'om ^Mouiit Shasta. Here the mean seasonal rainfall approximates 15 inches. The principal streams are the upper Sacramento, Pit and McCloud rivers. These, in draining the absorbent lava formations to the east and south of ^Mount Shasta, are distinguished from most other Cali- fornia streams in having a well-sustained summer flow. The mean flow for the month of August is more than one-half of the mean rate throughout the entire year, whereas the state-wide average is only one-quarter. Water supply. Knowledge of the run-off from this area is gained through gagings that have been made at several points along the main cliannels by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the State of Cali- fornia. The station that has been maintained through the greater period of time is near Red Blutf. It was established at Jelly's Ferry in 1895, but was moved eight miles downstream to the lower end of Iron Canyon in 1902. The records at these stations furnish data over a period of 30 years, one of the longest continuous records of run-off in California. The daily discharge at this and the several other stations in this basin is published* in the Water Supply Papers of the United States Geological Survey. The stations for whicii data are available, their tributary drainage area and the period of record are listed in the following table : * The run-off computations of thi.s volume employed data of the last several years that are in preparation for publication, as well as the published tables of previous years. 2 — 50667 18 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAGING STATIONS IN THE MAIN SACRAMENTO BASIN ABOVE RED BLUFF. Stream Station Location Period of flischarge record Drainage area in square miles Upjier Sacrsmcnto River Castella Antler ' ... mile Ix-low Castle Creek 200 feet above Gregory Creek Opposite town of Kennett Oct. 1910-Scpt. 1922 fNov. 1910-Dec. 19111 \Apr. 1919-Sept. 1926/ Nov. 1925-Sept. 1926 Apr. 1895-J\:ne 1902 Jan. 1902-Sept. 1926 Dec. 1903 Dec. 1995 (Jan. 1904-Sept. 19081 ^Dee. 11'13-Aug. 1914^ I.Sept. 1921-Sept. 1926J Mar. 1921-Sept. 1926 June 1922-AuK. 1924 Nov. 1922-Sept. 1926 Sept. 1910-Sept. 1926 Nov. 1910-Sept. 1926 Jan. 1904-Dec. 1905 Jan. 1904-Dec. 1905 Mav 1918-Sept.l926 Mar. 1904-Dec. 1905 Man. 1012-Aug. 1913\ IMay 1921-Oct. 1922/ Jan. 1922-Sept. 1922 .\pr. 1921-Mav 1926 Aug. 1911-Aug. 1913 Aug. 1921-Sept. 1922 Sept. 1910-July 1917 July 1926-Sepl. 1926 Mar. 1921-Sept. 1922 f.\ug. 1911-Mar. 19141 \Mar. 1921-Sept. 1922' Oct. 1921-Nov. 1922 (Aug. 1911-.\ug. 19131 \Mar. 1921-Sept. 1922/ Mar. 1921-Nov. 1922 Oct. 1910-Aug. 1916 Aug. 1911-Aue. 1913 Oct. 19n-Aug. 1913 Mar. 1902 -June 1908 Dec. 1910-Sept. 1920 Aug. 191 1-Sept. 1913 Aug. 1911-Mar. 1914 Aug. 1911-Jan. 1914 Aug. 1911-Jan. 1914 Aug. 1911-Mar. 1914 Feb. 1919-Dec. 1919 Oct. 1907-Dec. 1913 Feb. 1919-Dce. 1919 257 rp|)er Sacramento Kiver 463 Main Sacramento 6.603 Main Sacramento River Jelly's Ferry Red Bluff 12 miles above Red Blurf 4 miles pbove Red Bluff 9 093 Main Sacramento River 9 2.58 I'it River .... .\bove mouth of .\sh Creek 4 miles above Horse Creek Below mouth of Fall River at Fall River Milli 1,460 Pit River 3.086 I'it Kiver Fall River Mills Peek.s Bridge Lindfsay Flat Henderson or Big Bend 4 1.52 I'it River At Pecks Bridge 4 623 I'it River 3 miles below Rock Creek 1 mile above Kosk Creek 4 858 Pit River 4.922 Pit River 4 miles above mouth McCloud River 6 miles above West Valley Creek. . . .\bove junction with S( nth Fork of Pit River 5,346 91 South Fork Pi* River Ivv . . • West Valiev Creek Likely -Vlturas 140 Pine Creek . . . 6 miles above mouth 31 252 Fall River Mills Glenburn 600 feet above mouth 1'2 miles lielow Tule River and 'o Fall River 600 Dana Hawkins Ranch Wilcox Ranch Hat Creek Bear Creek 2 miles north of Dana 6 miles above town of Hat Creek. . . 12 miles southwest of Cassel I mile north Hat Creek post office. . II miles SI utheast of town of Hat Creek and 5 miles below the Big Springs Hat Creek 265 Hat Creek Hat Creek 326 Hat Creek Hat Creek Carbon Hat Creek 3 miles above mouth at highway Cassel 384 Burncy Creek Burncy Creek Burney Creek Burney (above) Burney (near) Burney (below falls) . Henderson 300 feet below' junction of two main forks, 7 miles south of Burney . . . 3 miles above Goose Creek and J^ mile southwest of Burney '•2 mile below Burney Falls and 10 miles north of Burnev 44 92 25 Kosk Creek 3^ 2 miles above mouth 54 Montgomery Creek. . . Stpiaw Creek -Montgomery Creek. . Ydalpom Montgomery Creek post office M mile southwest of Vdalpom 14 miles east of Gregory pest office. . 42 112 McCloud River Gregorv 608 McCloud River Baird 669 Clear Creek Shasta Footbridge at Whisky town 5^ mile above mouth 182 {^ow (^reek Millville 185 Clover Creek Millvillc 48 Little Cow Creek Palo Ccdro 14 mile east of Paio Cedro 148 Bear (Vcek Millville 5 miles above mouth 106 North Fork Cotton- wood Creek Ono (near) Ono (at) .\t Forester dam site, 4 miles north- North Fork Cotton- wood Creek 1 mile above Eagle Creek 52 Moon Cieek Ono 4 miles northwest of Ono . The total run-ott' from the main Sacramento basin is furnished by the records of the K<^d VAxiR and Jelly's Ferry gaging stations. The seasonal run-off obtained from these records Avas jirojected into the previous years by (•om])arison of rainfall data. V>y this method values of the mean .seasonal run-off were estimated for the twenty-four years ))rior to the establishment of the ITnited States Geological Survey gaging station. This work is described in Chapter IV, Bui. No. 5, DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 19 *'Fl()\v ill CalifoniiH Streams." Tlio results of the computations are tabulated on p. 191 of Bulletin No. -) and are repeated in the following? table with extensions thnm-rh the year li)2o. The fi«iures enten-d in the eolumn "Estimated values in aere-feet" arc the values without stora«re or use of water for irrijjation on tiic lands upstream from Ked Hluff. They are lar<>:cr than the entries in the column "Values measured at <;a'rin> CC so iO :C -^ QO r^ 'M -^ Ol CO C^ — o6 OJ -^ O »f.- 00 •-r UO h- CI — ^- — ^^ ■^ O g-^ oo t^ ®_»o o c^ « — c^) o» «r -* « CM ■*-<»• CO C-I 3 c c: M — — ' v 3 iM "" 'oo o o ■ s 3 e o CJ O) U 0^ a> ^ a> a> s V 4? s X u Oj &> c;. Oi o . cj a> u c< o; OP a> 9S C3 l-l b. k. k. L. u ^ t. u. fc^ Urn b. k. u a o o u u c Cj c; u □ "O a = C c = g 1 = 1 c =: c c 1^ tM o o c o o 3 p c c o o u- — C'Uo— c; — __ y tS j; — s c — — ri: V O 1 1 — ~ — — ^ 1 00 >.«= ^ >. >~.ic > — x: ^ > "cj iT' i^*^ tc •-£: a= 'x: ^ i? >i i^t^ 3 tc x: > ■£ ■>'>■>•£■> ^-5-^ > zj'>'>S-^-^-^-^'> *> ■?>:5^-fc? •£ -0 ■5 rt 1- clrt^i-rts^fc-S^ 7i =^^r. t-^^xHr'. fl rt C3 «- 5. 1- fc- ;5 k. '(/} b. t! L.i-urli-CrtO t~. Ob-t-rJ-CCCfc. »- fc- rt c rt sa fc- rt rt 55 g oa ooc;=:oKt^3; O c^oc;^=i 0:0:2^0 C OOKKKKC ;d U2 e • — -^ -^ c o u -M COOOO^COO OOOOOCOOOO c c = — oc •n >> ■%4 C: o^ o^ o_ o_ — t^ ^^ c; CO GC cr. CO 01 to CO C: ■M, -»■ tr =:_ r •-': CI ,^ ^^ o* r-* cq ■•£ -^ ^fi — ' -X — ' QO' r «' c M -r .* .^ OC M ;^ S3 Gi •o c^i tc o c. ;o r- O c- — ooocooo-^caooo ■*oc — — «■* 03 CO -f -M CO ^ ^ ^ o Tf Tj- •» (N ^H CO ^ CO ^ __iM cccoeo ^H coco — ' " — ■ — ' ■ — *- — > « « c C^ .4 c r c 4c ■ -c ^ ■ a c CD J" a; 3 P 5 a. c c 0, E S 18 ■ s e3 > c ^ t^ u, ^ U.-Z '■1 ^ £•- |1 >■ II • •J 'Z k • > 1 >• r 3 t- wti:coc::fc;sn: c :SxOO^:--c:-s: •^ -/.Ko^=;i.w ^ ^ ^ s oo t- L. 3 1 = l-B > .> 1 ii 5 2^ k k- ^ II > J! 1- 1 k k i 1 a. t- U L. o o ; 1 k. L. L - L. _c "~ _rr .^ > > > -"cji;^ > > > > ' t. fc. 1- k ^ 5£S : £;fe fe-^ ' W S 5 i5 "^ , > > > > " s t=- c c o c-«^^^ C _ _ _ ^ -^ - -^ ■ ,c ,cr ^ '■C 2£Z^Z g^ - V _— c iiitlJl^ - ^ III Iww'i'il -z f Is. -1 £ 2 2 2 c™*^™"^" ^ C w^ -S^"? T \ J t & 5 \ d a -} 15 J :^ :? :i ; 3 i J 2 i ? r i i s i ;s k i 'k r- 7 a :! DEVELOPMENT OF TPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 23 «.* -r ir? O O 11^ CI « i.t — « -*• l^ ^ ic o eo 00 re -* cr ^ Ti go M -^ — If? Tf« o o o ooo o ocoo o o o o ooo 0_ 0_ -0_ 0_0_ O OOtoO 0_ O O C_ O'OO ^* o' oo* r-'ir^'i--' oo c:'— ''Ore c;* i- o" ci" e-.in ^r: u= ^. |_Ut> t- U. L^ 7*. ^ t. t. CS rtrsr: n rsni-rt 53 c3 u, ^ ^ ^•SSr-S'^ir'^ir- o o c o o o oo oo ei CJ -f o o •■-. o o o o — ■ Tf oc «: 00 »c o »^ Ci »c o o o o o O O O "f^ o o o o o oooooooooo tf^ C3 c:j o oooooooooo CI T^O— 'OceccOO'OtO re -^' o' -o" o' oo' t-' —<' r--" »ra --jJ cc — ei ?tooc«oooooo»cooo'^oo ce ooooOTf':c»frio^^O»oo ^ .^ .— .^^ ,_, — _H _^-_ ceoot^'^>o»c»C'rfift'M *— T oooico :r>c— • CiC50or-oo»0'^-^c^fococ^ 'z^z.^'z, z ^ 1?: 2: :?; :^ ?::2::z::z::?::z::?:^:?;a;;2:^:z::z::2: :?: ?: :?: ^; Iz; :z; li?; iz; 12: 5: Iz: ^: :?: 00000 O »0 CO ** ■^ CO »-«•-'.— 'CO C^l — C-IC-ICCCO — 0000; 00 COtOcCt— ir2t— C^^ICOt^-^iO C^wO Cm c 00 E 03 m c tii X w. .> * 2^ g_^ rt -^ o — Sk^ ^^ p^Q ^2 M — — to < o < CO " 0-3 oj c M-? I- r? jii ji ~ cB ^ Si U O -CO 2 tC . Ti-y; 24 WATER RESOriU'ES OE (AEIFORNIA. Reservoir sites. Prior to 1921, tlie only reservoir site in the Sacramento River faiiynn tliat had hoon jGriven serious consideration was tliat at Iron Canyon near Ked JUutl'. Althou^'li this site is favorably situated to equalize the run-off of the Sacramento Iliver, its capacity is insuffi- cient for the purpose. Other sites exist on the l*it River capable of bein^ developed to larg:e capacity at reasonable costs l)ut, bein 28,000 Pavnes Creek 84 000 Battle Creek 422 000 Backbone Creek Group (partial) 97.000 Direct area Totals 2,609 2 536 000 The mean seasonal run-off (oO-year mean) at Red Bluff, unim- paired by upstream diversions, is 9,929,000 acre-feet. Subtracting the run-oft' from the area between Red Bluff and the dam site, the unim- ]>aired mean seasonal run-off' (50-year mean) at the Kennett dam site is found to be 7,393,000 acre-feet. This is 74 per cent of the run-off at the Red Bluff' gaging station. This factor was used in estimating the monthly and seasonal run-oft' values at Kennett from the corresponding values at Red Bluff during the period of measure- ment. The estimates prior to 1895, the year of establishing the Red Bluff gaging station, were made by subtracting from the estimated values at Red Bluff', tabulated on page 19, the monthly and seasonal values for the 2609 square miles of drainage area between the gaging station and the Kennett dam site. The monthly and seasonal values for this area were taken from the estimates for the partial areas in the main Sacramento drainage basin published in Bulletin Xo. 5.* The entire flow so estimated, with the exception of the water diverted for agricultural use in the Pit River basin, would be available for generating power at the Kennett dam site. However, due to prior rights established for agricultural use downstream from the Kennett reservoir site, only part of this water is available for new agricultural development. In 1920 there were 127,000 acres under irrigation on the upper Pit River. This area is expanding from year to year and will eventually require practically the entire flow of the stream. In order to allow for the full development of the agricultural lands upstream from the Kennett reservoir site, the entire run-off' of tlie Pit River basin, as measured at the Bieber gaging station of the T'^nited States Geological Survey, was deducted from the uninipaii-ed run-off" at the Kennett dam site to obtain the water available in th(^ future for botli jiower and irrigation development. Tlie seasonal iMin-oft' at l>ieber was comi)uted by developing a run- oft' curve from tiie several seasons' record of gagings. following the * Page.s 182 to 191, Bui. No. 5, "r'^Iow in California Stream.s, ing and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. Division of Engineer- 28 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. methods described in Chapter IV, Bulletin No. 5, "Flow in California Streams," and taking off the values for the seasons other than those tluring wliieh measurements were made by the use of the indices of Avetness for Precipitation Division A (p. 82, Bui. No. 5). The unim- paired mean seasonal run-off (oO-j-ear mean) so obtained is 753,000 acre-feet. Therefore, the mean seasonal run-oft' at the Kennett dam site available for fronerating power is 6,640,000 acre-feet. It is difficult to estimate the prior riglits to water passing the Kennett dam site, since these rights have never been adjudicated. However, for the purpose of this investigation, it was assumed that the entire flow of the stream up to oOOO second-foet would be required between ]\Iarch 1st and October :!lst in order to satisfy tlie rights of users downstream from the Kennett dam site. One-fourth of this was assumed to originate below the dam. On this basis, had these rights been in existence dui-iug the 50-ycar period, 1871 to 1921, and fulUy exercised, they would liave required for their satisfaction from the water passing the Kennett dam site an average of 1,737,000 acre- feet per season. Tlie mean seasonal run-off at Kennett available for lU'w agricultural development is, therefore, 4.903,000 acre-feet. The followinu' table sets fortli tliese estimates bv seasons, beginning in 1871 : DEVELOPMENT OF TAPPER SACRAIMENTO RIVER. 29 SEASONAL RUN-OFF AVAILABLE FOR USE AT KENNETT DAM SITE. 1 Kstiniated ic;ison:il ruM-iilT 11 acre-feet Season (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) Sacramento River at Kennett dam site (unimpaircti flow) I'it Hiver at Bicber .Vvailablc for power development at Kennett dam site Prior rights downstream from Kennett dam site .\vailable at Kennett dam site frr new- irrigation use 1871-72 7.308.000 4,341,000 5,742,000 3,996,000 9,676,000 8.186,000 11,819,000 6.324.000 9.009,000 11,103,000 6,4.34.000 5.373.000 8,643,000 5,623,000 10,334,000 5,711,000 4,840,000 7,800,000 15,227,000 5,433,000 5,812,000 8.866,000 6,602,000 8.575,000 8,406.000 7.701.000 3,806.000 4.430.000 6.457.000 6.685,000 8,434,000 7,368,000 11,928,000 7,985.000 8.370.000 10.289.000 5.870.000 10.796.000 6.749.000 7,491,000 4.875,000 5,224,000 10.181,000 9,325,000 7,945,000 5,311,000 3,993,000 5,765,000 3,015,000 8,464,000 4,904,000 3,927,000 2,417,000 5,950,000 393,000 330.000 283,000 189,000 299,000 2,753,000 441,000 393,000 1,636,000 2.360.000 1.038.000 31.= .000 1.825.000 1.007.000 1,967.000 991.000 535.000 960,000 1,904,000 598,000 503,000 1.180,000 566.000 677.000 960,000 897,000 2.52,000 267,000 566.000 708.000 456.000 346,000 1,367,000 390,000 844,000 1,254,000 279,000 708,000 346,000 897,000 235,000 393,000 748,000 189,000 472,000 488,000 173,000 267,000 189,000 802,000 524,000 267,000 255,000 323,000 6,915,000 4,011,000 5,459,000 3,807,000 9,377.000 5,433.000 11.378.000 5.931.000 7.373.000 8.743.000 5.396.000 5.058.000 6.818.000 4,616.000 8.367.000 4.720.000 4.305.000 6.840.000 13.323,000 4,835,000 5,309,000 7,686,000 6,036,000 7,898,000 7,44«,000 6,804,000 3,554,000 4,163,000 .5,891,000 5,977,000 7,978,000 7,022.000 10,561,000 7,595,000 7,.526,000 9,035,000 5,591,000 10,088.000 6.403.000 6.594.000 4.639.000 4.831,000 9,433,000 9,136,000 7,473,000 4,823,000 3,820,000 5,498,000 2.826,000 7,662,000 4,380,000 3,660,000 2,162,000 5,627,000 1,784,000 1,496,000 1,741,000 1.447.000 1,784,000 1,784,000 1.784,000 1,773,000 1,784,000 1,784,000 1,775,000 1,692,000 1,784.000 1.6.55.000 1.784.000 1.676.000 1.561.000 1,784.000 1.784,000 1.668.000 1,738,000 1,784,000 1,782.000 1.784,000 1,784,000 1.784.000 1.759.000 1,750,000 1,743.000 1,738.000 1.737.000 1.717,000 1.759.000 1.769.000 1.782.000 1.784,000 1,766.000 1.784.000 1,775,000 1,784,000 1,784,000 1.7.V2,000 1.763.000 1.776,000 1,774,000 1.737,000 1.669.000 1,700.000 1,595,000 1,6,59,000 1,633,000 1,605,000 1,268,000 1,573,000 .5.131,000 1872-73 2,515.000 1873-74 3.718.000 1874-75 2,360,000 1875-76 7,593,000 1876-77 3,649.000 1877-78 \ 9,591 011(1 1878-79 4 15S IKH) 1879-80 5, ,589. 1)0(1 1880-81 6,9,59,000 1881-82 3,621,000 1882-83 3,366,000 1883-84 5.034,000 1884-85 2,901,000 1885-86 6,583,000 1886-87 3,044.000 1887-88 2.744.000 1888-89 5.056.000 1889-90 11.539.000 1890-91 3,167,000 1891-92 3.571,000 1892-93 5,902,000 1893-94 4,2.54,000 1894-95 6,114,000 1895-96 5,662,000 5,020,000 1897-98 1.795,000 2,407,000 1899-00 4.148.000 1000-01 4.239.000 1901-02 6.241.000 5.305,000 1903-04 8,802,000 5,826,000 190.S-06 5,744.000 1906-07 7,251,000 1907-08 3,825,000 1908-09 8,304,000 1909-10 4,628,000 1910-11 4,810,000 1911-12 2,855,000 1912-13 3,079,000 1913-14 7.670.000 1914-15 7,360,000 1915-16 5,699,000 3,086,000 1917-18 2.151,000 1918-19 3.798.000 1919-20 1.231.000 1920-21 6.003.000 1921-22 2.747.000 1922-23 2.055.000 1923-24 894.000 4,0W,000 Mean seasonal, 1871-1921, 50 years 7,393,000 753,000 6,040,000 1,737,000 4,903,000 Mean seasonal, 1871-1925, 54 years 7,164,000 722,000 6,442,000 1,721,000 4,721,000 Water yield for irrigation. Due to the great irregularity in the values of seasonal run-oflP in successive years, storage facilities do not yield the same equalized tlow in all years or through all ])eriods of years. The foregoing tabulation of the seasonal run-otf available for new irrigation use shows a mini- mum seasonal value of 894,000 acre-feet for 1923-24 and a maximum 30 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. value of 11,539,000 acre-feet in 1889-90, thirteen times larjjer than the niininuini. If it Avere proposed to ]irovi(lo stora<»o only for holdinjr winter water over for the foHowinji' suniiner use, 894,000 aei'e-feet of reservoir capacity would make the available run-otf of the minimum year usable for new irri:e yield would be only about 20 ])in* cent of tlie mean seasonal run-off available for new irri<>:ation sup])lies. Eijility per i-fnt of the available run-off' would be wasted. If it were desired to utilize in each season tlie entire available run-off of that season, the reservoir should be constructed to store the winter water of the maximum season for use during: the following; summer. This would require a cai)aeity of 7,905,000 acre-feet, about nine times lart. 4 November " December Total ,\ 100 The water in storage in tlie reservoir was reduced month by month by the estimated evaporation from the water surface. This was taken at 3.5 feet net per annum, distributed between tlie months from April to December as in the followin<>- table. It was assumed that the gain from precipitation on the reservoir surface from December to April comi>ensates the loss by evaporation during these months. ESTIMATED NET EVAPORATION FROM KENNETT RESERVOIR. Month April May June July August. .. . September . October . . . November . Totals Depth in feet 0.32 0.44 0.52 0.62 0.58 0.45 0.34 0.23 3.50 Per cent of seasonal total 9.2 12.6 15.0 17.8 16.6 12.7 9.6 6.5 100.0 These computations show that a 420-foot dam would i)roduce each season 2,838,000 acre-feet of new water equalized for irrigation use, or 4,276,000 acre-feet, including prior-right water equalized to the irrigation demand. The seasonal yields for five heights of dam are shown in the following table, together with the average and maximum amounts of their deficiencies. It may be noted that the magnitude of the deficiencies in supply increases for the larger reservoirs, although the frequency wath which they occur averages one year in ten for all lieights of dam. The value of the maximum deficiency ranges from 00 to 81 per cent for the three highest dams. Such deficiencies would be disastrous if they occurred very often. However, reference to the tables on pages 37 and 38 shows that these maximum deficiencies occurred in 1924, a year of 33 per cent normal run-off, terminating a series of three years that averaged 51 per cent normal, a most unusual occurrence. (See table, page 29.) The deficiencies in the year 1920 were also rather large, but the maximum deficiencies during the 48-year period prior to 1920 ranged in the .several computations from only 1 to 22 per cent. If, in order to avoid the large deficiencies here shown in the yieltls for the higher dams, a moderate limit had been placed on the maximum deficiency in supply when computing the yields for the several heights 32 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. (>r ilfiiii coiiiiiai't'd, tlic lii^li (1;iiiis wduld luivo shown almost pcrlVet supply tlirou^li the 4S-y('ar period prioi- 1o 11)20 and would have had only moderate deficiencies in l!t'_'4. Such sup|)lies would be unecoiiomically ])erfect and suporior to the yields for the lower dams which would have had a hir;,;('i' number of deficiencies approaching the modei-ate limit durin;^- the same period. Therefoi'e, while the system adopted for making the comparisons, of com])uting yields on the basis of equal frequency of deficiencies, does not produce exactly comparable results, it is believed that they are more nearly com])arable than would have been obtained had a moderate limit been ])laced on the allowable deficiency. To obtain exactly comparable results would have required placing a different limit on the maximum deficiency in the computa- tions of yield for each height of dam. This limit Avould have been fixed by weighing the relative consequence of the magnitude and fre- quency of the several deficiencies. The labor involved in accom- plishing this through a series of trial computations was judged to be greater than was warranted by the small difference that it would have made in the results. SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD— KENNETT RESERVOIR. Operating primarily for irrigation. Deficiency in Supply on Average of One Year in Ten. Without deduction for prior •ights With deduction for prior rights Hcisrht of dam in feet (5 feet Irrigation yield in acre-feet per season Deficiency in per cent Irrigation yield in aore-feet per season Deficiency in per cent freeboard) Average of all seasons Maximum season Average of all seasons Maximum season 220 320 420 520 620 1.468.000 2.55n,000 4,276,000 5,486.000 6,372,000 0.6 0.6 1.6 2.8 3.2 18 16 50 61 66 466.000 1.418.000 2,838,000 3,858,000 4,686,000 0.7 0.9 2.8 3.6 4.1 26 38 69 77 81 It is interesting to observe the part of the seasonal irrigation yield that is supplied from stored water. This varies for the several heights of dam and from season to sea.son for the same height. For the 420-foot dam without deduction for prior rights 50 per cent of the average yield is water taken from storage, and with deduction for prior rights 71 per cent of the average yield is taken from storage. The remainder is supplied direct from the flow in the stream. The average use of the reservoir space each season is 74 and 68 per cent, respectively. The following table presents these figures for all heights of dam : DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 33 C u H C •^ Ih ca V >^ (U C o qc CM HH O lU > bD a: U w > < 05 C o >> U ti z z UJ ^ z >> h-H C e; (J < Q !^ J3 4-1 a Di c o o H 4-1 C/J rt h(i Z 'w o H w Uh ^ < >> Q C8 s • v^ u CU bfi C •*-4 4.1 C8 u lU a O 3—50667 c o o ^ o 1 oo c " c o c c oc o C C3 C C c Vo'^' •^ a> -^ V k: ^ -^ CO CO CM c: O: CJ «ooo inoc 00 B <: a B 'B S O OC3 '* "^ ^00 0-*-^ o cr. CB CI c^i 1- I-- o> Ol OI OC CC CO c. ^- OC GC CO CT: d >- -*^ O CO o c O C o c c C CO o o o c o c o o_oo c c c o,occ i CC m' ^ Oi' 'f" CO* C* ' CD iC c^' »o O ^- 1^ «c tc c r- o C'l O fCM 0> C OO c-:) oi in CO »c e 3 -t: -H* CJ ro ■^' ^ CM CO' -T^* 73 .i •i rt o S c (75 5 cc ec in cc CO CO coco 00 00 r^ 1-- h- r-- r- t - 1 - r^ CT: cr. OO OC coco QO QC OC' 00 OC 00 K"* L^ T3 rt c: o tn CO l|-b' CO 1- fc ^ c; (M in ^ o tE 00 r^ CO 1- r- c-J ?! ?^ o C^ I^ CO CCI ^ iO C 03 00 -f Q. CO «r N. lO CO _£ lO 1^ CO -^ CO •-« o o al lO c .2 o c c C) I*-. "-^ ^ ^o Cs ^1 3 u 3 1^ GC S.£:3 Q o r^ in cc c:' CO C^ 00 -*" Ol uir^ i c — ' o r^ oi o CI C C3 1.0 OO £§=*• c s CO in ic o 'rf- !C r*. I^ 1 - be 1 ^ 2 1 i < X ^ c c o c c c oo c c c c o c o C' c ^ c c ,\ c c o o^ o c^ c o c^ o CJ --.' iri y^ — ' t^' I--'»o'od GC »c u -f — CO r~ o Ci IOCS C CC rf „ OO *- ^ Ci ^ooocn o C CJco'co' CMC^'CO' •rT "71 t^ C CO cc C CO c c O O O C CD c c o c o S c i c c o c c o__ o o o^ c m o ^ ao CitS id c-i O' oo' CO oo* CD «-^ 5^ o «o h* 00 r^ CD ^ CO «J 00 -*_^ lO C»J '^^ co_^ Tf '^ 00 00 CD ^ CM CO* ^ M- r- c .— ^ c c o c c 1=: :=: cs tz: :z >>i:'§J c c o c o o^ coco ■^ C '*.' ^^tk c7 c: Ci r^ lO CO* -:' O 1-' »c iO C ^ :i5»0 lO C ^ CD to Q. c w CO (M a> o lo CO CM 0> O: tC- C3 tn c3 o 2: ^'CMOO' .-I'CMiCO' ■«^ »*- Q> il^ °J-£-H ^.B£° o o ^ c o O C O o o CN C^l CM CI Ol -M OlCM OJ Ol cs CO ^ tc ys Ol CO ^ lO CD T 3 *<- co'co c^ CM 01 c< p X d CJ B S B a bf 6C M Ml c; c a C g > > C hC bC bC tc m to v) m k- fc- C L. e3 c3 cJ rJ 4) GJ C f >.>>>.>. k' fc. U. I_ at c o a> cccc 34 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. The foregoing computations of seasonal irrigation yield of the Kennett reservoir are based on shortages occurring on an average of one year in ten. Past experience has demonstrated that farming enteri)rises^ particularly in the develojimental stage, can better survive occasional deficiencies in their water supply than to aecei)t the burden of paying for deliveries perfect in the regularity of their full volume.* Extended studies were made to ascertain the variance in volume of yield with different average frequencies of deficiency. The irrigation yield from the Kennett reservoir, when operating primarily for this purpose, would increase as much as 60 per cent over a perfect supply according to the amount and frequency of deficiencies that might be endured. From these studies it was con- cluded that, for practical purposes, an irrigation supply having deficiencies on an average not oftener than one year in ten would be the economic type of supply to provide during the developmental period in northern California. In later years, after the heavy initial construc- tion costs have been paid off, greater regularity in supply could be obtained if desired by enlarging the reservoir. The selection of a draft with deficiencies in supply on an average of one year in ten increases the area of service from a reservoir of given size from 22 to 43 per cent over that for a draft that would carry through the driest year without a shortage. The following table sets forth the area of service (net) from a 420- foot dam for several average frequencies of deficiency in supply based upon a net consumptive use of 2.5 acre-feet per acre. It may be observed that, if a deficiency in supply is sustained on an average of one year in ten, 34 per cent greater area may be served with an equal- ized irrigation supply inclusive of prior rights and 43 per cent greater area exclusive of prior rights, and that the average deficiency in seasonal supply would be small, although deficiencies as large as 50 and 69 per cent, respectively, would have to be endured at long inter- A'als. The magnitudes of all the deficiencies, had the reservoir been in operation from 1871 to 1925, are tabulated in the tables on pages 37 and 38. Reference to these tables shows that the largest deficiency during the 49-year period, 1871-1920, while operating with a deficiency in yield on the average of one year in ten. was 4 per cent without deduction for prior rights and 15 per cent with deduction for prior rights. The years 1920 and 1924 brought deficiencies in yield of 27 and 50 per cent, respectively, without deduction for prior rights, and 41 and 69 per cent, respectively, with deduction for prior rights. They are the only serious shortages during the entire 54 years of test. Although these deficiencies are large and would seriously impair agricultural produc- tion during the season in Avhicli they occur, they would not inflict l)ermanent damage. An inspection of the table of seasonal run-off available for use at the Kennett dam site on page 29 is convincing that it Avould be uneconomical at this time to construct over-year storage in order to obtain a full supply in such seasons. The shortages in supply, although largo, must be endured in this type of season because the records disclose that they occur too infrequently, only twice in the 54 years, to warrant large expenditures for reservoir space * See p. 73, Bui. No. 6. "Irrigation ReQuirements of California Lands," Division of Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 35 that would be so seldom used. The cost of additioual storage space in the Kenuett reservoir that would be sufficiently laro-e to hold over flood waters from previous years of j)]enteous run-off in amounts that would furnish a perfect sui)i)ly in the lean years of 1920 and 1924, under present conditions, would exceed the benefit accruing to agricul- tural production in having the full irrigation supply during these seasons. AREA OF IRRIGATION SERVICE FROM KENNETT RESERVOIR. 420-Foot Dam. With Varying Average Frequency of Deficiency in Supply. Without deduction for prior rights With deduction for prior rights Average freq\iency of deficiency in supply in period Area in acres (net) Area in per cent of service with no deficiency in supply Deficiency in seasonal supply, in per cent Area in acres (net) Area in per cent r.i service with no deficiency in supply Deficiency in seasonal supply, in per cent 1871-1925 Average of all years Ma.ximum year Average of all years Maximum year No deficiency 1 year in 50 years . 1 year in 25 years . 1 year in 10 years 1 year in 5 years 1,278.000 1.463.000 1,672.000 1.710.000 1,828,000 100 114 131 134 143 0.4 1.3 1.6 3.1 24 49 50 53 794,000 891,000 1,027,000 1,135,000 1,289,000 100 112 129 143 162 0.4 1.4 2.8 5.3 20 52 69 72 The data concerning the varying yield for different frequencies of deficient supply are so interesting that they are given complete in the following tables. First, the irrigation yield in acre-feet per season is given for several average frequencies of deficiency and heights of dam, both with and without deductions for estimated prior rights. The second table gives the net area in acres that could be irrigated under the same conditions of supply. These areas were computed on a duty of 2.5 acre-feet per acre per season, which includes the full use of return waters. Actual deliveries over much of the area would exceed this amount. The third table expresses the irrigation yield for the several average frequencies of deficiency in per cent of that having a deficiency on an average of one year in ten. The fourth and fifth tables set forth the amount of the deficiencies under the several different con- ditions and the years in which they would have occurred. In reviewing the latter tables, it will be noticed that the amounts of the deficiencies for a specific frequency vary considerably in the several comi)utations for different heights of dam. In general, they tend to increase with the size of the reservoir. Limitations on the amounts of the deficiencies as well as their frequency should be included for a complete definition of the quality of a supply. The comparison of supplies in these tables is based only upon equal average frequency of deficiencies without regard to their amount because of the dii^culty of including two criteria in the computations. A few minor inconsistencies in the tables may be explained by this omission. 36 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. IRRIGATION YIELD— KENNETT RESERVOIR. ACRE-FEET PER SEASON. Operating Primarily for Irrigation. .Average frequency of deficiency in supply during period 1871-1925 No deficiency .... 1 yenr in 50 years 1 year in 25 years 1 year in 10 years I year in 5 years No deficiency. . . . 1 year in 50 years 1 year in 25 years 1 year in 10 years 1 year in 5 years 220 1,100,000 1,322,000 1,374.000 1,468,000 1,598,000 343.000 431,000 443,000 466,000 497,000 Height of dam in feet (5 feet freeboard) 320 420 520 Without Deduction for Prior Rights. 2,102,000 2.404.000 2,441,000 2,559.000 2,723.000 3.196.000 3.658,000 4,181,000 4,278,000 4.570,000 4,411.000 4.915,000 5,1.54,000 5,486.000 5.878,000 With Deduction for Prior Rights. 1.11,5.000 1.329,000 1,381,000 1,418,000 1,513,000 1.986,000 2.227,000 2,567,000 2,838,000 3.222,000 2, 962, 000 3,2>t8.()O0 3,.52 1,000 3,858.000 4,191,000 620 5,142,000 5,.55 1.000 5,574,000 6,372,000 6,615,000 3,562,000 3,927,000 3,996,000 4,686,000 4,994,000 AREA OF IRRIGATION SERVICE— KENNETT RESERVOIR. IN ACRES. Operating Primarily for Irrigation. Average frequency of deficiency in supply during period 1871-1925 No deficiency . . . . 1 year in 50 years 1 year in 25 years 1 year in 10 years 1 year in 5 years No deficiency . . . . 1 year in 50 years 1 yesr in 25 years 1 year in 10 years 1 year in 5 years 220 466,000 529,000 550,000 587,000 639,000 137,000 172,000 177.000 186.000 190,000 Height of dam in feet (5 feet freeboard) 320 420 520 Without Deduction for Prior Rights. 841,000 062,000 076,000 1.024.000 1.089,000 1.278,000 i.-ses.ooo 1,672.000 1,710,000 1,828,000 1.764,000 1 ,966,000 2,062.000 2.194,000 2.,351,000 With Deduction for Prior Rights. 446,000 532,000 552.000 567,000 605,000 794.000 891.000 1,027,000 1.135,000 1,289,000 1,185,000 1,310,000 1.408,000 1,543,000 1,676,000 620 2,057.000 2.220,000 2,230,000 2,519,000 2,640,000 1.425,000 1.571,000 1,598,000 1.874,000 1,998,000 IRRIGATION YIELD -KENNETT RESERVOIR— IN PER CENT OF YIELD WITH DEFICIENCY IN SUPPLY ON AVERAGE OF ONE YEAR IN TEN. Operating Primarily for Irrigation. Average frequency of deficiency Height of dam in feet (5 feet freeboard) in supply during period 1871-1925 220 320 420 520 620 No deficiency 79.4 90.1 93.6 100.0 108.9 73.6 92.5 95.1 100.0 107.0 Without : 82.1 93.9 95.3 100 106 3 With D( 78.7 93.8 97.4 100.0 106.7 leduction for Pri 74.7 or Rights. 80.4 80.7 85 6 97.8 100 89.6 94.0 100.0 87.1 1 year in 25 years 87.5 100,0 1 year in 5 years 106 9 107.2 103 8 No deficiency ... 1 year in 50 years duction for Prio 70 78.5 90 5 100 113.6 r Rights. 76.8 85.5 91.3 100.0 108.6 76 83.8 85.3 1 year in 10 years 100.0 1 year in 5 years 106.6 DEVELOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 37 KENNETT RESERVOIR. AMOUNT AND YEAR OF DEFICIENCY IN SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD DURING PERIOD 1871-1925. Without Deduction for Prior Rights. Operating Primarily for Irrigation, with Yields Shown in Tables on Page 36. Frequency of deficiency in supply Height of liam in feet 1 year in 50 years 1 year n 25 years 1 year n 10 years 1 year in 5 years (5 feet freelward) Deficiency Deficiency Deficioncv Deficiency \ear in per cent of ■iear in per cent of \ear in per cent of "icar in per cent of \ full supply full supply full supply full supply 220 1924 11 1875 3 1888 1 1887 1 1924 14 1920 1P73 1875 1924 1 5 7 18 1918 1885 1925 1923 1920 1888 1873 1875 . 1924 2 2 4 6 7 7 10 13 24 Average .... 11 8.6 6 4 7 6 320 1924 11 1875 1 1923 2 1887 1 1924 12 1873 1920 1875 1924 3 4 5 16 1925 1885 1918 1888 1923 1873 1920 1875 1924 2 2 .5 5 7 8 9 10 21 .Average .... 11 6.5 6 7 A?0 1924 24 1920 23 1898 2 1922 1 1924 49 1899 1923 1920 1924 a 4 27 50 1873 1888 1899 1918 1875 1898 1923 1920 1924 4 6 10 10 12 14 20 37 53 Average 24 36 17.4 16 7 520 1924 42 1920 22 1875 10 1900 1 1924 58 1899 1923 1920 1924 14 18 49 61 1898 1925 1919 1918 1899 1875 1923 1920 1924 3 5 8 18 29 34 36 52 64 Average 42 40 30.4 25 620 1924 61 1923 3 1925 11 1899 5 1924 65 1922 1920 1923 1924 13 42 43 66 1875 1900 1901 1888 1925 1922 1923 1920 1924 8 12 12 14 16 20 45 58 68 .\verage 61 34 35 25.8 38 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. KENNETT RESERVOIR. AMOUNT AND YEAR OF DEFICIENCY IN SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD DURING PERIOD 1871-1925. With Deduction for Prior Rights. Operating Primarily for Irrigation, with Yields Shown in Tables on Page 36. Frequency of deBciency in supply Hfiaht of 1 year n 50 years 1 year in 25 years 1 year in 10 years 1 year in 5 years dam in feet (5 feet freeboard) Deficiencv Deficiency Deficiency Deficiencv \ear in per cent of Year in per cent of Year in per cent of Year in per cent cf full supply full supply full supply full supply 220 1924 20 1920 3 1901 1 1888 2 1024 22 1923 1873 1920 1924 1 4 7 26 1887 1918 1919 1875 1901 1923 1873 1920 1924 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 12 31 Average 20 12.5 7.8 7 6 320 1924 30 1920 4 1873 1 1899 1 1924 36 1918 1923 1920 1924 1 2 8 38 1887 1901 1875 1898 1873 1918 1923 1920 1924 1 2 4 6 6 7 8 19 42 Average 30 20 10 9 6 420 1924 20 1920 ?5 1898 12 1873 2 1924 52 1923 1899 1920 1924 14 15 41 69 1922 1888 1875 1918 1899 1898 1923 1920 1924 9 11 16 23 25 33 37 59 72 Average 20 38.5 30.2 28 7 520 1924 54 1920 30 1875 1 1900 1 1924 75 1899 1923 1920 1924 22 25 68 77 1901 1925 1919 1918 1875 1899 1923 1920 1924 2 5 11 19 30 42 47 71 79 Average 54 52.5 38.6 30 7 620 1924 77 1923 13 1925 15 1919 1 1924 78 1922 1920 1923 1924 16 50 57 81 1900 1901 1925 1922 1888 1899 1923 1920 1924 17 18 20 27 33 35 59 76 82 Average 77 45.5 43.8 36 8 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 39 Power yield. Electric powor may be , t 80. 1 V V 1, , s ^o V ■\ s ^. ^. k ?o S T3 C (0 to z> o s: +- c > •♦- o (0 a (D O -40 Maximum flow 175,000 se C ft^'^ h V C. TT. ^ \ Y , -30- \ ^ •1 V w* 20- V A I* \ \ -10- ^ \ 1 \ X -8-1 1 \ \ \ \ -6- \ o . \ -4- 1 , I 3- 1 oo| -2- 1 1 Space: Required in Kennett Reservoir TO Control Floods on Sacramento River Controlled Flow Measured at Red Bluff DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 45 obtained tlirouj^h llic Kennott reservoir would he to limit the flood flow at Ked Bliitt' to VJo.OOO second-feet. This would re(|iiire the complete absorption of the flow enterinji' the Kcinictt reservoir during tlie passage of the iiiaxiinnm flood erest. An extensive stuily of the possibilities of eoiilrolliiig floods by reser- voirs has been undertaken by these investigations. The detail of the various considerations are so great that the subject is presented in a separate volume. Bulletin No. 14. "The Control of Floods by Reser- voirs." Here it is demonstrated that the Kennett reservoir could be utilized for reducing the maximum flood flow at Red Blufi: from 278,000 to 125,000 second-feet in harmony witli the conservation of water and the generation of power. This would recpiire at times the use of 451,000 acre-feet of reservoir space for detention of flood flows. The larger the reservoir, the easier it would be to secure a harmonious method of operation that would control floods without detriment to the conservation values of the reservoir. To secure these combined benefits, it is essential tliat a specially prepared schedule of operation be instituted. The degree of control that may be effected by tlie utilization of various amounts of space in the Kennett reservoir is expressed on Plate B, "Space Required in Kennett Reservoir to Control Floods on Sacramento River." This diagram is constructed from data taken from Bulletin No. 14, "The Control of Floods by Reservoirs." It is empirically constructed from run-off records. Its purpose is to ascer- tain the amount of reservoir space that may be needed to detain flood flows in excess of a desired maximum controlled flow and the prob- ability that this space will be adequate under the most severe condi- tions. The following tabulated values are taken from this chart : SPACE REQUIRED IN KENNETT RESERVOIR TO CONTROL FLOODS ON SACRAMENTO RIVER. Maximum Space required in reservoir in acre-feet controlled low at Red Bliift in second-feet Exceeded on the average one day in iO years Exceeded on the average one day in 25 years Exceeded on the average one day in 50 years Exceeded on the average one day in 100 years Exceeded en the average one day in 1000 years" 125.000 150,000 175,000 280,000 158.000 79.000 385,000 252.000 163,000 454.000 326.000 237,000 518,000 395.000 306,000 731,000 507,000 504.000 Improvements flooded by reservoir. The lands flooded and the marginal areas above the flow line that would have to be acquired if the Kennett reservoir were constructed are rough and mountainous and have no agricultural value. The slopes are mostly steep and rocky and are used only for grazing i)ur- poses. The assessed values range from $0.50 to $10 per acre and average $3.75 over the entire reservoir. No towns of imi)ortance are located within the reservoir area, and very few ranch improvements. Kennett, the largest toAvu, has recently suffered a loss in population and property values by the closing of the I\Iammoth mine. For years this mine was a large producer, but was shut do^^^l in 1925 upon exhaustion of its ore bodies. Its smelter and 46 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. bag house have been salvaged. Other towns are Copper City on Squaw Creek, and Dehnar, Pollock, Antler and Delta, along the state highway. None of these have an assessed valuation exceeding $4,000. Tiie princii)al properties that would be affected by the construction of the Kennett reservoir are the Southern Pacific Railroad, the state highway, and the Bully Hill mine and smelter. The railroad and high- way could be moved to new locations Avithout detriment to their public service. The cost of doing this is large and constitutes a substantial part of the total cost of the reservoir. It ranges from 40 per cent for the low heights of dam to 20 per cent for the greatest height. Tlie moving of the main line track of the Southern Pacific Railroad through the Sacramento Canyon would be the largest single item of cost for rights of way. It extends the entire length of the reservoir and would have to be relocated for all heights of dam. Twelve miles of line would be submerged by a 220-foot dam, 20 miles by a 420-foot dam, and 26 miles by a 620-foot dam. In order to secure good align- ment and avoid heavy grades it probably would be necessary to start the relocation at the city of Redding. A tentative route has been reconnoitered on the easterly side of tlie river. Although this route would shorten the line about eight miles for the 420-foot dam, it is costly because of several tunnels and major bridge crossings. For dam heights greater than 420 feet, the crossing at the Pit River becomes awkward and very expensiA^e. The second largest item in the cost of rights of way would be the relocation of 3 to 15.5 miles of the Pacific Highway northerly from the Pit River. This would involve heavy grading and the construction of several major bridges. Preliminary studies indicate that the length of the new route for some heights of dam would be slightly greater than the present one, however, present grades would be elminated, as the new road would skirt the reservoir for several miles. The most important mining property affected by the construction of the Kennett reservoir is the Bully Hill mine and smelter on Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Pit. This was originally a copper-producing property, but after remaining idle for several years the mine was re-opened in 1924 for the production of zinc oxide. Ore from this and the Afterthought mine, on the south side of the Pit River near Ingot, is shipped to the Southern Pacific main line in the Sacramento Canyon over a standard-gauge track located on the right bank of the Pit River. Ore from the Afterthought mine is conveyed to the branch railroad by an aerial tram. A ])art of the tram and all of the branch railroad would be flooded for heights of dam over 300 feet. The smelter is not now in use. It would be flooded only for dam heights greater than 600 feet. Both mines are above the flow line for all heights. In 1924, the county assessed valuation of the Bully Hill properties was $100,000. In 1925, the Bully Hill smelter and mine, together with the railroad, were sold at public auction for $788,827.24 in foreclosure proceedings. Other mining properties affected are the Herault smelter, located on the right bank of the Pit River, between the McCloud River and Squaw Creek, and the Arps mine, near Copper City on Squaw Creek. The Herault smelter would be flooded by heights of dam greater than 200 feet. The mine is located about 700 feet higher than the smelter, well above the flow line of the largest reservoir. At the present time both DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 47 smelter and mine are inactive. The county assessed valuation of the smelter in 1924 was $32,000. The Arps mine is a copper and zinc pros- pect. It lies at an elevation that wouhl he flooded hy a 400-t'oot dam. In 1924 the county assessed valuation of this i)roperty was $28,500. The state fish hatchery at P>aird, on the McCloud River, at an eleva- tion of 750 feet, would be flooded by all heights of dam. The estimated cost of acquiring the lands and marginal areas, relocat- ing the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state highway, compensating the owners of all mines and other improvements for the loss incurred by the construction of the Kennett reservoir, is set forth in the follovi^- ing table for five heights of dam : ESTIMATED COST OF FLOODING LANDS AND IMPROVEMENTS BY KENNETT RESERVOIR. Height uf dam in feet (5 feet freeboard) Cost in dollars Cost in per cent of total cost of reservoir 220 320 •420 520 620 514,370,000 16,780,000 22,970.000 32,710,000 40,000,000 64 50 42 37 31 Type of dam. Foundation conditions at the Kennett dam site, as disclosed by the diamond drill borings and the geologic report of Prof. George D. Louderback, are suitable for a high dam of any type. Topographic features and the absence of earth in large quantities, however, limit considerations to a gravity-concrete or a rock-fill dam. An ample supply of suitable rock adjoins the dam site at high elevations so that the construction of a rock-fill dam could proceed under unusually favorable conditions. Preliminary estimates indicate that a rock-fill dam may be constructed for somewhat less cost than a gravity-concrete dam. The added cost of power and flood control outlets through the thicker rock-fill dam, however, makes the total cost about the same for either type. The estimates in this report are based upon a gravity- concrete dam. Layout at dam. Several trial layouts M'ere made of the dam, power plant and flood control outlets at the Kennett dam site. These preliminary studies indicate that, in general, it is desirable to locate the power plant a dis- tance downstream from the dam and convey the water to it in pressure tunnels leading from the reservoir through the canyon walls. This arrangement relieves serious congestion in the narrow gorge at the foot of the dam. It also leaves the s])ace about the dam for the con- venient location of spillways and flood control outlets. These take up so much room, because of the large volume of water to be cared for, that no suitable arrangement could be found in the time allotted to this study, with the power plant at the foot of the dam. The most advantageous and economic layout varies with each height of dam. Tentative plans were made for five heights. While differing 48 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. ill detail, tlie Jayout lor the 420-lo()1 lieij^lit is lypiral and is described Jierein for illustration. It is also dclinatcd on IMate C, "Layout at KeniU'tl Dam and Kcsci-voir Avm and Capacitx' ("urvcs." The posi- tion oi' llie dam sJio\\n on this plate is the one most advantageous i'or a height of 420 feet. The most advantayeons j)ositioii ehaiiges for each Jieight. A dotted line on Plate C indicates the ])()sition of the upstream face most favorable for the ultimate raising of the dam to a height of G20 feet. A cross-section of the dam is also shown on Plate C. It has a top width of 20 feet, a freeboard of 5 feet above the highest water, a slightl}' inclined upstream face and a slope on the downstream face of 5 to 1 on the ui)per 'VJO feet and a 1 to 1 slope below this. The dam would rest on foundations stripped to firm rock. Seal would be made by grouting from two rows of holes along the upstream face of the dam, extending as deep into the foundation as may be advisable. Drain pipes along the full length of the dam downstream from the grout holes would connect through vertical pipes to drainage tunnels in the dam. The overflow spillway would be divided in two i)arts, half at either end of the dam crest. Each section would have a length of 222 feet and a waterway 20 feet deep. The outflow from the reservoir would be controlled by hydraulically operated drum gates. The two sections together would have a capacity of 125,000 second-feet without encroach- ing on the five-foot freeboard of the dam. About 190,000 second-feet could be passed without its being overtopped. Water flowing over the spillway would be intercepted in a concrete waterway 40 to 70 feet wide and 35 to 40 feet deep and be conducted to the river channel 300 feet downstream from the toe of the dam. The channel would be lined with 2 feet of concrete heavily reinforced and anchored to bed rock. Under drains would relieve upward pres- sure from percolating water below the concrete lining should there be any. The waterw^ay area of these channels was computed for a 50 per cent increase in volume for entrained air. The sides would extend twenty feet above this. Flood control outlets througli the dam would be provided in addi- tion to the overflow spillway. These would be arranged in two bat- teries. The upper one would consist of 21 outlets each 166 inches in diameter. They would be spaced 30 feet in the central part of tlie dam with their inlets 60 feet below the top. The greatest drawdown in the reservoir for flood control would be 21 feet below^ the top of the dam. The outlets would be lined with three-eighths inch steel plate. Flow would be controlled through each outlet at the upstream face of the dam by a roller sluice gate mechanically operated from the top. The gates would be protected l)y steel trash racks. The lower battery of outlets would consist of two 118-iiich pipes with inlets 350 feet below the top of the dam. Jii this position they would be useful in draining the reservoir should this ever become desirable. They would be constructed similar to the upper battery of outlets except that the steel plate would increase to seven-eiglitlis inch thickness toward the downstream end where a balanced needle valve would be placed. PLATE C ''in thousands of acres »oo \ X • - so 70 80 90 too 110 '1 INTAKE TOWERS '°0a \/ -xV\\ -*_ \\ ^^^-^A^ - - - 1 -"/- s\l OVERFLOW SPILLWAY .__ Xli-LLU VS--~. w \ W " 1 \ ^_,. - i- - -XX ,^--C;XxV\ '' linf ^• / v^^" — \^ \ 'vCK"C3r^' ' V -4**"^ 1 ''°"^^r^^\^{/fv "^ 1 ■"•^1 1 1 ^^-- cu«^^- , 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^^^iT^/^Y'^rJ-JJ.i { J/y^/y'v//// il »•'''' 1 /// / /^ '1/ / M^riMv-^H^ ... \ Yrrr-ky^/yf.' J/^4f^ ] ^ / /) \\(^ r^h^3^/\~r t" 1 / J 1 1 fl fi i(~ yT"' '/ /Jj 1 /)/ fl Jf^r-:CJ '^C^t^fi^jJ' Ml] \v\^ L_ 1 \\cwr f^J^J iv&V' / /) 111 /\ (v f /^,- / )1 \' i ' {/)))'i / / 1 ( C^ yU' ) ' \ VvL':^^)' / J ) fxr^ ' ]] ll\]\'\ ( i^y' J } K (/ ' ! ^J' 1/ 1/ n 1 ' i c-^ /J) 1/ ' [ ; ■'yff// iK^v' ) S f/^£^V//! ' ' 1 \ T ^ . Af r-^'ih'Ti^iy^f'/^} ' 1 1 I ^J^f^Ti^^-v^^^iS^ \ 'T" — ( — i — t — . — 1 1 — t — '^v^^^i^^'^^^i^S^/^ M'P i— I— ) CAPACITY CURVES 1 — ) — ^^yjf^^^^^W'i *4-' _ AREA AN[ .?~^y]vvu^*^ ( cLi ' 1 x:;: t ■ ; 1 — ' — ^^sA~r<~/J) /r/^\l*fe' ' 1 , ! i )\ aCiT/A I fl/'f™ / ) ) \V\( /u ) /' 11 I'l^l 1 — 1 1 '^/r^jP ^' . 6 7 S 9 10 1 i. { in millions of acre feet 1200— 1100- 1000- Heismt of Dam (above low water level) 420 Ft. CAPACiTy OF Reservoir 2,940^00 Ac. Ft. Capacity of Flood Control Outlets 125^00 SecFt. \ Capacity of Overflow Spillways 125,000 Sec. Ft. j Installed Capacity of Power Plant 400,000 K.V.A. c o 15 > u U 900- 800- 700- Layout at Kennett Dam AND SERVoiR Area and Capacity Curves 600 TROL CHANNEL \ 50667 — pages 18-41 Area in thousands of acres '° 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 r-|— rn rn n n n p |— 1 |— 1 n [— 1 — 1 [—] — 1 —I -T— , -^ p-p T~l m "n ~v _^ — 1 — r-i -- - - H - i - - - - r - ~ - ~ - -- - I I' :: ._ — . "- — - -- _ _ I [^ -■- - - - - - - J - ' - - - - t ~ - -- - -.^ - -- -- -- „_. - -- -- ^1. - - ;^ ^- - - - - " _ -r '~ .-!<•, ,_— " •^ „ ^ . o>y .J—' ■T— - ^ '— - - - - - -J - - - h -J 4 ^ -- - -^ ;; :- -!?! !!_ 6Xm^' ~ ,_ -- - - - -^ - - - - - '__ - - i 7' y ^ - -^ rsJ"^ vT - -- - -- "- ,_ — - - - - - " ' - ~ -\ -" -> r^ ^ ^ r^ - -- - -- - -- -- ~ „_ -^ -- -j - - „- _ _ _ > <« ,. ~~ / " ._ — - , J «*" ■ "■ ■ ■■ L ~ / ' 4 1 >" / |— i t - -_ n _ r _ _ _ _. ^ _ _ _ _ 1^ _ _ _. _ _ __ _ ^ ~ /\ t ~ ~^ ~ ^~ ^ — 1 '" — ~ r^ ~" ^ - - -^ - -* — ^-1 ^ — ~n A r- - -- / y L t 1 ■ ' -^ - - + ^/ ^ _ _ ^ _i _ _ _ _. _ _ _J _ _j_ __ ---U . , 1 -+-! - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - ^ - - -A H AREA AND CAPACITY CURVES ^- T— r— . • ! 1 1 1 ^~ ~T~ - 1 „ - -^ - - _ ' _ _ Capacity in millions of acre feet PLATE C HEI6HT OF Dam (above low water level) 420 Ft. Capacity of R&slrvoir 2,9WgOOO Ac. Ft. Capacity of Flood Control Outlets 125^00 Sec. Ft. Capaoty of Overflow Spillways 125,000 Sec Ft. Installed Capacity of Power Plant 400jOOO K.V.A. Layout at Kennett Dam AND Reservoir Area and Capacity Curves 50667 — pages 48-J9 DEVELOPMENT OF I'Pl'EK SACRAMENTO RIVER. 41) The water eseapinjr Iroiii the upper hatlery of outlets would strilce tlu' (lownstreain faee of the (lain l)efore reaeiiiii<>' the eoiiei-ete liued collet'tiiio: ehaiiuel at its hase. This ehanuel Avould intercept the watei- runnin TIC 1 V ^ 1 i I ■--T ni r1^ on^^ PLATE E >^t HOLE No. 2D pltrsiCAL SCIENCES LIBRARY HOLE N02E M ELEV 795 2 V ERTICAL HOLES HOLE No 6 ELEV. 7U.4 .a.Tjiis-.vxax I HOLE No. 7 t* ELEV 7B9.e HOLE No. 8 »1 ELEV 861 S HOLE No. 2C ELEV, 802 3 HOLE No. 3 HOLE NO. 3A H ELEV. 787.6 •• ELEV. 769 7 '" "~"' '-.f?iS.si-.s ..-s;-.il.-ii.-j"r-?ii=- 0) hi _l O I Q Ui Z _l u z o z Ul _J I u m 6 : Z s 15 i]! iil! liii I Mi!. •ill Mii ' 'I in. i;! iiiP i'- Inh'lli'UiiJlPi 3EO10 m p) d 3 z s uj i _1 n! I 1 111 111 li'lli ill HI;! {"if I I 'it ni = 1 I?? i fc ii p 1 « ft i]tl i la •!' ilia 111 M SMK o z 111 _1 o I - Ihii = fill! flil! Ii ■Ipli Gfi; H u ill I'! If I' Isi Ii III I I I II Hi ■Hi < IS d ; Z K UJ i m iliu u I PS i i 30 i i I ill iliii] i i liA j I- I i iJ I i! 1 lifi j Hiliiiii ' fi 1 1 1 i I n d J'iSl fflES (J) Ul _l o I Q LU z _I u z < d z LJ _J o I CD CD 6 z llJ _l o I z ? ^[ m b z iij _i I < CM d z 111 _1 I HI iiiii i j| 111 1 i 111 ; {- i.SU 1 i ^«f : \ ■ li~. i i lllll i' ll H i i i s z = St < 00 d z iliir ill!! m PLATE F ill :1S li i: illill 1 1 1! M a If ! iil I # laaaci] ijl a * J'; ;)i ' li -.; ^ h = 1 ■n H m m ill ill lasaaa 1 i* li! !l li ? 1 II. i 111 i -i^iaaiaa^aaaiajciaiaEiOBQicioiiiaaiEaiaic LOG OF DIAMOND DRILL BORINGS ■■■'l/SJCAL iCIENCES AT KENNETT DAM SITE DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 57 new crystals being arranyod in planes. In certain belts the whole rock has been given a marked parallel structure and may be called a schist (chloritic scliist or greenstone schist). ]\Iany of the layers that do not sliow either of the al)ove phenomena, show a eei'tain general parallelism of constituents, in part tlue to original flow structure, in part developed under lateral compression. This is brought out best bv weatliering aiul gives tlie flakv appearance called by the drillers "'shale." In texture the andesites originally varied from t]u)se witli a glassy groundmass, through those with fluidal mierocrystalline groundmass to those of very fine crystalline, in ])art granular, intersertal texture and without recognizable flow structure. All the glasses have of course been devitrified. Some of the flows are of fine uniform grain and dense. Mhile some carry in the mierocrystalline or apluiuitic ground- mass disseminated visible crystals (phenocrysts) of feldspar, less fre- quently pyroxene, or both. A number of the flows and most of the fragments of the fragmental layers were originally more or less charged with steam holes (vesicular structure) but these have every- where been tilled by secondary deposition, usually with quartz, some- times with calcite, both often being associated with chlorite or other minerals. Sometimes in the zone of weathering, this secondary calcite has been leached out, leaving the rock with empty roundish holes. In the unweathered portions of the rocks, not only are the steam holes filled with mineral matter, but the original spaces between the grains of the fragmental rocks have been obliterated by compression and deposition, a very fortunate alteration for the rocks of a dam site, as originally they were probably very porous. Veining is very common in the unweathered samples. Thin stringers up to veins several inches across have been observed. Sueli veining is rather widespread but some belts are much more heavily veined than others. The commonest vein minerals are quartz and calcite. Each may occur alone, or both may appear in the same vein. The (piartz may be associated with epidote. Scattered grains, groups of grains, and druses of pyrite are very common throughout the series. These generally weather to limonite in the oxidation zone. A few rotten streaks have been found where a marked red color prevails. These are probably the result of the oxidation of zones of concentrated pyrite. Other Kocks. Aside from the various facies of the andesitic series above described, the only other rocks found were occasional dikes of younger intrusive igneous rocks, as follows : In Hole 1 at about 80 feet, a medium grained (puirtz diorite. Tn Hole 1 between 180 and 187 feet occurs a more basic quartz diorite. Tn Hole 1 21G feet, a dacite porphyry. Tn Hole 2A about 74 feet, a dacite porphvry. In Hole (JA '.i()-o\) feet, diabase or augite-dioi-ite. In Hole 7A 198-246 feet, dacite porpiiyry. 58 water resources of california. General Distribution of Rock Types. On tlie west side at, or near, the Sacramento River, the rock is an ag:g:lonierate. As there is little soil, and the exposed rocks are fairly fresli, tlie structure is easily observed. The andesite fra«j:ments lie in a green base in which the original open pores have evidently been obliterated by compression and mineral reorganization. At about 750-755 feet in elevation, a fine grained rock comes in, tliat lias become more or less .schisto.se and in part may be called chlorite schist. It does not stand out in i)rominent outcrops above the soil as does tlie agglomerate. Near Hole 3 and the triangulation .station occurs an amygdaloidal andesite. Commencing at the road and running up to 860-870 feet in eleva- tion, the exposures are mostly dull ochreous friable "shaly" meta- andesites, which are followed by more amygdaloidal andesites rather badly Aveatliered. At about 980 feet greenstone 'schists are again encountered, followed in the high shoulder at 1000 to 1200 feet by rocks showing rather prominent outcrops of agglomerate weathering out like the ' ' gravestone- slates" of the foothill belt of the Sierra Nevada. Some of the project- ing masses are 25-30 feet higli. The quartz diorite and dacite porphyry dikes were not observed on the surface but found in the drill cores. To the east of the river the rocks are at first well exposed and with little soil. Distinct porphyritic and amygdaloidal forms of andesite occur, and near the river, a band of chlorite schist. Partlier up from the river the rocks are more soil-and-vegetation-covered than on the west side, and the types are harder to follow, although occasional out- crops occur. As one goes up, liowever, fragmental types become more and more dominant, to the end of the surveyed section. A thick diabase (or augite diorite) dike was observed both at the surface and in core samples, and also, one of dacite-porphyry. Physical Characteristics of the Rocks. In the unweathered state most of the rocks of the dam site zone are firm and their textures tight. The only slightly schistose types and the massive types, which togetlier make up the greater part of the section are strong and tough. The more schistose, especially the best developed chlorite schists are comparatively weak, but held firmly between the stronger layers, are sufficiently resi.stant for dam purposes, considering the thickness that will be involved. There are no readily permeable, or typical water-bearing strata in the series. As the series is built up of layers which have been tilted up to not far from vertical (usually 20"^ or less), tliese layers lie in belts, and these belts run in general rouglily parallel to the Sacramento River. On the high shoulder (1200 feet in elevation) in the west they strike N. 40° E. ; at about 1000 feet in elevation, N. 46° E. ; at 930 feet, about N. 50° E. ; near the river, N. 15° E. to N. 18° E. Going north from the line of drill holes the strike turns more to the east, and carries tlie formations on the west side across the river. Values of N. 53° E. and N. 60° E. were obtained on this turn. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 59 This structure is not as favorable as one at right angles to the river would be, as the lines of the layers and of shearing are in general transverse to the dam and tlie water pressure is exerted along these lines. However, the filling of tlie seams and crevices by secondar}^ deposition makes leakage along these structural planes improbable below the weathered zone. Tlie effect of the structure is very noticeable near the surface espe- cially on the west side where the rock is weatliered more deeply than on the east side, as for example about Hole 2 rotten and friable streaks are shown down to a depth of 50 feet and the rock is weathered and oxidized to a deptli of 60 to 70 feet. Such belts run parallel or roughly parallel to the strike. These liighly oxidized and weathered streaks are the weakest parts of the -whole belt. Fortunately their extent is limited and they may readily be recognized by their color, and the ease by which they can be dug or picked out in a crumbling mass. They are both physically weak and subject to percolation. In most places they are shallow, and near the river, where the water pressure would be greatest, the erosion is too recent for such weathered products to have formed. This mate- rial should all be removed in stripping the dam site. Conclusions. In my opinion the geological and topographic conditions combine to produce a very satisfactory dam site. The massive spurs that extend out toward the river, are underlain by firm rock, the original molar spaces of which have been closed by pressure and mineral deposi- tion and offer good foundations for a dam. A certain amount of percolation may take place along shear zones and other structure lines in the formation, but as far as the firm, unweathered rock is concerned, it will probably be negligible. Care will have to be used in the handling of the badly weathered belts, and zones of shear as indicated above, but tliere is no reason to believe that any difficulty from this source can not be overcome by reasonable pre- cautions. The desirable depth of stripping will be irregular over the dam site, varying from a minimum of a few feet in a belt 250 to 300 feet on either side of the stream clianncl to a maximum of 108 feet on a very limited area on the right abutment but in general it will range from 10 to 50 feet. The location of tlie Kennett dam as proposed in the engineering report is the most suitable one in the vicinity of Kennett. Yours very sincerely, CHAPTER V. REPORT ON IRON CANYON PROJECT— CALIFORNIA by Walker R. Young Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. OCTOBER, 1925. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with California State Department of Public Works Division of Engineering and Irrigation and Sacramento Valley Development Association. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. Berkeley, Califoniiu, October 31, 1925. From : "Walker R. Young, Engineer, To : Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado. Subject : Report upon Iron Canyon Project in Sacramento Valley, California. 1. Transmitted herewith is report upon investigations made of the Iron Canyon project as provided for in the Cooperative Agreement of January 26, 1924, between the United States Department of the Interior ; the Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation of the State of California ; and the Sacramento Valley Development Association. 2. Many courtesies have been extended by those with whom the writer and his associates have come in contact in the prosecution of the work. The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation of these courtesies, and to acknowledge the very valuable assistance given, particularly by Mr. Wm. Durbrow, President, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation .District ; Mr. Frank Adams, Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice, University of California ; and Mr. R. C. E. Weber, Superintendent of the Orland Project. 3. In connection with the preparation of material for the report, credit is due Mr. W. A. Perkins, Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Division of Engineering and Irriga- tion, State Department of Public Works, who made the principal office studies, and to Mr. Paul A. Jones, Assistant Engineer, of this Bureau, who had charge of all field work and of the preparation of designs and estimates for the canal system. 4. Whether the best project to be found in the Sacramento Valley, which may be watered from Iron Canyon reservoir, has been selected for investigation is doubtful. The studies made have therefore been presented in considerable detail in order that duplication of work may be avoided in future investigations. Appendix A * accom- panies three copies of the report only as the supply has been exhausted. (Signed) Walker R. Young, Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. * Not included in printed report, to save space. Copy on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 62 LIST OF EXHIBITS 66 LIST OF TABLES 67 LIST OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES 68 LIST OF APPENDICES 68 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 68 LIST OF PLATES 68 SYNOPSIS— Project considered 70 Purpose of investigation 70 Authority for inv-estigation 70 Cooperation received 70 Office work 71 Field work 71 Cost of investigation 71 Data filed 71 SUMMARY OF RESULTS— Duty of water 72 Water supply 72 Power 72 Distribution system 73 Project drainage 73 Cost analysis, assuming noninterest bearing money 74 Estimated project costs, assuming noninterest bearing money, and repayment of construction costs in 20 years 74 (a) Gross cost 74 (b) Net cost 75 (c) Comparison of net costs per acre 75 (d) Deferred charges 75 Estimated project cost, assuming that storage and power features are constructed with interest bearing money 75 CONCLUSIONS 77 RECOMMENDATION 78 BODY OF REPORT. KEY TO PROJECT MAP 79 INTRODUCTION— Early investigations 80 1914 report 80 1920 report 80 1925 report 81 GENERAL DESCRIPTION— Sacramento Valley 81 Project considered 81 Lands 82 Drainage 82 Timber 82 Crops 82 Present irrigation 82 Growing season 82 Transportation facilities and markets 82 Cities and towns 83 Industries 83 SURVEYS— Scope of work '. 83 Lines surveyed 83 Methods used 84 Level control 84 Topographic surveys 85 PROJECT AREA— Gravity and pumping areas 85 East side area 85 64 CONTENTS. PROJECT AREA— Continued. Pago Lands within proposed project now irrigated g,") Limiting eonditions 86 Irrigable and assessed area ,S6 Orland project — California St; SOIL CLASSIFICATION— Studies made g7 Rice lands 87 DUTY OF WATER— Basis of assumed duty 88 Assumed duty 89 Supporting data 90 Comparison with other projects 92 Rainfall 92 Project development 92 Water requirements 93 CANAL LOSSES AND WASTE— Transportation losses 95 Waste 95 Disposition of waste water 95 Irrigation methods 95 Canal designed for irrigation peak 95 WATER SUPPLY— Source 96 Run-off 96 Basis of estimated supply 97 Monthly distribution 97 Iron Canyon project fiUngs 97 Prior rights 98 Amount of water assumed to supply prior rights 99 Relation of run-off and assumed irrigation requirements 100 Evaporation from reservoir 100 Water to supply demands of irrigation and power development at the storage dam 101 Reservoir draft suggested as most practicable 104 Irrigation shortages 105 Reservoir operation 105 Auxiliary water supply 105 Return water 105 POWER— Demand for power 100 Water available for power development at Iron Canyon dam 106 Potential power at Iron Canyon dam 106 Power gained by passing project irrigation water through Iron Canyon power plant 107 Average annual power output, Iron Canyon plant 108 Future increase 108 Potential power on mam canal at Mooney Island Slough 108 Average annual power output, Mooney Island plant 108 Average annual power output. Iron Canyon and Mooney Island plants combined 109 Basis of estimated value of power 109 Average gross revenue, Iron Canyon and Mooney Island power plants Ill Power used in pumping Ill FLOOD CONTROL— Frequency and estimated volume 113 Iron Canyon reservoir as a flood regulator 113 NAVIGATION— Effect of Iron Canyon reservoir on river discharge 1 14 Effect of Mooney Island power plant on river discharge 115 SILT— Effect of Iron Canyon reservoir 115 SALINITY IN DELTA REGION— Iron Canyon reservoir as a possible means of control .• 115 Other reservoirs 1 16 IRON CANYON RESERVOIR, DAM AND POWER PLANT— Iron Canyon reservoir 116 Iron Canyon dam 116 Iron Canyon power plant 117 Flood control gates 1 17 CONTENTS. 65 IRON CANYON RESERVOIR, DAM AND POWER PLANT— Cntinucil. PuKf- Spillways 117 Right of way lis Estiniatetl cost IIS Coii.-st ruction materials 118 DIVERSION WORKS— Diversiou site 1 19 Plans considered 119 Plan proposed 119 Canal intake 120 Pumping plant for Red Bank pump unit 120 E-irth dike 120 Effect on lift to Red Bank pump unit 120 Construction materials 121 MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT AND WASTEWAY— Head available 121 Power plant 121 Wasteway and check 121 Construction materials 121 Construction program 121 MAIN CANAL— Basis of surveys and estimates 121 Excavation 123 Special considerations, upper 4.7 miles of canal 123 Canal hning 124 Structures 124 Siphons 124 Wasteways 125 Side drain intakes and culverts 126 Checks 127 Drops 127 Bridges 127 Railroad crossings 128 Turnouts 128 Fences 128 Telephone system 128 Patrolmen's quarters 128 Project headquarters 129 Clearing and grubbing 129 Right of way 129 Construction materials 129 RED BANK PUMP CANAL— Basis of surveys and estimates 129 E.xcavation, concrete lining and structures 130 Siphons 130 Wasteways 130 Other structures 130 Right of way 130 EAST SIDE CANAL— Basis of estimates 130 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM— Basis of estimates 131 DRAINAGE SYSTEM— Requirement 131 Basis of estimate 131 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE— Basis of estimates 132 Estimated Iron Canyon project O. and M. charges 133 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED COSTS— Iron Canyon Reservoir 133 Main canal between diversion dam and Mooney Island power plant 134 (a) General consideration 134 (b) Saving effected by building diversion dam to raise water surface 15 feet 134 (c) Reduction in cost of pumping, effected by building diversion dam to raise water surface 15 feet 135 (d) Increased cost to build the first 4.7 miles of unlined canal to include power water. . . 135 (e) Saving effected by building the first 4.7 miles of canal, carrying irrigation and power water, unlined 136 5—50667 66 CONTENTS. ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED COSTS— Continued. Page (f) Increased eo.st (o build the first 4.7 miles of lined canal to include power water. . . . 136 Power used in pumping to project areas 137 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS— Statement A, summary of various economic studies made of diversion works, Mooney Island power plant and main canal between them 138 Statement B, summary of estimated cost, power output and revenue 1,39 Taxes 140 Depreciation on concrete 140 Estimated gross cost of project 140 Estimated net cost of project 141 Comparison of cost of various units of the project 142 (a) Whole project 142 (b) West side gravity lands 142 (c) Red Bank pump unit 142 (d) Pump units immediately north and south of Orland project 143 (e) Pump units south of W'illows 143 (f) East side gravity lands 143 Summary of estimated net cost with power credits 144 Deferred charges 145 Possible reduction in estimated cost of pumping 145 Financing the project construction cost 145 (a) Storage and power features 145 (b) Canal and distribution system 150 SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS— Area and water supply 150 Project in northern part of valley 150 Project in southern part of valley 151 Individual pumping plants along river 151 Irrigation from Coast Range streams 151 Combining with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 152 Adchtional studies required 162 EXHIBITS. Exhibit 1. Request for the investigation, dated November 4, 1922 153 Exhibit 2. Cooperative contract of January 26, 1924 155 Exhibit 3. Agreement covering general plan of procedure, June 9, 1924 158 Exhibit 4. Statement of cost of Iron Canyon investigations 160 Exhibit 5. Detail statement of cost of investigations made under contract dated January 26, 1924 160 Exhibit 6. Report on Iron Canyon survey — East side canal by State Department of Engineering 161 Exhibit 7. Letter from Frank Adams. Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice, University of California, dated March ,30, 1925 167 Exhibit 8. Extracts from paper "Control of appropriations of water by the State Division of W^ater Rights" by Edward Hyatt, Jr., Chief of Di\ision of Water Rights, State Department of Public W'orks 169 Exhibit 9. Extracts from Bulletin No. 4, "Proceedings of the Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Conference and Water Supervisor's Report for 1924" 172 CONTENTS. 67 TABLES. Page Table 1. Portion of agricultural areas that require a water supplj — valley floors, California. . . 87 Table 2. Areas assumed suitable for rice culture 88 Table 3. Summary of measurements of duty of water in rice irrigation in Sacramento Valley, seasons of 1916, 1017 and 1918 89 Table 4. Results of measurements of use of water, on E. L. Adams rice field near Biggs, seasons 1914-1917 89 Table 5. Relation of acreage of general field crops to orchards on Orland project for years 1910-1924 91 Table 0. Water requirements for irrigation with various combinations of soil, climate and crops 92 Table 7. Mean seasonal rainfall for upper Sacramento Valley, in vicinity of Iron Canyon project 92 Table 8. Summary of lands, transportation losses and water requirements 94 Table 9. Summary of estimated run-off of the Sacramento River at Red Bluff gaging station, for years 1871 to 1921 9ti Table 10. Assumed monthly distribution of irrigation water for Iron Canyon project in per cent of seasonal supply 97 Table 11. Assumed monthly distribution of water to supply prior rights 99 Table 12. Evaporation from reservoir 101 Table 13. Water supply study Xo. 1. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Summarized on 102 Table 14. Water supply study Xo. 2. (Details are not printed to save space. These are on file at ofiice of Di\'ision of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Sunimarized on 103 Table 15. Water supply study Xo. 3. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Summarized on 103 Table 16. Water supply study Xo. 4. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Di\'ision of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Summarized on 103 Table 17. Water supply study Xo. 5. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Di\ision of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Summarized on 104 Table 18. Power gained by passing project irrigation water through Iron Canyon power house. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Summarized on 107 Table 19. Power output. Iron Canyon power plant 190 Table 20. Capacity of Mooney Island power plant and its relation to the Iron Canyon plant. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Di\ision of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Refer to 108 Table 21. Potential power output and demand Iron Canyon plant only, storage to elevation 400. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Refer to 109 Table 22. Potential power output and demand, Iron Canyon plant only, storage to elevation 405.5 191 Table 23. Potential power output and demand. Iron Canyon and Mooney Island plants, storage to elevation 400. (Details not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Di\ision of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there). Refer to. 109 Table 24. Potential power output and demand. Iron Canyon and jMooney Island plants, storage to elevation 405.5 191 Table 25. Power output and revenue. Iron Canyon and Mooney Island plants Ill Table 26. Pumping plant data and summary of power consumed in pumping to project areas. . 112 Table 27. Monthly distribution of pumping load 112 Table 28. Estimated gross cost. Iron Canyon project 141 Table 29. Estimated net construction and operation cost — Iron Canyon project 141 Table 30. Summary of estimated net costs of various project areas 144 Table 31. Example of financial operation of proposed Iron Canyon project power development. 148 Table 32. Estimated construction and operation cost, canal and distribution system. (Built uith interest bearing money) 150 68 CONTENTS, PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES. Page Pj-elimiuary Estimate 1 . Iron Canyou reservoir right of way 177 Preliminary Estimate 2. Iron Canyon dam, bend embankment and power plant — construction 177 Preliminary Estimate 3. Iron Canyon dam and power plant — operation and maintenance. . . . 178 Preliminary Estimate 4. Diversion works — construction 179 Preliminary Estimate 5. Diversion works — operation and maintenance 179 Preliminary Estimate 6. Diversion works — construction — alternative plan 180 Preliminary Estimate 7. Diversion works — construction — alternative plan 180 Preliminary Estimate 8. Mooney Island power plant — construction 181 Preliminary Estimate 9. Mooney Island power plant — operation and maintenance 181 Preliminary Estimate 10. Main canal — construction 182 Preliminary Estimate 11. Red Bank pump canal — construction 182 Preliminary Estimate 12. Pumping plants — construction 183 Preliminary Estimate 13. Pumping plants — operation and maintenance 185 Preliminary Estimate 14. East side canal — construction 186 Preliminary Estimate 15. Project headquarters — construction 186 Preliminary Estimate 16. Iron Canyon dam — construction — increased cost to raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 400 187 Preliminary Estimate 17. Iron Canyon dam — construction — increased cost to raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 405.5 188 APPENDICES. Appendix A. Report of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, "Recon- naissance Soil Survey of the Sacramento Valley, California," by L. C. Holmes, J. W. Nelson and Party, issued April 26, 1915. (Not included in printed report to save space. Copy on file at office of Division of — Engineering and Irrigation, and may be consulted there). Appendix B. Water supply and power studies 190 Summaries of the studies 190 PHOTOGRAPHS. (Not included in printed report. Films on file in office of the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.) 192 PLATES. Plate No. 1. — General location map 69 2. — Iron Canyon project map 78 3. — Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District soil map 192 4. — Capacity and area curves — Iron Canyon reservoir 193 5. — Rating curve. Red Blufl gaging station 194 6. — Rainfall, run-oflf curve 195 7. — Run-ofif of Sacramento River at Red Bluff 196 8. — Graphs of operation — Iron Canyon reservoir 196 9. — Power demand curves 197 10. — Power output curves 198 11. — Spillway crest gates for Iron Canyon dam — crest at elev. 400 198 12. — Spillway crest gates for Iron Canyon dam, crest at elev. 405.5 198 13. — Movable drum gates for Iron Canyon dam, crest at elev. 405.5 198 14. — Bend embankment 198 15. — Cross section of Iron Canyon dam and power plant 198 16. — Red Bank Creek diversion site — topography 198 17. — Diversion works — general map and layout 198 18. — Diversion works — details 198 19. — Diversion works — details 198 20. — Diversion works — East Side dike 198 21. — Mooney Island power plant and wasteway 198 22.— Profile of Sacramento River — Red Bluff to Mooney Island Slough 198 23. — Key to canal profiles 199 24.— Canal profiles 200 25. — Tj-pical sections — main canal 200 26. — Typical sections — Red Bank pump canal 200 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 69 70 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. SYNOPSIS. Project considered. The project considered in this report con- temphites the irrigation of a gross area of 276,900 acres of land in Sacramento Valley, California, as indicated on Plates 1 and 2. With the exce])tion of 7000 acres located on the east side of the valley op])o- site the city of Red Bluff, the lands lie on the west side between Red Bank Creek on the north and the Colusa-Yolo county line on the south. Storage of surplus flood waters from the upper Sacramento drainage area for the irrigation of the ])i-oject is to be ])rovided in a reservoir, having a gross capacity of 1,121,9(10 acre-feet, created by the construc- tion of a concrete gravity dam in Iron Canyon, at a point about four miles upstream from Red Bluff. The dam would raise the water sur- face 152.5 feet above low water in the river. Under the ])roposed plan, 757,800 acre-feet of this storage, less evaporation, is annually available for irrigation of the project which, augmented by natural stream flow in the early months, ]n'Ovides a net annual irrigation draft of 800,000 acre-feet. The proposed project is long and narrow, having an airline length of about 100 miles and an average width of but four and one-half miles, the latter varying from one-half to eleven miles. It is ])ro]-)osed to irrigate the small area east of Red Bluff by dii'ect diversion from Iron Canyon reservoir, while lands on the west side are to be served by diversion from the Sacramento River at the mouth of Red Bank Creek, six and one-half miles downstream from the .storage (lam, diversion being eff'ected through the construction of a movable crest type of dam at that point. Ninety-four thousand four hundred sixty-six acres of the gross area on the we.st side of the valley will be served by ])um])ing from the main gravity canal. Development of ])Ower, while of secondary consideration, is an im}>ortant phase of the report, since it affords a means of i)artially financing the undertaking. The ])lan proi)osed includes the construc- tion, at the storage dam, of a hydro-electric plant of 110,000 h.p. installed capacity and a smaller plant of 10,400 h.p. capacity on the main canal at ^Fooney Island Slough, 1.7 miles below the diversion dam. Purpose of investigation. The investigations were made, at the request of the Sacramento Valley Develo]iment Association and the Iron Canyon Project Association, for the purpose of determining the feasibility and ])i'obable cost of a project su]i]^lied by a low-line canal receiving its water from the Sacramento River at some point down- stream from the storage dam, rather than through a high-line canal diverting from Iron Canyon reservoir as proposed in previous reports. Copy of the recpiest. dated November 4, 1922, is attached as Exhibit 1. Authority for investigation. Authority for the investigation is coiitainetl in a coo])erative contract of January 26, 1924, entered into by the United States of America, Department of the Interior; the De])artment of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation of the State of California ; and the Sacramento Valley Development Association; atlaclied as Exliil)it 2. The agi'eement covering the plan of procedure to be folloAved in the investigation is attached as Exhibit 3. Cooperation received. The State Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, has cooperated in the investi- DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 71 gations made, a representative of tliat department having been assigned to the work. Tliis report, altliougli made in cooi)eration witli the State Department of I'ublif Works, lias been prepared in(k^})en(knitly of the State's comprehensive investigations of its water resources. Due to tlie necessary limitations of the endeavor, it has not been possible for engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation to study the State's plan for coordinated development and control of water for irrigation, naviga- tion, flood control, salt water control and tiie generation of electric power in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. It is believed, however, that whatever is done should follow a carefully coordinated plan. OflBce work. Headquarters for the investigation of the Iron Canyon project, and of the proposed salt water barrier below the con- fluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, were established in Berkeley, California, on Ajiril 19, 1924, the writer being in direct charge. Mr. W. A. Perkins, associate hydraulic engineer, representing the State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engin- eering and Irrigation, was assigned to the Berkeley office on July 21, 1924, at which time the office studies were taken up. The principal studies made were those of irrigable area, soil classification, water supply, feasibility of increased storage, and power development. Although studies of water supply had been made in the earlier investigations, it was necessary to make a complete new study for the reason that conclusions drawn from the former reports should be modi- fied to include the season 1923-24 during which the run-off from the Sacramento River drainage basin was the lowest of record. Field work. Field work in connection with the investigations was started on July 29, 1924, with Mr. Paul A. Jones, assistant engi- neer, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, in charge. A preliminary stadia survey was made of a total of 232 miles of canal line and, in addition, a topographic survey of the diversion dam site was made. The field work was completed on November 30, 1924, while the estimates, on account of more urgent work on the salt water barrier, were not completed until October, 1925. Cost of investigation. Through the provisions of the contract, the sum of $10,000 was made available for the investigation. A state- ment of cost of investigations to date will be found in Exhibit 4. A detail statement of the cost of the investigation covered by this report will be found in Exhibit 5. Data filed. Original computations, maps, rei)orts, and corres- pondence relative to the investigations, are filed in the office of the Chief Engineer, IT. S. Bureau of Reclamation, at Denver, Colorado. ]\Iiscellaneous field note books, canal profiles and cross sections used for estimating purposes, as well as copies of comi)utations made in the preparation of this report, are filed with the State Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, at Sacramento, California. Diamond drill cores, obtained in former investigations of founda- tion conditions at the various dam sites in Iron Canyon, are .stored at the Orland project headquarters office at Orland, California. 72 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. SUMMARY OF RESULTS. Duty of water. The irrigable area is assumed as 85 per cent of the gross area Avithin tlie project. The general classification of crops, and the assumed net duty of water on the land, are as follows : Crop Net duty of tcater Rice 5.0 acre-feet per acre General crops 2.7 acre-feet per acre Orchards 1.5 acre-feet per acre Of the rice area, it is assumed that not more than 75 per cent will actually be planted to rice in any one year, the remaining 25 per cent being eitlier fallow, or planted to crops not requiring irrigation, in order to prevent a ruinous growth of aquatic plants. The average net duty on the total irrigable area is 2.58 acre-feet per acre, while the gross duty, including transportation losses, is 3.4 acre-feet per acre. The rainfall in the vicinity of tlie proposed project is normally about 20 inches. The rainy season usually begins in November and ends in April or May, with practically no rain during the summer months. Water supply. The water supply for the project will be derived from the 9258 square miles of Sacramento River drainage area above the storage dam site in Iron Canyon. The average seasonal run-off measured at that point is roughly 10,000,000 acre-feet. During the 1923-24 season, the measured run-off was 2,972,000 acre-feet, the least of record and only about 30 per cent of normal. Filings for diversion and for storage in behalf Of the Iron Canyon project have been made witli the Division of Water Rights, State Department of Public Works. The irrigation season is assumed to begin in Marcli and end in October, the maximum demand for water being in July when 22 per cent of tlie seasonal supply would be delivered. The main canals are designed with a capacity of 115 per cent of the average July flow to allow for daily peaks. In the study of water supply, it has been assumed that the monthly distribution of water to supply prior rights would be upon the same basis as for the proposed project; and that the demand in July would be at the rate of 6000 second-feet, provided that amount were in the river above the storage reservoir. Upon this basis, the amount of water recjuired annually to supply prior rights is shown to be 1,677,000 acre- feet. The run-off, and the as.sumed requirements of prior rights and of the Iron Canyon project, are sliown graphically on Plate 7. Studies indicate that in the sea.son of 1923-24, there would have been a shortage of less than 4 per cent in the water supply for irrigation of the project, the only shortage whicli would have occurred in the 29 years of record. No advantage is taken of the auxiliary water supply which might be derived from Coast Range streams crossed by the main canal, pumping from Avells, or utilization of return water. Power. Tlie assumed average monthly demand for power, in I)er cent ol' the annual demand, as sllo^vn on Plate 9, is based upon data furnished by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Sacra- mento Valley. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 73 According to the proposed plan, all water to satisfy prior rights and the project requirements becomes available for power development at Iron Canyon dam. Of the total reservoir capacity, 864,600 acre-feet are reserved for the purpose of creating a minimum static head of 115 feet at the dam, the maximum being 152.5 feet. Had a plant been in operation during the 29 years for which there is a record of run-off, the average amount of power gained by passing the project irrigation water tlirough the plant would have been 94,313,700 k.w.h. per year, ^dth 80 per cent efficiency at the switch- board. The total average annual output of the proposed Iron Canyon plant would have been 584,890,000 k.w.h. and the plant would have been in operation, at full capacity, an average of 53 per cent of the time. The proposed plan contemplates the diversion of 3640 second-feet of the prior rights water to be carried in the enlarged main project canal to IMooney Island Slough, 4.7 miles below the diversion dam, where 31 feet of static head may be developed. An average annual output of 59,333,000 k.w.h. would have been possible had a plant at this point been operated at 80 per cent efficiency during the 29-year period studied. The combined average annual gross output of the two plants, there- fore, would have been at the rate of 644,223,000 k.w.h., had they been in operation in connection with the proposed irrigation project under conditions of fidl development. Of this amount, about 60 per cent Avould have been primary power and 40 per cent secondary. In the estimates, the assumption is made that 90 per cent of the primary and 55 per cent of the secondary power could be sold at the switchboard to one of the distributing companies whose transmission lines pass within a few miles of the proposed plants. At 4 mills per k.w.h., the average annual revenue from the combined output of the two plants is estimated to be $1,963,400. Distribution system. It is assumed that 60 per cent of the lateral system, the larger pump canals, and all but the upper 4.7 miles of the main canal will ultimately be lined ; but the cost of lining the main canal might be deferred for several years, operating the canal during tlie early development of the project at about two-thirds of its capacity lined. Estimates are based upon the assumption that all structures are of the highest type of concrete and steel construction. Siphons to carry the canal under water courses will be an expensive item of construction because of their number and the shallowness of the channels, which are proportionately wide. Probably the most difficult problem presented is that of wasteways, for tlu^ reason that most of the water courses crossed are only shallow depressions which in many cases are cultivated. Tliere are no well- defined natural channels between miles 64 and 120, making it necessary to provide artificial waste channels. As the main canal parallels that of the Glenn-( 'olusa Irrigation District, means must be provided for carrying Avaste Avater from the Iron Canyon canal under the district canal. Project drainage. It is i)r()bable tluit none of the area north of Stony Creek, and tliat only a part of the area to the south will require drainage, but, in the absence of accurate classification of areas, 74 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. it is assumed that the cost will be distributed equally over the whole project. Perhaps 7o per cent of the cost of the drainage system could be deferred durinof the first few years of project operation. Cost analysis, assuming noninterest bearing- money. In all that follows, it is assumed that tliere Avill be a market for that portion of the power which, in the studies, is assumed to be salable. The demand for power is increasing rapidly and it is believed that, in normal development, the increase will continue. It is shown that the revenue from power, gained by raising the water surface in the storage reservoir, is more than sufficient to pay the cost of installing gates on the si)illway crests for that purpose. It is shown tliat the saving in excavation of the first 4.7 miles of main caiuil, made by building the diversion dam to raise the water surface 15 feet, is more than sufficient to pay the increased cost of the diversion dam. The saving is estimated at about $568,000. Building the diversion dam to raise the water surface 15 feet, results in a saving of about $20,000 jier year in pumping to the Red Bank unit, if it be assumed that power for tliat purpose is bought at $0.01 per k.w.h. The saving, effected by building the first 4.7 miles of main canal unlined, is shown as about $316,000. The power gained annually by passing the i)roject irrigation water through the ]K)wer plant at the storage dam, Avhich was not possible in the ])]an pi-oposed in former rejiorts, is estimated to be about 94,300,- 000 k.w.h. Project j^umping recfuires ] 8,900,000 k.w.h. The average annual surjilus is estimated at $166,000. The increased cost of construction to provide for development of power at JMooney Island Slough, is shown as about $1,591,000; but the net annual revenue derived from the sale of power generated at that i)lant, at 4 mills per k.w.h., is about $166,000, or over 10 i)er cent return on the investment. It is shown that the revenue to be derived from the sale of power would, after deducting oi)erating exj)ense, repay tlie construction cost of all power, storage and diversion features in 20 years ; and, in addi- tion, furnish a surplus which might be used to help repay the cost of the distribution system. The surplus is as follows : Sale price per k. w. h $0.0035 ?0.004 SO. 0045 $0,005 •SO 006 Annual surplus $2,987 S248.409 .5493,831 .S739.253 81,230,097 A — Estimated project cost, assuming noninterest hearing money, and repayment of construction cost in 20 years. Cost assessed against 95 per cent of the gross area tvithin the project. (a) Gross cost, neglecting revenue to be derived through the sale of power : Cost per acre. 263,055 acres 20 annual installments Total cost Constru'-tion Operation and maintenance Total ?56, 140,3 17 «213.41 $10.67 $3.00 $13.67 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 75 (b) Net cost, crediting the revenue from the sale of power to the project: Net construction repayments 20 annual installments Sale price of power per k. w. h. Total Per acre, 263.055 acres Construction Operation and maintenance Total 4 mills $23,123,582 IS.215,142 13.306,702 $87.90 69.24 50.59 $4.40 3 46 2.53 $3.00 3.00 3.00 $7.40 41^ mills 6.46 5 mills 5.53 (c) Comparison of net cost per acre, including 0. and M. charges on various project units: Project unit Whole project West side gravity Red Bank pump unit Pump units near Orland . . . Pum.p unit sjuth of Willows East side eravitv .\rca assessed in acres 263,055 I66.06O 37,.380 33,060 19,300 6.650 Annual repayment per acre after crediting power at rates per k. w. h. indicated 4 mills S7.40 6.30 9.17 10.26 0.59 4.19 4}-2 mills 86.46 5.36 8.23 9.32 8.65 3.25 5 mills S5.53 4.43 7.30 8.39 7.72 2.3? (d) Deferred charges. The charges which might be deferred by l)ostponing construction of 75 per cent of the project drainage system and the lining of the main canal, is estimated at $41.11 per acre, ecjuiva- lent to $2.06 ])er acre per year, which, considering the whole ])roject, would reduce the annual ])ayments during the first few years of project operation to the following : Net annual repayment per acre after deducting Sale price of power: deferred charges 4 mills per k. w. h So. 34 41 : mills p.r k. w. h 4 40 5 mills per k. w. h 3.47 B — Estimated project cost, assuming that the storage and power features are constructed irith interest hearing money, thus reduc- ing the amount cjf )ioninterest hearing moneg to that required in the construction of the balance of the project. Cost assessed against 95 per cent of the gross area within the project. Estimated cost of project $56,140,;n7 Estimated cost of Iron Canyon reservoir, power plant, and Mooney Island i)ower development 26,363,810 Estimated cost of canal, distribution and drainage systems, to be built with noninterest bearing money 29,776,507 In the i'ei)ort it is shown that ii])()n tlic assumption that construction of the Iron Canyon reservoir, i)Ower i)lant, and ]\Iooney Island power development would cover a period of five year.s ; that money would be available at 5 per cent interest, compounded semi-annually; that the cost Avould not exceed $20,363,810 ; and Ihat tiie Iron Canyon reservoir would be permitted to exercise a water riglit for generating power i)rior to any upstream reservoirs not yet constructed ; and that the net 76 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. revenue derived from the sale of power at 4 mills per k.w.h. would be applied in tlie repayment of construction costs; the entire indebtedness ($26,363,810) could be repaid in fifty-three years after beginning construction. Estimated co.st of the balance of the project: Cost per acre, 263,055 acres 20 annual installments Total cost Construction Operation and maintenance Total 829,776,507 Witli deferred cliarges deducted $n3.20 72.09 $5.66 3.60 S3. 00 3.00 $8.66 6.60 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 77 CONCLUSIONS. 1. There is need fur a supplementary water supply for the suecessful growing of most eroiis in 8aerament() Valley. 2. It is apparent that further irrigation (level()i)iuent in Sacramento Vallej' without storage facilities is not feasible. 3. The proposed Iron Canyon reservoir is so located that it may serve any part of the Sacramento Valley. Therefore, the selection of a project should be made only after studies of alternative areas have been completed. The project studied is planned with the idea of dis- tributing water stored in Iron Canyon reservoir over the nearest avail- able area on the west side of the valley. 4. The project studied is essentially a water conservation project, since in a dry year approximately 90 per cent of its water supply is drawn from storage. 5. The relatively high duty of water assumed in the studies is believed to be justified by the comparatively large rainfall, and by the fact that some crops have been raised in the vicinity of the proposed project for the past 50 years, or more, without irrigation. The duties assumed are based npon a fully developed project and are not to be expected on individual tracts during their development. 6. The question of prior rights and the possible outcome of an over- ruling of section 11 of the Water Commission Act, dealing with ripa- rian rights, is one for serious consideration in the study of any project in the Sacramento Valley. 7. Although during a low season, such as that of 1923-24, about 90 per cent of the project's supply would come from storage, the ade- quacy of the supply will depend upon decisions of the courts relative to the right of riparian owners to store flood waters by exercising their riparian rights, and upon wdiat action the federal government may take relative to the release of water for navigation on the Sacramento River. 8. On account of the long carriage system, without regulating reser- voirs along the line, the rotation system of irrigation is the most prac- ticable for adoption on the project studied. 9. Without power development as a means to repay the construc- tion cost, the project appears to be infeasible under present conditions, on account of its high initial cost. 10. Potential primar^^ power at the Iron Canyon plant should increase as additional reservoirs farther upstream are built in the process of normal irrigation and power development; provided, the Iron Canyon reservoir is permitted to exercise a water right prior to any upstream reservoirs not yet constructed. Indications are that the demand for power will continue to increase. 11. Estimates of cost are based upon present prices of material and labor. The effect of a change in the amount and value of power which it is assumed can be marketed is an important consideration. 12. It is probable that in the final location of the main canal to serve the area studied, adoption of canal sections and grades other than those used in the preliminary location would result in a saving in cost. 13. Floods for some distance below the storage dam could be reduced materially through skillful operation of the gates. Bearing in mind, however, that the use of the reservoir for flood control should i 78 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. be secondary to its primary use for storage of irrigation Avater and for power development, it is doubtful Avhether less precaution should be taken in maintaining protective works. Improper operation of the gates might, and in a dry season would, result in serious shortages in water to supply tlie re(iuirements of both irrigation and power develop- ment. Some of the dangers attendant upon an endeavor to use the reservoir for flood control are demonstrated in tlie report but conclu- sions as to the flood control values of the Iron Canyon reservoir are deferred until the completion of the general study b}^ the State of California on the control of floods by reservoirs. 14. Although it is evident that the construction and use of Iron Canyon reservoir in the manner proposed would be of no direct benefit to navigation on the Sacramento River, it is not apparent that the effect would be seriously detrimental. 15. By sacrificing the power feature at Iron Canyon dam, the reser- voir could be used to prevent the encroachment of salt water into the delta region. If the reservoir were used for this purpose, the water, which with the power feature included is reserved in dead storage to create power head, could be released during the critical period in the amount necessary to act as a natural barrier against the encroachment of salt water. Such use would benefit navigation to some extent, but would make the development of power infeasible, thus destroying the power value of the reservoir as a means of partially repaying the con- struction cost. 16. For several years, during the development of the irrigation project and power market, it might be practicable to utilize the reser- voir to the benefit of navigation and for the partial, if not complete, control of the salt water menace in the delta. RECOMMENDATION. If a large project in Sacramento Valley is considered feasible, and desirable, it is recommended that further investigations be made of other areas which might be served by Iron Canyon reservoir in order that a judicial selection of the area to be included within the project may be made. Several projects which may have merit are described in the report. Walker R. Young, Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. e le le •e % n 1- M im i' -T -Tl ]—[■ ITT tM'' '-^"-M. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 79 KEY TO PROJECT MAP— PLATE 2. TJie figures slunvn on llic left side of tlie map represent the avail- able jrross irri: unit, or thai under the gravity canal between points indicated by italics on tiie line of the l)roposed canal. Subtotals are slunvn at the Glenn-Colusa county line witli the idea that the narrow area south of tliere, miglit, in future studies, be replaced by other areas. Italics on the canal line indicate the points at which a change in canal cross-section is made. The designed capacities of the various fea- tures are a.s follows : Letter A B B B-C r C-U D D-K E-F F F-G G-H G-H H-I H-I H-I I I -J .1-K K-L L Feature East side canal diverting at Iron Canyon dam.. Intake gates at diversion dam Pumping plant Main canal Mooney Island power plant . . . . Main canal Pumping plant Main canal Main canal Pumping plant A:xi!iary pumping plant second lift Main canal Main canal Pumping plant Main canal Piimping plant Pumping plant Pumping plant Main canal Main canal Main canal End of main canal for project studied. Designed capacity, second-feet 87 ,000 371 .oi'S normal .640 normal ,869 .446 ,170 206 .51 .004 ,486 3.5 ,029 9 23 172 535 279 64 Cro«-sections of the canals, except that on the east side, are shown on Plate 25. — 1 78 i be SOI , powe I taken j •rates water ; meiit. reserA sions defer 1 ; Califc 14. ! Canyc j to na^ j ett'ect • 15. I voir c( ' delta ] j which 1 i create . ^ i amoun ,^ | of salt would power structii 16. ] project voir to control ;; If a desiral) otiier a that a . may be the repc DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 79 KEY TO PROJECT MAP— PLATE 2. The fijjures slunvn on Ihe left side of the iiiaji represent tlie avail- able tjross irri«rahle area Avithin a ])unii)iii per cent of the total gross area. = 97 per cent of the gross area, excluding town of Orland ;ind Stony Creek overtiow lands. Taking those certain .sections entirely included in irrigable area there are 10,345 acres irrigable in a gi'oss area of 10,781 acres, equiv- alent to ♦)6 per cent. High land, togetlier with canal and lateral rights of way, are deducted from the gi-oss area. County roads are included in irrigable area; state iiigliway is uot included. Canal .nid l.ilcr.il rights of way on i)roject 647 acres Koiuls Mild liighwjiys 053 acres I DEVELOPMENT OF Ul'I'EK SACRAMENTO RIVER. 87 TABLE 1. PORTION OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS THAT REQUIRE A WATER SUPPLY— VALLEY FLOORS, CALIFORNIA. (Bulletin No. 6, pp. 70, 71.) Ajiriculturai areas Gross area within the district boundaries Consolidated Irrigation District Fre?no Irrigation Distrirt .Merced Irrigation D'slrict Turlock Irriptiot District Modesto Irrigation District Orland Project, f. S. R. S Imperi-.il Irrigation District James Irrigation District Glenn-Colu.sa Irrigation District ; Jacinto Irriga- tion District: Provident: Compton-Delevan; Maxwell Irrigation District: Williams Irriga- tion District South San Joaquin Acres 1.51,500 215,20.5 190,000 178,665 81,18.3 26,597 603.840 27,260 167,685 71,11? Land that will not reiiuire water beine absolutely unfit for irrigation .\cres 3,000 9,730 10.000 9,100 7,183 4.823 88,840 5,260 18,400 11,000 Irrigable areas occupied bv improve- ments outside of population centers .\eres 7,425 11,770 9,400 8,900 3,700 1,800 25,750 1,100 7.400 7.112 Net area rcouiring a water supply Acres 141.075 193,70c 170,600 160,065 70,300 19,974 489,250 20,900 141,885 53.000 Kct area requiring a water supply in per cent of gross area 93 90 90 90 86 75 81 85 75 SOIL CLASSIFICATION. Studies made. The chief study of soil classification was to deter- mine the area.s within the proi)osed project suitable for rice culture, since the large amount of water required for this crop is an important consideration in balancing water supi)ly against i)roject area. A division of the lands within the proposed project into areas suitable for general crops, alfalfa and orchards, was not considered necessary for the reason that a large percentage of the soil, aside from that classed as rice land, is ada])table to any one of the other crops. The division will be intinenced by economic conditions and by the personal choice of the settlers more than by consideration of type of soil. In the study of rice areas use was made of bulletins i)ublis]ied by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, as follows: Soil Survey of tlie Red Bluff Area, California. Soil Survey of the Colusa Area, California. Soil Survey of the Woodland Area, Califoniia. The.se bulletins are summarized in tiie bulletin accom|)aiiyiiig this report as Appendix A,* in Avhich the classification used in the earlier detailed reports has been modified to some extent. Rice lands. In the .studies made, only clays, adobes and clay- adobes were considered as rice land; it being assumed that the large amount of water re(|uirod for this croj) b\' otiier soils would gradually cause their elimination froiii the area devoted to rice culture. The results of the studv are shown in the following table: * Not includeJ in printed report, to save .space. Copy c)n file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there. 88 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. TABLE 2. AREAS ASSUMED SUITABLE FOR RICE CULTURE. Within the Boundaries of the Proposed Iron Canyon Project. Hamilton. Orlaml . . . Walker rroek. Lvinan Jacinto. Kurand Logan Criek . Lopandalf. . . Sites. Delavan . Fairview . Williams. Wootiland area: Fairview Williams. . . . Spring Valley . Arbuckle Grimes . . Hcrshey . U. S. G. S. quadrangle sheet Red Bluff area: Vina Colusa area: Vina Soil Gross area .\ceumulated classification in acres area in acres Ka 1,1% 1,195 \c 200 1,395 Wa 1.020 2.415 Ssc 50 2,465 Nc 4.5 2,510 Wa 280 (20 acres irr.) 2.790 Wa 100 2,890 Nc 125 3,015 Wa 10.150 13,165 Wc 870 14,035 Nc /.) 14,110 Ssc 115 14,225 Wa 4,470 18,695 Wa 3,360 22,055 Wc 55 22,110 Wa 1.8,50 23,960 Wa 2,510 26,470 Nc 40 26,510 Wa 1,470 27,980 Wa 5,420 33,400 Wc 360 33.7()0 Nc 60 33,820 Wc 50 33,870 Wa 600 34,470 Wla 1.080 35,,')5n Wc 290 35,840 Wla 2,630 38,470 Wc 255 38,725 Wla 3,430 (70 acres irr.) 42,lc5 Wc 505 42,060 Wla G,795 49,455 Sea 200 49,6.55 Wla 280 49,935 Sea 600 50.535 Wla 896 51,431 Sea 1,100 52.531 Ka --Kirkwood silty clay adobe. Nc — Norman clay adobe. Wa — Willows clay a(tolK. Ssc — Sacramento silty clay. Wc — Willows clay. Wla — Willows clay adobe. Sea — Sacramento cluy adobe. Explanation of SollICIassification. DUTY OF WATER. Basis of assumed duty. The net duty of water assumed in the preparation of this report is based on a careful use of water under conditions of a fully developed project, with an efficient distribution system and well prepared land. The duty assumed is not to be expected in the early years of project oi)eration during the period of land leveling, soil reconstruction and development of farm water distribution facilities. The net duty used is slighlly higlier tlian that used in the 1920 re]»()ft on Iron Canyon ])rojecl, but it is believed that the higher duly is justified by the more recent data gathered by tlie State Dei)art- ment of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, in the preparation of tlie report to the legislature of 1923, on tlie Water i^csources of ("aiiforuia. Tlie duty of water used in the studies included herewith is that shown on ])agt' 62 of Bulletin No. 6 of the above report. In case of the duty for rice lands, data were sought DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 89 which could be applied to the particular soils within the project assumed to be suitable for rice culture. Tables 3 and 4 contain data extracted from paj^es 58 and 59 of the Proceedings of the Sacramento River Problems Conference. January 25 and 26, 1924, Avhich it is believed is applicable to the proposed Iron Canyon project. TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS OF DUTY OF WATER IN RICE IRRIGATION IN SACRAMENTO VALLEY, SEASONS OF 1916, 1917 AND 1918, GROUPED BY SOIL TYPES AND ARRANGED IN ORDER OF DEPTH OF WATER APPLIED. Net use under usual practice. Soil classification Cap"»y clay Willows clay adobe. . Willows clay Stockton clay adobe. Sicramento clay. ... Total or average Number of full season observations 2 7 7 12 4 32 Total area included in obervations, acres 355 8,477 5,057 2,877 4,653 21,419 .\verage net depth of water applictl, feet depth 3.94 4.22 5.08 5.13 5.72 4.86 .\verage area served during full season per cubic foot per second, acres 81 72 70 60 59 TABLE 4. RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS OF USE OF WATER ON E. L. ADAMS RICE FIELD, NEAR BIGGS, 1914-1917, AREA 39.5 ACRES; SOIL. STOCKTON CLAY ADOBE. Net use on small field undei the best practice, with soil fully adapted to rice, land well prepared, water completely under control, and water gra.ss kept in check. Full irrigation season Net depth of water apolied, feet .\verage area served per cubic foot per second, acres Yield per acre in sacks Period of submerge.nce \\Tio1p season* averaging Year From 100 pounds !er eent of net area ])lanted to fruit with a duty of 1.5 acre-feet per acre. Eiglity per cent of net area planted to alfalfa and general crops with a duty of 2.7 90 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. aere-feet per acre. On tliis basis tlie net duty on the gross area, exclu- sive of rice lands, is 2.1 acre-feet per acre. (c) On rice lands served by i)umi)in<>:. Duty same as for rice lands served by jrravity. (d) On lands served by punipinjr other than rice lands. Net area 85 per cent of j^ross area. Sixty i^er cent of net area i)lanted to fruit witli a duty of 1.5 acre-feet i)er acre. Forty pei- cent of net area jilanted to alfalfa and ' on the jrross area, exclusive of rice, is 1.7 acre-feet ))er acre. (e) On lands on east side of vaMcy ojjposite Red Blutf. Xet area 85 ])er cent of gross area. Duty of water. 3.0 acre-feet on the gross area, including transjiortation losses. Supporting data. As a check u])on the above assumptions, ]Mr. P^rank Adams, In-igation Investigations, United States Dei)artment of Agriculture and University of California, was requested to make an independent study of the ])roject. The results of ^Ir. Adams' investiga- tion is contained in his letter of Marcli :50. 1!)25, attached as Exliibit 7. He makes the following estimate of classification aiul net duty of water: Gravity si/sfei)) — Orchard aiul general crops 25'/f 1.5 acre-feet Alfalfa 457r 2.75 acre-feet Rice 809; 5.0 acre-feet PuiiipiiKj sjjsfcm — Orchard and general crops 50'/^ 1.5 acre-feet Alfalfa 409; 2.75 acre-feet Rice lO*:^ 5.0 acre-feet Excluding the 7000 acres on the east side of the valley opposite Red Bluff, which was not included in ]Mr. Adams' survey, the water required upon the basis of the duties and classification assumed in the report (exclusive of canal losses) is 5S9.770 acre-feet. Using the classifica- tion and net duty suggested by Mr. Adams, the net water reeneral field crojvs and orchaixls. ])ata for the Orland Project are given in Table "). TABLE 5. RELATION OF ACREAGE OF GENERAL FIELD CROPS TO ORCHARDS— ORLAND PROJECT— 1910 TO 1924. Total acreage irrigated General field crops Orchards Year Acreage irrigated Per cent of total Acreage irrigated Per cent of total 1910 703 2,663 4,230 6,616 7,354 8.928 9.357 12,927 14,764 15,203 13,872 14,697 15,119 15,500 11,962 503 2.390 3,878 5,877 6,362 7,426 7,355 10.592 12,060 12,007 10,781 11,121 11,167 10,907 7.742 71.4 89.8 91.7 88.8 86.5 83.2 78.6 82.0 81.7 79.0 77.7 75.7 73.9 70.4 64.6 200 273 352 739 992 1,502 2,002 2,335 2,704 3,196 3,091 3,576 3,952 4,593 4,220 28 6 1911 10.2 1912 8.3 1913 11.2 1914 13.5 1915 16 8 1916 21 4 1917 18.0 1918 18.3 1919 21.0 1920 22.3 1921 24.3 1922 26.1 1923 29.6 1924 . . . 35 3 The large percentage of 28.6 appearing in 1910 is due to the fact that there were several mature orchards, operated in i)revious years under dry farm methods, which constituted the orchard acreage for that year and which were not a direct result of the ])roject's con- struction. The i)ercentage of 35. o in 1924 is ex])lained by the abnormal drought conditions and water supply shortage which resulted in a less amount of orchard acreage than general crops being omitted from the irrigated area, because of the larger investment represented by the orchards. They were given ]n-eference over general crojis in the use of the limited water su])ply available. It is readily conceivable that a higher percentage tiiaii 'VA\ for orchards may be expected on the Orland project, and in comparison, it would a))pear that the assum]ition of 20 ])er cent of the net area of the Iron Canyon project gravity lands, exclusive of rice lands, planted to orchards is somewhat low. However, the assumption, if in error, is on the safe side considering water suii])ly and would tend to oifset any error resulting from the assumption that (50 per cent of the net area exclusive of rice lands under pumping will be planted to orchards. The higher ])ercentage assumed in orchard under pumjung is ]iredicated upon the assum))tion that in general there is less danger of frost on the highei- bench lands than on lands under the gravity canal. A comparatively high duty of water is almost certain to result ultimately in the Sacramento and San Joacpiin valleys for tiie i-eason that there is a very large ai'ea of highly desirable land in these valleys with a limited water sui)[)l>'. Maiiagei-s of ii-rigation sy.stems have been very active in making the Avater go as far as possible and in 92 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. several eases hydrograpliers have been employed to investigate, and report, any preventable waste. Comparison with other projects. Table 6 may be convenient in comparing the proposed Iron Canyon project with other well-known projects. The average net dnty of 2.58 acre-feet, resulting from the assumptions made, is somewhat lower than tlie desired net duty of 2.25 acre-feet per acre given on pages 29 and 63 of State Bulletin No. 6. Upon the other hand, tlie duty is higher than that of 3.00 acre-feet per acre obtaining on the Orland project. The Orland project is hardly a criterion for the Iron Canj-on project, since the former is situated upon the gravelly cone of Stony Creek and the soil, in gen- eral, is more porous than that included within the Iron Canyon project. In Table 8 the net duty on the irrigable area within the gravity portion of the proposed project is sliown to be 2.79 acre-feet per acre. This compares with 2.75 acre-feet adopted in the 1920 report, in which a project served entirely by gravity is considered. The net duty on the total irrigable pumping area is 2.17 acre-feet per acre, the higher duty being explained by the fact that a larger percentage of the pump- ing areas is assumed to be planted to orchards than in the lower areas served by gravit3^ Rainfall. In comparing the Iron Canyon project with others, the comparatively high rainfall in the locality of the project should be considered. Although the rains occur largely in the nonirrigating season, they would have considerable effect in reducing the necessary supplementary supply of water. The mean seasonal rainfall in the upper Sacramento Valley, in the vicinity of the proposed project, is given in Table 7. TABLE 7. MEAN SEASONAL RAINFALL— UPPER SACRAMENTO VALLEY IN VICINITY OF IRON CANYON PROJECT. Rainy season usually bogins in November and ends in .\pril or May, witli pr.ictically no rain during the summer months. Station *Meau seasonal rainfall, inches Red Bluff Tehama.. Willows. . Orland... Corning. . Chico.... Colusa. . . Duunigan 25.19 20.5.3 16.65 18.02 20. 5S 23.78 16.12 20.27 *ix'ason i-' from .Inly 1 to June 30. Records include the season 1920-21. Project development. The development of the project Avill prob- ably he gradual for two reas(tns: first, the area within the project is large, and, second, the fact that mucli of the land has, with some .suc- cess, been dry farmed to grain in large tracts can not be overlooked, and old settlers will probablx' not be easily convinced that irrigation on smaller tracts would be as easy, or profitable. Studies of irrigation development in California, recently completed by the Irrigation Sec- tion of the Commonwealth Club, show that in 1921: tlie area actually DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 93 irrigation California was 76.5 por ceiiL ol' that lor wlui'li constrnc'ted. The relation for Bureau of Reclamation hown to be 75 per cent, and it is said that in j^^eneral . rioV/U 06. • TABLE 6. WATER REQUIREMENTS ON IRRIGATION PROJECTS. Data on Federal Projects from Reports by Projects and Correspondence Relative Thereto. Data for Other Projects from Bulletin 6, California Department of Public Works. (Compilation by Hydrographic Section, Denver Office, Bureau of Reclamation.) Project Average elevatioD above aea level Length of irrigation days Average annual precipita- tion in inchea Years uaed in arriving at use of irrigation water Average annual delivery of irrigation water at the farm in acre.feet per acre Average precipita- tion in growing season in feet Total water applied in growing season, acre-feet per acre Principal crops ranked by relative acreage Maximum delivery of irrigation water in one month, acre-feet per acre United States reclamation projects': Sun River, Montana iFt. Shaw Division) Huntley, Montana Lower Yellowstone, Montana Shoshone, Wyoming 'Garland Division). . Klamath. Califorma-Oregon Okanogan. Washington Vakinia, Tieton, Washington North Plate, Nebraska-Wyoming Minidoka (gravity), Idaho Minidoka (pumping). Idaho N'ewlands (Carson), Nevada Boise, Idaho Umatilla, Oregon Yakima, Sutmyslde. Washington Uacompahgre. Colorado Orand VaUey. Colorado Rio Grande, Te::aa-New Mexico Carslbad, New .Mexico Salt River, Arizona Yuma, Arizona-California Orland, California Private projects: Durham Stat* Land Colony, California . . Lob MolinoE Land Company, California. . ModesU. Irrigation District, California. . . R iverside Wat^r Company, California Imperial Irrigation District, California . . . Pro[)osed Iron Canyon, (California Sandy loam, cby and alluvium Sandy loam and clay Sandy loam Sandy loam and clay Disintegrated basalt, volcanic ash. . . . Volcanic ash, sand and gravel Volcanic ash, decomposed basalt Sandy and clay loams Sandy and clay loams Volcanic ash , Sandy, sandy loam, clay, volcanic aah. Sandy and clay loams Sandy and sandy loam Volcanic ash, decomposed basalt Sandy gravel, clay and clay loam Sandy loam and clay Alluvium and sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Rich alluviiun Sandy, silt and clay loams Sandy and clay loams Sandy loam and river silt Sandy and clay loams Sandy loam and clay Sandy loam and clay Sandy loam, alluvium clay 3,700 3,000 1,900 4,500 4,100 1,000 1,700 4.100 4,200 4,200 4,000 2,600 470 700 5,500 4,700 3,700 3,100 1,200 100 250 160 200 100 850 —100 323 163 153 163 165 168 153 164 183 183 183 198 200 210 214 214 214 363 365 267 275 275 273 365 365 267 10.9 13,1 14.9 5.6 12.7 11.5 8.1 14.7 11.8 11.8 4.6 13.7 7.9 6.5 9.6 8.3 10.0 14.4 8.4 3.6 18.4 24.5 20.1 10.2 10.7 3 20.1 1914-23, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1914-17, 1921-23, inc. 191fi-24, inc. IS14-23, inc, 1013-22, inc. 1914-23, inc, 1914-23, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1913-24, inc. 1916-24, inc. 1914-23, inc. 1917-24, inc, 1919-23, inc, 1914-23, inc. 1913-20, inc. 1914-23. inc, 1917-19 , 1921-23, inc. 1920 1916-21, inc. 1914-19», inc. 1908-14, 1918 1916-21, inc. 1.33 1.25 1.36 2.55 1.45 2.61 2.58 2,14 4.13 2.48 3.00 3.61 5.53 3.42 0.23 3.87 3.23 2.62 2.82 3.82 3.17 2.70 4.20 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.58 '.85 •.37 '.27 '1.09 •.31 ■.59 ■.24 ■.38 '.36 '.21 ■.68 '.45 '.57 '1.08 '.70 '.30 '.30 '1.08 '.70 '.38 '.90 '.23 '.85 2.29 2.07 2.21 2.92 1.72 3.07 2.74 3.23 4.64 3.07 3.24 3.99 5.89 3.63 6.81 4.32 3.80 3.70 3.52 4.12 3.67 3.78 4.90 2.98 3.90 3.23 3.43 grain grain, beets grain, beets grain, beets, potatoes. . grain, vegetables alfalfa, fruit apples, grain, potatoes, grain, beets, potatoes. . grain, beets, potatoes. . grain, beets, potatoes. . grain grain, potatoes, fruit. . . ruit. Alfalfa, .Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Apples, Alfalfa, Alfalfa. Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Alfalfa. Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Cotton, Cotton, Cotton, Cotton, .Utalfa, Alfalfa, fruit Alfalfa, fruit Alfalfa, fruit, corn, beets, melons, beans. . . Fruit, alfalfa, vegetables Alfalfa, grain, cotton, vegetables, fruit. ... .Alfalfa, grain, fruit, nuts, rice, vegetables. . apples, grain, potatoes grain, potatoes, beets beets, grain alfalfa, grain, vegetables, fruit. . alfalfa alfalfa, gram, vegetables, fruit. . alfalfa, grain fruit .82 .70 .47 .81 .58 .80 .90 1.50 .65 1.34 .50 .37 .70 .70 1.04 .50 .45 .40 .57 'For federal projects the quoted delivery to farms is the amount of water charged to the water user plus allowance for undermeasurement of water from estimate by project superintendent, such allowance averaging alwut 10 per cent. ' April to September, inclusive. ■ April to October, inclusive. ' March to October, inclusive. ' February to November, inclusive. » .Ml year. • February to October, inclusive. ' Average of February-October, inclusive, at Red BluB, Tehama, Willows, Orland, Corning, Colu.sa and Dunnigan. ■ Includes years of inadequate supply for lack of storage. 50667 — pages 92-93 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 93 irrigated in California was 7(i.o i)er coiit of that for wliicli irrigation works were eonstrut'ted. Tlie relation for liureau of Reelaaiation projects is sliown to be To per cent, and it is said that in general 70 per cent utilization is reached in about 35 years under normal development. It is believed that the gradual development anticipated for the Iron Canyon project will give opportunity for the attainment of a compara- tively high duty of water, since the lands coming into the i)roject in its early development Avill have become ada])ted to a high duty long before the project is fully developed. Gradual develoi)ment should not be detrimental to the economic feasibility of the project, as the storage dam, diversion dam and power features, should be self-support- ing through the development and sale of power; and in the construction of the canal system the concrete lining, and much of the drainage works, can be deferred so that the co.st of the ultimate project need not be incurred in tlie early stage of development. Water requirements. The water assumed to be required by the project is sliown in Table 8. EXPLANATION OF TABLE 8. Column 1, Tabulation of the gross irrigable areas, less one-half the areas now under irrigation under the proposed gravity lines to Sta. 3674-1-00. There is very .small amount of irrigated area below this point and it is as.sumed that practically all this will come into the project. No deductions were made for irrigated lands under proposed pumping units. See Plate 2. Column 2, Tabulation of the gross areas classified as rice lands. Column 3, Tabulation of one-half the irrigated areas to Sta. 3674-f 00 which were deducted from the gross irrigable area. Column 4, Tabulation of the net areas based on 85% of the gross areas Included in the project. Column 5, Tabulation of net acre-feet duty on gross areas based on 3.2 acre-feet per acre for rice lands and 2.1 acre-feet per acre for other lands under gravity and 1.7 acre-feet per acre for other lands under pumping areas. Column 6, Tabulation of net duties in second-feet at peak period in July, based on 22% of the seasonal supply delivered during the month, and 15% of average daily flow added to average for peak flow. Refer to Table 10. Columns 7 and 8, Tabulation of losses in carriage for the several sections. The second-feet losses were determined by allowing 0.3 of a foot depth over the wetted area for 24 hours at peak period. The acre-feet tabulations are obtained by assuming that the loss at peak period is 115% of average daily loss for July and that the loss thus obtained for the month is 22% of the total loss. Column 9, Tabulation of acre-feet loss in distribution based on 20% under gravity, 25% for the large pumping areas, and 15% for the small pumping areas, of 3200 A, 930 A and 1458 A. The losses for pumping areas include loss for carriage. Column 10, Tabulation of second-feet losses at peak period. Column 11, Total water requirement including all losses. Column 12, Water requirement in second-feet at peak period. It is assumed that the main canal and 60% of the distribution system will ultimately be lined and the quantities shown in the table are based upon the fully developed project. 92 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. several cases hydrographers have been employed to investigate, and report, any preventable waste. Comparison with other projects. Table 6 may be convenient m comparinu" tlip m'nr.Ae.ori t — /^^ n iWwl** irtJ-oJ borate ™**'" 1 • . . . , .f Tr'irir: t/XXV> C«-L V ti \wiiiiii lue project is large, and, second, tlie fact that mnch of the land lias, with some suc- cess, been dry farmed to grain in largo tracts can not be overlooked, and old settlers will probably not be easily convinced that irrigation on smaller tracts would be as easy, or profitable. Studies of irrigation development in California, recently comiileted by the Irrigation Sec- tion of the Commonwealth Club, show that in 1924 the area actually f DEVELOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 93 irrigated in California was 76.5 j)or cont of that for whieli irriyalion works were constructed. The relation for Bureau of Reclamation projects is shown to be 75 per cent, and it is said that in general 70 per cent utilization is reached in about 35 years under normal development. It is believed that the gradual development anticipated for the Iron Canyon project will give opportunity for the attainment of a compara- tively high duty of water, since the lands coming into the project in its early development will have become adapted to a high duty long before the project is fully developed. Gradual development should not be detrimental to the economic feasibility of the project, as the storage dam, diversion dam and power features, should be self-support- ing through the development and sale of pow' er ; and in the construction of the canal system the concrete lining, and much of the drainage Avorks, can be deferred so that the cost of the ultimate project need not be incurred in the early stage of development. Water requirements. The water assumed to be required by the project is show'n in Table 8. EXPLANATION OF TABLE 8. Column 1, Tabulation of the gross irrigable areas, less one-half the areas now under irrigation under the proposed gravity lines to Sta. 3674-|-00. There is very small amount of irrigated area below this point and it is assumed that practically all this will come into the project. No deductions were made for irrigated lands under proposed pumping units. See Plate 2. Column 2, Tabulation of the gross areas classified as rice lands. Column 3, Tabulation of one-half the irrigated areas to Sta. 3674 + 00 which were deducted from the gross irrigable area. Column 4, Tabulation of the net areas based on 85% of the gross areas included in the project. Column 5, Tabulation of net acre-feet duty on gross areas based on 3.2 acre-feet per acre for rice lands and 2.1 acre-feet per acre for other lands under gravity and 1.7 acre-feet per acre for other lands under pumping areas. Column 6, Tabulation of net duties in second-feet at peak period in July, based on 22% of the seasonal supply delivered during the month, and 15% of average daily flow added to average for peak flow. Refer to Table 10. Columns 7 and 8, Tabulation of losses in carriage for the several sections. The second-feet losses were determined by allowing 0.3 of a foot depth over the wetted area for 24 hours at peak period. The acre-feet tabulations are obtained by assuming that the loss at peak period is 115% of average daily loss for July and that the loss thus obtained for the month is 22% of the total loss. Column 9, Tabulation of acre-feet loss in distribution based on 20% under gravity, 25% for the large pumping areas, and 15% for the small pumping areas, of 3200 A, 930 A and 145 8 A. The losses for pumping areas include loss for carriage. Column 10, Tabulation of second-feet losses at peak period. Column 11, Total water requirement including all losses. Column 12, Water requirement in second-feet at peak period. It is assumed that the main canal and 60% of the distribution system will ultimately be lined and the quantities shown in the table are based upon the fully developed project. 94 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. C/3 H Z a; o z o I— I H H o CL, c/5 OS H Q 00 S OQ o g.s ■^5CCiOc;f»f^»cccO O r- •— > CC *C es C-l 00 ^ :£: c: -rj CO »c c. C O c-1 !?■) ■^ ^r 'M — c^t I- re o ^7 •* T}-' CI V^ U5 cfl ; CI c-j ^- »c ^- re cc 1 oi c- ec Li -^j- I c^ ce o o o c-i *r o ifi oooc^-oceco iO « ic "^ cr- ^- CI to CC »C C: ^_ CJ CC OO ^_ Oi CI r^' cj i--' o O C>J " — ^ -OO I ooooiCoocc»ft'^:o ^fCCC-TfCCOO^CliOO ^OOOCiOOC-lO^l^eCiC 1— — (TC rc M — ^ CJ "^ ifi ^- C-1 c 00 00 ce o I— c: c; r - c". »fr re ^- c-i oi«o»coooooo 000005DO ot-c-irrc-ice-^oo^ce r-coicicceccooce^-ce i.e o c; «c 00 »c 00 — ' tC CJ — »C tC C?! :c OO ce re I-- ^ ce O 05 ■ r; to ocece— i^cec;r^'«»o iOOCOC;:CO»COI--'— ' Oi c c; — _ -^^ ce to d^ t-._ oo_ ic oo' oo' r^' »rr o ci' »c d' tjT O d lO t^»ooo — ■* 00 CM ITS O O O iC C- 00 r^ »r; »C O O C". OO ■^ I— C: CJ c: ce ^H ■-*• "^ ^- l>. I- c — ceoo>— ■ :c »c ci -^__ :J:^ re_ r-- Tf 1-h' ^ ^ ci' ce "^' r-' o o o c: 00 00 o oc o ^r »c — ».e ■^ '■»■ :C I- Cl ■— - "" o^ceocjo^CkC»o 0»^tCi:DcCOO»C»r^C^5D o c^ cj t- 05 ^- ce CI o CO t— * ^ c» ce' ci c; '-' CD *r>' ic CM c 0+++++ O m h- -^ CD >0 _i Tf o r^ t^ CM ~r o -^ cC Oi r- »f^ CI CM ce ^r «o o — ++ ot~. CD ^f o ec CD«0 p o c o o = c c ^ o o c o o o p^ ic ^ C r; >^ ;i5 i^ -3 d COtf5«Ot^Tj*CO»£5'''® + r^050t^^-c^c^co •^ rj a « C3 rt C5 e^ t£ bc ex bc e^ b£ E-. c. £ = = £ = £ = .c e- o ■ a o o GO " cS c ^ Oao 22 — ° £ « > a =« £ 2 2 o rt at "• •nasi I""- V c ^ „ CJ -^ Gj O O J= -C -^ ° c c c >. o c o -r 3 3 3 CD — -r; "O C ♦- ♦J -*J li: C O CJ ozzz DEVELOPMENT OF TPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 95 CANAL LOSSES AND WASTE. Transportation losses. In calcuhitiiiy transportation losses it was assumed that in eoneretc-lincd sections tlie loss would be a1 the rate of 0.3-foot deptli in 24 hours over the entire wetted surface of the canal, while in uuliiicd s(>cti()iis tlie rate of loss was assumed as 1.5 feet ])er 24 hour.s. Waste. In ji'encral, waste may be attributed to one or more of four principal causes: leaky structures; waste by the farmer at the end of his lateral; canal breaks; and waste from operation. The type of construction contemplated would insure com])aratively tight structures and few bi'eaks. Farm waste will be at the expense of the water user and will, therefore, be held to a minimum. Project waste, althou<;h to some extent unavoidable, would, in time of draft on storage, be held to the minimum necessary to convey the project water supply and to comply with the state's avowed policy of efficient use of its waters. The following- is a paragraph copied from "Bulletin No. 4, Proceed- ings of the Second Sacramento-San Joaijuin River Problems Confer- ence, and Water Sui)ervisor's Rei)ort, 1924:" Early in June, letters to all water users on the Sar-ramento River above Sacramento were sent out. announcing the establishment and purpose of the water supervisor's office. i)resenting the critical water situation and warn- ing that where waste shcmld be found on any project it would be neces.sary that the diversion of such project be reduced by the amount of such waste. Disposition of waste water. A large percentage of any waste from the Iron Canyon i)roject would reach the Colusa Basin to be carried through the main drainage ditch through the basin to Knights Landing, south of the southern extremity of the ])ro])osed jn'oject, where it can not enter the river by gravity until the low water stage. (Refer to Knights Landing pum]) line ]ihotogra])hs.)* Prior to this time it would be carried on down the Yolo By-pass into the delta region. Thus, return water from the Iron Canyon ])rojeet below Stony Creek will not reach the river, from which it could be diverted for use in the Sacramento Valley, exce])t in the delta region below Knights Landing. It would, however, become available for use in the by-)iasses or for transfer to the San Joaquin Valley if such transfer is desirable. Irrigation method. On account of the long carriage system for the proposed project, without any regidating reservoii's along the line, it appears imi)erative that the rotation system of ii-rigation be ado])ted. If this is done there would probably be no necessity for including a factor for waste, as such, since a very generous allowance has been nmde in designing the canal sections, as exi)lained later. Canal designed for irrigation peak. It is (piite common ]n-actice to increase the carrying cai)acity of the main canal by about 10 per cent over the average daily demand foi- the month of nmximum demand to allow for the irrigation peak. In localities whei-e the growth of moss and other vegetation in irrigation canals is ])revalent, as is the case in the Sacramento Valley, diffictdty is often exi)erienced in main- taining a flow that will meet the demands, a.s the growth of vegetation * Not includt-d in printed i-cport. Films on file in office of the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C. 96 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. has reaclu'd its maxiiiiuni at the time of maxiiuuin demand for both water and labor. In an endeavor to alleviate this eondition, and in order that the maintenance cost of the canals might be kept down, the canal sections have been desi<>-ned with a i)eak capacity of 15 per cent above the daily averajjje for the month of July, assumino- a friction factor of 0.015 for concrete-lined canals. It was not considered neces- sary to provide for waste during the ii-rigation peak, which usually only lasts from ten days to two weeks. Data for the Orland project nidicates that there has been practically no waste on that i)roject during the past eight years in the months of July and August, when the demand for water is at a maximum. WATER SUPPLY, Source. The source of water for use on the proposed project is the Sacramento lliver and its tributaries entering the river above the city of Red Bluff. Run-off. Table 9 is extracted from Table 46 appearing on page 191 of Bulletin No. 5, published by the California State Division of Engineering and Irrigation in 1923 : TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RUN-OFF OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AT RED BLUFF GAGING STATION, 1871 TO 1921. Drainage Area, 9258 Square Miles. Season begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. Estimated tun-oft' in acre-feet Depth in inches Acre-feet per square mile Season Mean seasonal Maximum seasonal Minimum seasonal Mean during July Maximum during July. . . Minimum during July. . . Mean during August. . . . Maximum during August Minimum during August, P,029,000 22,700,000 4,068,800 397,200 008,000 175,t)00 337,000 771,800 149,300 20.10 46.00 8.20 0.80 1.80 0.40 0.70 l.fiO 0.30 1,072 2,452 439 43 98 19 36 83 16 1889-1890 1919-1920 1889-1890 1874-1875 1889-1890 1874-1875 Prior to May 1, 1895, the discharge Avas estimated. From May 1, 1895, to February 1, 1902, the discharge was measured at Jelly's Ferry, 12 miles above Red Bluff, drainage area 9093 square miles. From Februaiy 1, 1902, to date the discharge has been measured at the United States Geological Survey gaging station about 4^ miles above Red Bluff and one-half mile above the site of the proposed Iron (-anyon dam. The rating curve is shown on Plate 5. In Table 9 the discharge at the two points of measurements is assumed to be the same since the tributary area between them is not productive of appreci- able run-off. The run-off estimated in Table 9 is the total from the drainage area. The discharges as measured at the gaging stations, subsequent to 1895, are somewhat less than the estimated total run-off as the former has been adjusted to take account of storage and irrigation above the points of measurement. As shown in Bulletin No. 5, upstream storage DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 97 has increased until in 1921 it uiuounteil to 121,900 acre-feet. Irrigation had increased to 161,000 acres in 1920-21. In the season 1919-20, in which the niinimuni seasonal run-oft" np to that time occurred, the measured discharge at Eod BIulT <;a on behalf of the Iron Canyon project are as folh)ws : Application No. 1279 filed by W. A. Board for tho Iron Canyon I'rojcct Association May 10, 1911). Asks for 2500 cubic feet per second from March 1st to November 30th and for 775,100 acre-feet per annum between November 30th and May 1st, all for agricultural purposes, to be used on approximately 284,000 acres of land in Sacramento Valley in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Butte counties. 7—50667 98 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Applu-atioii No. 1280 lilfd in the saino iiiune ami the same day fur power imrposi's. AsUs for (J(K)() .srcoiid-feet direct diversion from .January 1st to I^ecemlicr .">lst and for 77"), 100 acre-fi'et to Iir colh-cted lietween November 3(lth and May 1st of eacli season. Prior rights. Exliibit 8 coiitaius extracts from a paper read by Mr. p]dward Hyatt, Jr., Chief of Division of Water Rights, California State Department of Public Works, before the Fifth Annual Conven- tion of the California Section of the American Waterworks Association at Sacramento on October 24, 1924, and at a gathering of persons interested in the Iron Canyon project at Red Bluff, on October 25, 1924. It is believed that the extracts cover the subject of water rights and uses in the Sacramento Valle}- quite clearly and authoritatively. Future projects in the Sacramento \'alley, depending upon the natural flow of the river for their irrigation water, are iufeasible. Even with provision made for storage of the winter flood waters, any study of a new project must take into consideration prior riglits which may be granted through an overriding oi: section 11 of the Water Commission Act, and of the action which the federal government may take relative to the -release of water for navigation. There is no assurance that the outcome of the situation will be favorable to new projects but there is reason to believe tluit the solution will be along rational lines. In a paper read at the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Conference in December, 1924, U. S. Grant 3d, Major, Corps of Engi- neers, U. S. Arm3% District Engineer, Second District, stated that measurements made during the summer of 1924 show that from 3500 to 4000 second-feet are needed in the river to maintain navigation (above Sacramento) on an economic basis. It is imperative tiiat navigation of the Sacramento River be main- tained. If the proposed salt water barrier below the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is constructed, w^ater required for its operation will probably be much less tlian 3500 second-feet. There is, in the two valleys, an incentive toward conservation of water since the potential value of the lands to be deprived of irrigation water to supply the needs of navigation in the amount suggested by Major Grant will, in time, be of economic importance, and it seems possible that navigation of the river could be provided for in some other way. In any event, the Iron Canyon project would not be aft'ectcd material!}', unless court decisions .should upliold tlie claim of riparian users relative to the use of flood waters, since, in a low year about 90 per cent of the seasons' supply would come from storage. If the courts liold tliat riparian (nvncrs can store water in reservoirs by reason of tlieir riparian rights it will effectually destroy tlie value of appropriative rights. This question is now before the Supreme Court for decision in the case of Hcr»iivfihousr vs. Southern California Edison Co. The Nebraska court liolds tluit as tlie right of a riparian proprietor to the use of water of a .stream is an integral part of the land, it is witliin the constitutional guaranties of private property and can not be taken awav bv an act of the legislature, (lark vs. Cambridge etc. Co., 45 Xeb. 798 \ 64 X. W. 239. The Supreme Court of South Dakota, in a much later case, said in St. Germain Irr. Co. vs. Hawthorn Bitch Company, 32 S. Dak. 260 ; 143 N. W. 124 : DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 99 A riparian wator rij;lil L-aii imt In' IdsI, 1).\ disuse, aiul a slaliilc iimvidiiig tiiat when a party entitled to tiie iise of water fails to use all m- any portion of the waters claimed by him for a period of three years, such unused waters shall I'evert to the i)ul)lic, is void as to a rii)arian owner as deprlvin}; him of vested rigiits, though v.ilid ;is to one claiming only hy appropriation. Amount of water assumed to supply prior rights. On page 46 of the proceedings of the Sacramento River Problems Conference, held at Sacramento, January 25 and 26, 1924, .Mr. Donald Baker of tlie Division of Water Kights states: It will be seen that there are at present existing rights upon the river above the delta, which would probably be confirmed in any adjudication thereof, totaling approximately .">()00 second-feet. Approval of and confirma- tion of beneficial use under unapproved pending applications in this section of the river would increase this to oGtK) second-feet, and should the owners of unused riparian rights be allowed to exercise same in the future through an overruling of section 11 of the Water Commission Act by the Supreme Court, this might be increased to 7000-8000 second-feet, depending upon the duty allowed riparian (jwners. In tlu' table at the bottom of page 46 of the report referred to above, the flow for July, 1916, assumed to be an average year, is 6680 second- feet. Taking the average July flow for all years of record prior to 1922, however, the quantity is found to be 5790 second-feet; and if tlie period be extended to include July, 1924, the average will be found to be 5580 second-feet. The average flow for July, 1924, was 2870 second-feet, the minimum being 2800 second-feet. An assumed average July flow of 6000 second-feet to supply prior rights below the proposed Iron Canyon reservoir appears to be fair and on the side of safety considering availability of water for use on the Iron Canyon project. Assuming that the monthly distribution of water to supply prior rights is identical with that shown in Table 10 for the Iron Canyon project, and further that the discharge to supply prior rights is at the rate of 6000 second-feet in July, the total seasonal allowance to supply prior rights is found to be 1,677,000 acre-feet distributed as shown in Table 11. TABLE 11. ASSUMED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF WATER TO SUPPLY PRIOR RIGHTS. Provided that the free flow of the river above Iron Canyon dam is oijual to or greater than the amounts shown. Month .January. February Mareh . . .\rril.... May. . . . .June. . . . .\cro-feet Second-feet 16.770 8.'5,8.50 208,.320 3.35,400 273 1.364 4.364 .5,45.") Month July .\ugiist ... September October. . November December . Acre-feet Second-feet 368.940 335,400 201.240 67,080 6,000 5,455 3,273 1,091 Actually, there have been only six years of the 29 of record when the above supply would have been available. During 21} years there woidd have been shortages in August ; 19 with shortages in July and August; 5 shortages in June, July and Augu.st; and in 1928-24 .short- ages would have occurred from May to September, inclusive. The average July flow of 5580 second-feet lias been equaled, or exceeded, 100 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. in l'\ of the 29 years while tlic 6000 second-feet assumed in the studies has been equaled, or exceeded, durinji: oidy 10 of the 21) years of record. Relation of run-off and assumed irrigation requirements. The run- otf of the Sacramento Kiver at tlie United States CJeolof^ical Survey gag- ing station above Red Bluif for an average year ; for a low year ; and for the lowest year of record is shown graphically on Plate 7. The require- ments of prior rights according to the distribution shown in Table 11, and of the Iron Canyon project according to the assumi)tions made in the study of duty of water, distributed as shown in Table 10, are shown by liatched areas. It will be noted that in an average year the natural run-off is sufficient to supply the assumed prior rights with the excep- tion of a small deficiency in August. Storage of winter flood water is necessary to supply the Iron Canyon project. In the season 1919-20 the run-off, without storage, would not have fully supplied prior rights from June to August, inclusive, and in the season 1923-24 the supply for prior rights, without storage, was deficient from May to September, inclusive. By comparing the run-off and total assumed demands for 1923-24, as represented by tlie respective areas on the diagram, it will be seen that the supply would have satisfied the assumed demands, the former being 2,972,000 acre-feet and the latter 2,477,000. However, storage Avould have been necessary both for the Iron Canyon project and to supply prior rights, and storage would have introduced a diminished irrigation supply by reason of evaporation losses from the reservoir. There was a shortage of irrigation water in 1920 and again in 1924. It will be recalled tliat in July, 1924, the discharge at Red Bluff dropped to 2800 second-feet and, according to the assumptions made in the studies of water supply, the flow to supply prior rights would not be increased through the construction of Iron Canyon reser- voir, to a quantity greater than the natural flow of the river. It is apparent that in years of low run-oft' the water supply for Sacramento Vallej" under present conditions is deficient. The situa- tion would become more serious should section 11 of the Water Com- mission Act be overruled, or should the federal government insist upon the release of water for navigation. The situation would be relieved through the construction of large holdover reservoirs above Red Bluff, providing rulings regarding riparian rights did not interfere with storage in such reservoirs. Evaporation from reservoir. Tlie net loss of water by evaporation from the reservoir is approximately 10 per cent of the amount available for irrigation, if the lower portion of the reservoir is reserved to main- tain head for power purposes. While there are many records of evaporation from pans, very little data have been gathered to determine the relation between pan measui-omeTits and the true loss from lake sur- faces. On pages 61-63, Bulletin No. !). 1920, "Water Resources of Kern River," published by the California State Department of Engineering, are given the results of measurements of pan and lake surface evapora- tion at Buena Vista Lake, and of lake surface evaporation at Tulare Lake. On page 79 of the report on the San Jacinto River Il.vdro- graphic Investigation, 1922, by the California State Division of Water Rights, the results of observations at Lake Elsinore are given. The results of these measurements are given in Table 12. The quantities are DEVELOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 101 in feet and represent tlic tolal or jjross evaporation, wliicli, to obtain the net loss, would be redneod 1)\' llic depth of rainfall. They represent the average at Tulare Lake, six-year avci-age at Lake Elsinore, the year 1920 at Buena Vista, and a lo-year average at East Park reservoir. In Ihe last column the gross amount that was used in the studies of the Iron Canyon water supply is shown. TABLE 12. EVAPORATION FROM RESERVOIR. Quantities shown represent gross evaporation in feet. Lake Elsinore Buena Vista Lake Tulare Lake East Park reservoir Used in Iron Canyon studies Month Floating pan '80 per cent of observa- tion pan October .45 .30 .20 .15 .05 .25 .40 .45 .50 .()0 .60 .55 .38 .16 .09 .12 .16 .18 .42 .62 .6.3 .62 .58 .59 .30 .20 .10 .12 .13 .25 .30 .50 .70 .80 .60 .60 .37 .20 .13 .09 .14 .23 .40 .61 .69 .88 .82 .61 .30 .16 .10 .08 .11 .18 ..32 .49 .55 .71 .65 .49 .34 November .18 December .095 Januarj' .12 February .145 March .215 April .36 May ..56 June .665 July .74 August .59 September .595 Totals 4.50 4.55 4.60 5.17 4.14 4.605 'Assumed as relation between pan and open water surface. The elevation at Iron Canyon reservoir is practically the same as at Buena Vista and Tulare lakes, and as temperature conditions, during the seven warm months when 84 per cent of the evaporation takes place, are practically the same at the three places, it is believed that the average of the gross evaporation at Buena Vista and Tulare lakes is applicable to Iron Canyon reservoir. In the studies made, the effect of rain has been considered as reducing the evaporation shown in Table 12. The gain due to rainfall is not the total amount of rain on the reservoir surface, but is only that portion of it which has not appeared as run-off in the records of stream flow at Red Bluff. No rainfall run-off curve has been constructed for the Sac- ramento River, and it probably is not feasible to construct one with existing data. To determine the accretion to reservoir supply from rainfall, the curve published by C. E. Grunsky on page 85, Transactions of the A. S. C. E. for 1922, has been used. This has been redrawn on Plate 6 to show depth of monthly, instead of annual, precipitations. Results obtained from the use of this curve are approximate, but a comparatively large error in the rainfall factor Avould aft'ect the final result but little. Water to supply demands of irrigation and power development at the storage dam. The development of ])()wer has an important bear- ing upon the feasibility of the Iron Canyon project, since the revenue to be derived from its sale may be used in the repayment of a part of the construction costs, as will be demonstrated in the section dealing with power. The studies of water supply, therefore, take into account the amount of power jjossible of development at the storage dam. 102 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. Althoiigli i)Ower develo{)ment is a secondary consideration, an effort v;as made to jrct as mucli power out of the plant as compatible with irri<>atioii reciuirements. Five studies of water sui)ply wei'e made on the basis of various assumptions as to irriull('tin No. 5 ])ub]isli('(l ])y tlie State De])art- ment of Public Works, Division of p]ngineeriii<4' and Irrigation, indi- cates that a discharge of 3()(),00() second-feet may be exi)ected once in about fifty years and that a flood of 250,000 second-feet may occur once in about twenty-five years. The maximum discharge since the gaging .station near Red Bluff was established occurred on February 3, I'JUiJ, Avheu the flow was estimated to be 278,000 second-feet. Iron Canyon reservoir as a flood regulator. Studies made, bear out the statement in the 1920 report tliat "The value of the re.servoir for reducing floods lies mainh' in the possibility of so operating the gates of the dam as to produce the desired effect rather than in any changes in, or addition to, the design for this purpose. Without such intentional regulation the reservoir would have a comparatively small beneficial effect upon floods, while with proper regulation of the gates the flood peaks could generally be greatly reduced." If the purpose of Iron Canyon reservoir were solely for flood control, its effect on floods and the proper method of operation could be foretold with some degree of accuracy. When this feature is combined with the twofold duties of .supply for irrigation and for power, however, the pi"obl(^m becomes far more complex. In the report on Iron Canyon project, published in 1914, the pro- posal is made that the reservoir be kept empty until the first of March, and that not to exceed 100,000 acre-feet be accumulated by March 15, and 200,000 acre-feet by March 31. If the reservoir had been operated according to this plan during the season 1920-2] it would not have filled, and there would have been an irrigation shortage of 3 per cent in September, with the 800,000 acre-foot irrigation draft project, or 13.6 per cent with the 1,000,000 acre-foot draft. In 1923-24, with the reservoir empty on March 1, keeping in mind the priority and naviga- tion requirements, only 11,000 acre-feet would have been stored in ]\Iarc]i, and there would have been a power shortage in April, with no water available for .storage, with the result that the project would have had only 11,000 acre-feet of irrigation water available for use after May 1, which Avould have resulted in an irrig;itioti shortage of over 88 per cent. It is probable that in practical operation the crest of the floods could be reduced materially for some distance below Iron Canyon dam, but it is doubtful if tliis reduction could be counted upon to the extent that any less precaution could be talvcii in maintaining works down stream from the dam for protection against floods. In this connection it .should be noted that if tlie maximum outh^t capacity at the dam for flood pro- tection purposes is assumed to lie 100, 000 second-feet, it w^ould have been nee(>ssai-y, dui'ing the tiiree days, Fe])ruary 2, 3 and 4, 1909, to maintain a flood storage rii.serve of 415, 000 aei"e-feet to reduce the floAV below 100,000 second-feet ; and, for the period January 15 to January 22 of the same year, the required reserve would have been 521,000 acre-feet. 8 — 50667 114 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. It is well to keep in mind that there have been seasons of very low discharge prior to 1923-24. The seasons of 1850-51 and 1863-64 were of this type. As the latter followed, by only two years, the excessive flood season of 1861-62, it is very probable that had the reservoir been in operation the effect on irrigation would have been disastrous, owing to the overcaution bound to have been exercised if operated for flood control. NAVIGATION. Effect of Iron Canyon reservoir on river discharge. The average annual run-off of the Sacramento River at Sacramento is 25,200,000 acre-feet, of which approximately 15,000,000 acre-feet originate between Red Bluff and Sacramento. Studies made of water supply and operation of Iron Canyon reservoir indicate that with an irrigation draft of 800,000 acre-feet, the minimum rate of discharge would, for the years of record, usually have been from 3000 to 3500 second-feet, or more, during the months the reservoir is filling. The discharge from the reservoir during the filling period is that required to develop the assumed primary jiower, the discharge decreasing as the reservoir fills. Had the reservoir been in operation during the past 30 years the most critical month of record would have been April, 1924. During that month the discharge through the dam W'Ould have been at an average rate of about 2900 second-feet. During the month 66,500 acre- feet would have been stored and had the average rate of discharge been increased the reservoir would not have filled. The discharge for the month at the Red Bluff' gaging station was 239,000 acre-feet, or at an average rate of 4000 second-feet. It appears then, that in the event a rate of discharge in the Sacramento River below the storage dam in excess of 2900 second-feet is insisted upon for the purposes of naviga- tion during a critical period such as cited, the Avater supply of the Iron Canyon project might be affected seriously. However, the filling period of the proposed reservoir comes at the season of high run-off of all streams tributary to the Sacramento River and there would be little clanger of navigation being interfered with through the construction of the reservoir under present conditions of storage development on tribu- tary streams, as the flow issuing from Iron Canj'on reservoir would soon be built up sufficiently to meet any reasonable requirement of naviga- tion, even in extremely dry years. Under conditions of ultimate develop- ment of water resources, other reservoirs would be filling at the same time as Iron Canyon reservoir, but even though all tributary streams were controlled by reservoirs it is probable that power would be developed at some of them and that the power water during this period would join that from the Iron Canyon ]>lant to create a total discharge more than sufficient to supply navigation requirements. During periods in the irrigation season, when there is a shortage of natural flow in the river to supply prior rights, the Iron Canyon jiroject will draw its water from storage in the reservoir and any release from the reservoir, in addition to the natural flow of the river plus water for the Iron Canyon project, would be a direct benefit to navigation. Such relea.se is not contemplated in this report. If such release should be desired, navigation interests should bear a portion of the cost of the reservoir. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 115 Effect of Mooney Island power plant on river discharge. Tlie utilization of prior rights water at tlio jiroposiMl Mooney Island i)ower plant on the main canal, 4.7 miles down stream fi-oni the diversion dam, involves eonsidiM-ation of navigation i-efpiii-cments between Red liluff and ^Mooney Jslanil. for the reason that tiie i-iver would he diverted throujih the main canal between Red Bank Creek and IMooney Island, with the possible exception of a small amount necessary to supply prior ri«i'hts l)etween the latter points. Data given in House Document Xo. 7(), Sixty-first Congress, first session of June 28, 1901). indicate that the total tonnage of all commerce pa.ssing over anv portion of the Sacramento River from Chico Landing to Red IMuff deerea.sed from 14,586 tons in 1900 to 32S0 tons in 1909. I'here is at i)resent no traffic on the river north of Chico Landing, nor has there been for a number of j'ears even during high water, according to information from the only transportation company operating in that vicinity. It therefore apj^ears tluit under preseiit conditions naviga- tion between the diversion dam and IMooney Island power i)lant is not an important consideration. There is, however, a government project for maintaining navigation on the Sacramento river in this vicinity and it would be necessary to obtain the approval of the armj^ engineers, and po.ssibly congressional action, before navigation above Mooney Island could be abandoned definitely. SILT. Effect of Iron Canyon reservoir. In the plan proposed power development automatically i)rovides storage space for the accumulation of considerable silt, since the storage reserved in Iron Canyon reservoir for creating the minimum power head amounts to 364,600 acre-feet. No studies were made to determine the silt content of the river, or the length of time the reservoir would serve as a silting basin. SALINITY IN DELTA REGION. Iron Canyon reservoir as a possible means of control. Sacrificing the power feature at Iron Canyon dam would, with other construction uiichanged with tlie exception of the arrangement of outlets through the dam, supply a reserve storage of 364,600 acre-feet of water in Iron Canyon reservoir to overcome, or alleviate, the salt water menace in the delta region should such use be desirable. Such use is not advocated, but it is demonstrated that there are possibilities along this line. A rei)ort upon Salinity Investigations by the Water Supervisor is contained in "Proceedings of the Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Conference of 1924." It is stated: "It will be seen that, based on the relation at the (). and A. Perry (San Francisco and Sacramento Railroad crossing near Pittsburg) a sum of the Sacramento and Vernalis flows ecjual to 3500 second-feet was reipiired (in 1924) to ]n*event the encroachment, or cause the recession, of salinitv in the delta." The mean discharge of the Sacramento aiul San Joaquin rivers in second-feet during the critical period of 116 days, between ]\Iay 26, 116 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. and September 20, 1924, wlien the eoinljiiied flow was less than 3500 seeond-feet, is as follows: Source of water May 26-31 June July August Sept. 1-20 Sacramento River (measured at Sacramento) . . . San Joafiuin River (measured at Vernalis) 2,298 829 1,323 575 909 420 1,366 420 2.361 416 Combined mean discharge 3,127 37.524 1,898 113,880 1,329 79,740 1,786 107,160 2 777 111,080 Total run-off in IIC days, May 26 to September 20, inclusive 449,384 acre-feet Total rim-off in 110 days at rate of 3,500 second-feet 812,000 acre-feet Approximate run-off in 116 days in 1924 449,400 acre-feet Deficiency 362,600 acre-feet Available storage, Iron Canyon reservoir 364,600 acre-feet If Iron Canj'on reservoir were to be used in the manner outlined above, the requirements of navigation would be partially satisfied although the flow in the Sacramento would not be built up to 3500 second-feet for the reason that the San Joaquin River supplies a part of the water estimated necessary to act as a natural barrier against encroachment of salt -water into the lower rivers. In July, 1924, however, the average flow of the Sacramento River at Sacramento would have been built up to about 3080 second-feet in comparison witli the 909 second-feet which is estimated was the approximate flow. Other reservoirs. Assuming that other reservoirs wall be con- structed as time goes on it is possible that their construction, as well as that of Iron Canyon reservoir, could be so timed that the salt water menace could be kept in control through the utilization of water impounded in excess of that required during tlie early development of the irrigation projects for which they are built. Tlius, if an arti- ficial salt water barrier is proven to be feasible, and desirable, its con- struction might be deferred for several years, or until it is no longer advisable to waste the 3500 second-feet estimated to be required to act as a natural barrier. IRON CANYON RESERVOIR, DAM AND POWER PLANT. Iron Canyon reservoir. The location of the reservoir is indicated on Plates 1 and 2, adjacent to the project considered in this report. The dam site is located at the extreme lower end of Iron Canyon and immediately above the large irrigable area in the Sacramento Valley. Very complete data on the dam site, including topography, diamond drill records, geologists' reports and general discussions, will be found in the 1920 report. Data relative to the reservoir now proposed are as follows: Gross storage to elevation 405.5 1,121,900 acre-feet Storage reserved to create a minimum power head of 115 feet 364,600 acre-feet Gross storage available for supplying project, including allowance for evaporation losses 757,300 acre-feet (Part of the irrigation re:ns of plates proposed for installation on tlie ovei'flow spillway nilder the two plans ai-e shown on Tlates 11 and 1:5. In a disenssion iippe«rin<; in the "Analysis of Costs" it is shown that it will pay to raise the -Vvatcr surface in the rt'servoii- to elevation 40"). f). The desio:ned capacity of the proposed spillways and flood eontroi outlets in cubic feet per second is as follows : I'/lcvatiniiB of water surface 340 350 392.5 397.5 405.5 410.5 Hiphotis 200,000 257,600 200.000 208.000 •71),200 200,000 Flooii ooiitrnl gates 159,000 179,000 250,000 2 74,. 500 164,000 Totals 159,000 179,000 250,000 457,600 547,200 638,500 'With the plan proposed of panels in the overflow spillway for normal water surface at elevation 400 this quantity would lip ahout 35.000 c. f. s. Ilig-ht of way. The proposed Iron Canyon dam to stoi'e water to elevation 40")..") will back the water np the Sacramento liiver to a point above the town of Anderson and up Cottonwood Creek past the town of Cottonwood. The Red Bluflf sheet, U. S. Geologfical Survey Keeonnaissance JNIap, shows the elevation of Anderson as 4'-V2 and of Cottonwood as 429. The corresj)oiiding elevations given in Southern Paeitic folders are 488 and 428. A map of the resei-voir to the 400- foot contour is shown as Exhibit 6 of the 1920 report. The proposed reservoir Avill submrrp-e a ]iortion of tlie Anderson- Cottonwood Irriyation District lands and accortling to the soil map of the district (Plate 3), on which tlie 40(i-foot contour lias been super- imposed, a large part of the Columbia silt loam in the bottoms will be submerged. • No survey of the 405.5 contour has been made in connection with this report. However, the State Department of Pub- lic Works, Division of p]ngineerino' and Irrigation, made an estimate of the valuation of lands and im])rovements under the 405.5 contour in connection with other work, and this estimate, modified to include marginal areas, is included herewith as Preliminary Estimate No. 1. Estimated cost. The estimated cost of Iron Canyon dam. Bend ciiihanknicnt and the power plant at the dam is shown in Preliiuinar\- Estimate No. 2, Avliile the estimated cost of operation and maintenance of the power plant is shown in Preliminary Estimate No. 8. In Estimate No. 2 the quantities are the same as used in the 1920 report, except where changes were made necessary by change in the ])lan. An effort has been made to revise the unit cost in all cases in accordance Avith present ]irices and latest information as to recent costs on similar construction work. Construction materials. In the former estimate it is stated that sand and gravel for the construction of the dam can be obtained from pits located on the railroad, three or four miles distant from the dam site. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 119 DIVERSION WORKS. Diversion site. The point ol" divi'i-sion lor llie proposed Iron Canyon low line jiravity canal and for the Red Bank i)unip line is on the west bank of the Saeraniento Kiver. abont 1100 feet southeast of the mouth of Red Uank Creek. I>,\ i-eferenee to I'late 17 it will be noted that the i)roposed diversion dam is located on the outside of a long, sweeping curve in the river and just below the bluffs on which the city of Red Bluff is situated. The blutf of indurated clay, gravel and conglonuM-ate, forming the west bank of the Sacramento and the north bank of Red ]>aidv Creek, resists erosion well and holds the Sacra- mento River in the same channel throughout the year, there being little danger of the river meandering away from the canal headworks. The topography in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam site and a cross-section of the river channel are shown on Plate 16. The char- acter of the site is indicated in photographs* A, B and C following the report. The river at this point is subject to a fluctuation of from 25 to 30 feet, between Ioav water and extreme flood stage, Avhich re(iuires comparatively expensive headworks and the protection of the canal against floods. The problem is complicated because of the necessity of building a dam that will divert the required amount of water into the canal, and at the same time will not materially raise the water surface elevation in the river at flood more than it rises under present conditions. The water surface in the river at low stage under present conditions is at about Elevation 235, with the extreme possibly a foot lower. Plans considered. Estimates were prepared for a diversion dam to raise the water surface in the canal to Elevation 250, and for a low weir and intake structure that Avould divert at the low water elevation of 235. In the former, two plans were considered ; the first to provide for the diversion of approximately 3300 second-feet of project irriga- tion water only, and the second to provide for diverting 3640 second- feet of water for use in the development of power at the Mooney Island power plant, in addition to the irrigation Avater. The larger diverting capacity is provided for simply by increasing the number of head gates in the canal intake structure and correspondingly increasing the length of the sluiceway floor. The estimates referred to appear as Preliminary Estimates No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7. As discus.sed under "Analysis of estimated costs," a study indicated that the revenue to be derived through the sale of power developed at the ^Mooney Island power plant more than offset the greater cost of building the diversion dam to raise the water surface in the canal to Elevation 250 and increasing the size of the canal to include the water for power develop- ment. Accordingly, preliminary designs were proposed only for what is considered the better plan. These are shown on Plates 17, 18, 19 and 20. Plan proposed. The diversion works proposed are in accordance with usual practice, consisting of a dam across the river, a sluiceway at one end and a canal intake structure so arranged that the flow into the canal is at i-ight angles to that through the sluiceway. * Not included in printed report. Films on file in office of the Ooninu.ssioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C. 120 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, The dam across the present main river channel is of the open weir type, ntilizin^ roller {rates similar to those on the Grand Kiver dam in Colorado. There are fourteen of these roller gates, each 60 feet long and 15 feet 4 inches high, carried on large piers and making closure on a low concrete weir. Protection against flow through the sand, gravel and cobbles upon which the dam is founded is secured through the use of a deep concrete cut-off wall and timber sheet ]nles, it being assumed that a percolation factor of 6 is applicable to the foundation material. The gates are operated by electrically driven hoists located on alternate piers, there being a hoist for each gate. When the gate is raised, the elevation of the lowest portion across the waterway is 266.25, or approximately 4 feet above the elevation of highest recorded water surface. AVith tlie arrangement shown, sufficient area is provided that the water surface in the high- est flood of record (estimated 278,000 second-feet at Red Bluff gaging station) would, according to calculations made, be raised only about one foot above the elevation under normal conditions. The construction of the dam is modified at the south end to make possible the utilization of the two roller gates nearest the canal intake as sluice gates. A light steel operating bridge is provided across the dam and a fisliway is constructed in tlie wall of the east abutiiicnt. Canal intake. The canal headworks carries ten 15-feet by 11-feet, top sealed, electrically operated, radial gates to control the flow into the canal. On account of the heavy excavation for the canal a small loss of head at the intake is desirable, and consequently the gate areas are made generous with a resulting velocity of only 4.5 feet per second througli the gates. The velocity of approach across the sluiceway is about 2.5 feet per second. The bridge across the intake structure is designed to permit passage of a wagon or truck. Pumping- plant for Red Bank pump unit. The pumping plant serv- ing the Red Bank pump unit, with a normal capacity of 371 second-feet, is built integral with the main canal headworks, the plant being placed immediately back of the west gate of the intake. A wall is built in front of the plant, Avith its top two feet below normal water surface in the canal, so that water passing this gate in excess of that required to supply the pumps will flow on into the canal. Provision is made for placing stop planks above the wall so til at the pumping plant and canal can be operated independ- ently. Earth dike. On the north side of the river, east side of the valley, a dike is required across the overflow channels to high ground, 17,000 feet to the northeast, to prevent water passing around the end of the (lam and undermining the abutment. The dike proposed has a top width of 10 feet ; 3-to-l upstream and 2-to-l downstream slopes ; and a maximum height of about 30 feet wliere it dams a slough. The top of tlie dike is at the eleA"alion of the roller gate piers at the dam and rises oil ;iii even sloj^e until it reaches the 280-foot contour. No road- way is ])i-oj)osed on top of the dike. Effect on lift to Red Bank pump unit. It should bo noted in passing lliat Hie eoiistniet ion of the diversion dam to raise the water DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 121 surface 15 i'eet will result in a reduction by tliat amount in the head against which water must be pumped to the Red Bank pump unit. Construction materials. Sand and gravel for concrete structures are available at the dam site. MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT AND WASTEWAY. Head available. As indicated on Plate 17, the Mooney Island power plant is located at a point where the West Side low line canal, in skirting the overflow bottoms, api)roaches very close to Mooney Island Slough, also known as Ides Creek. Between the diversion dam and Mooney Island Slough, the Sacramento River drops faster than does the canal. This difference, added to the 15-foot raise in water surface at the diversion dam, results in a head of about 31 feet available for power development at Mooney Island, as shown on Plate 22. Power plant. The preliminary design of the proposed power plant and wasteway is shown on Plate 21. The ])Ower plant is so located that the intake is directly from the main canal, the flow to the plant being- controlled by four 15-feet by 12-feet radial gates with gate sill set 6 feet above the floor of the canal. The power installation consists of two 5200 h.p. units, protected by trash i-aeks in the forebay. Water passing through the plant will discharge directly into Mooney Island Slough. It will be necessary to do some dredging to the river, a distance of about 3500 feet, to provide sufficient capacity for the disposal of the tail water, normally 3640 second-feet. Wasteway and check. A four-barrel siphon spillway and a three barrel sluiceway of 3750 and 1125 second-feet capacity, respectively, are proposed for the protection of the canal. These wasteways are com- bined with a check structure, located about 300 feet below the power house intake. In the check structure are four radial gates 11 feet wide by 12 feet high, which serve to control the head at the power plant above and the flow into the irrigation canal below. Estimates of cost appear in Preliminary Estimates Nos. 8 and 9. Construction materials. It is assumed that sand and gravel for concrete will have to be hauled 1| miles. Construction program. If the project is built, consideration should be given to the construction first of the diversion dam, Mooney Island power plant and the 4.7 miles of canal between them for the purpose of generating power for use in construction of the Iron Canyon dam. The canal between the diversion dam and power plant has a surface area of approximately 100 acres and in itself will serve as a regulator of the fluctuation in discharge through the power plant. MAIN CANAL. (West Side Low Line Gravity Canal.) Basis of surveys and estimates. At the time tlie location survey for the main canal was started it was decided to use low water level in the rivei' at the mouth of Red P>ank Creek as the ekn-ation of water surface in the canal at diversion, no studies having been made at that time as to the relative 6osts with and without a diversion dam. There is 122 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. a difference, therefore, of 15 feet between the elevation of the line actually surveyed and that of the ])robable location between the diver- sion dam and ]\[ooney Island ])o\ver ])hint. No attemjit has been made to determine the economical use of this 15 feet. It might be utilized for developing; secondary power at a drop near the ]\Iooney Island power plant if the demand for this chiss of power .should occur in the future; a i)art of it might be used to increase grade, thereby reducing the size of canal section ; or it may be advisable to hold the caiud uj), making the 15 feet drop at .some point as far south as Corning. This should be considered in the final designs but tlie accompanying estimates based upon the located line, are deemed sufficient for the purpose. Profiles of the lines located are sliown on Plate 24, accompanying the report in roll form,* a "key" to which will be found on Plate 23. Typical canal cross-sections and hydraulic properties are shown on Plate 25. The estimated cost of tlie main canal is given in Preliminary Estimate No. 10. The main canal was located on relatively flat grades in order to reach the irrigable area with as short a canal as possible, since, at best, the project is very long and narrow. A grade of .00015 was adopted for the entire line, with the exception of the 4.7 miles between the diversion dam and IMooney Island power plant where the slope is .000075, for the reason that this grade appeared to meet the requirement of the studies of alternative projects in which the area included might be located farther south than in the project re])orted upon, more nearly tlian any other grade or combination of grades. Funds available for the investi- gation have limited this report to what seems to be the most economical ])roject on the west side of Sacramento Valley with diversion at Red iiank Creek. However, additional studies of alternative plans should be made to determine the location of the area which could be served most economically from Iron Canyon reservoir. With this in mind the survey of the main line was extended as far as Putah Creek as explained under ' ' Surveys. ' ' The cost of lining the main canal with concrete is relatively high, and although the estimates were based upon a fully-lined canal below IMooney Island poAver plant, it has been assumed that this investment might be deferred by operating the canal unlined for several years at about two-thirds of its capacity lined. Building unlined canals to be lined at a later date works out well on the Orland project, where the force which operates the distribution system during the irrigation season is used on the concrete lining work during the winter months, thus keeping the organization intact. Ditch riders serve as foremen. Upon the assumption that lining may be deferred, the canal for the first 70 miles of its length was designed to give a velocity near the maximum safe velocity for the material in which it is to be built. The result is that the velocities for the canal when lined are rather low. Below mile 70 the sections were designed to give water depths between one-third and one-half the bottom width, resulting in unusually low velocities. A deeper section would produce higher velocities and there- fore less excavation and concrete lining, but, upon the other hand, the cost of cliecks and turnouts would be greater. Had a project been * Plate 24 of printed report compiUd from originals (S. V. 44 ; 41-D-115), submitted by Walker R. Young to the Bureau of Reclamation, June, 1925, and on file in its Denver office. DEVELOPMENT OF UlTEK SACRAMENTO RIVET?. 123 adoi)ted for study, iiieludiiijr no iinmping, or had one been adopted in -wliicli lands in tlie vicinity of Woodland would be supi)lied by a g:ravity canal divertin{>: at Red liank Creek, the water to be carried at any point alonjr the canal would have been jrreater, with a resulting increase in velocity. A study of the economic ])alance of parade a*rainst cross-section of canal is one wliicli must be made before fiiud estimates are prepared. It is probable that such a study will indicate that the adoption of fjrades and sections other than used in the preliminary estimates would result in a small saving- in the per acre cost of the l)roject. From JMooney Island (station 254+33) to station 4976+00, a berm is provided, on the rip;'ht. or upper side, with slope above at one-half to one if in cut. This berm is for construction purposes only, and is pro- posed for use in connection with lining of the canal. Some ec^onomical method of placing the entire lining from the left bank may be developed before or at the time of construction, which would make the l>erini unnecessary. In order that maintenance of the canal might be held to a minimum,, it was decided to raise the water level in the canal not more than two feet above ground surface on fairly level country and hold it at ground surface on steeply sloping or sidehill land. P^'rom near mile 35 to mile 105 the location of the proposed canal parallels the main canal of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at an elevation about 40 feet higher than the constructed canal. This is considered a very good reason for })lacing the proposed canal well in the ground, as a break in the Iron Canyon canal would jeopardize the Glenn-Colusa canal. With a concrete lined canal the water surface in fairly flat country might, with safety, be raised to 3.0 feet above the ground level. Between stations 1175+00 and 2045+00 a comparatively deep canal section was adopted to save on excavation and concrete lining, as the location between these points is generally on steeply sloping country and as there is no gravel for concrete aggregate between stations 1626 and 2045. Excavation. North of Stony Creek the country is rather rough topographically and the excavation will be in gravelly soil, it being very likely that occasional hard strata aiul cemented gravel will be encoun- tered. Between Stony Creek crossing and mile 70 the canal is located in fairly level country where the digging should be easy. From mile 70 to about 108, where the canal skirts the foothills paralleling the Glenn- Colusa canal, the excavation will be in rolling country with some heavy cuts. South of mile 108 to the end of the canal the country is smooth and digging should be easy. No difficulties of construction are expected, but as no test pits were dug to ascertain the character of the material beyond that observed in cut banks and excavations along the line, no classification was attempted. It has been assumed in the esti- mates, however, that the unit cost of excavation north of Stony Creek will be materially more than south of that creek. Estimates are based upon the use of dragline excavators. Special considerations, upper 4.7 miles of canal. The canal between the divei'sion dam and ]\Iooncy Island i)o\vcr plant will be of unusual proportions, and as the designed Avater depth is 16 feet the bottom of the canal will be several feet below the ground water table during 124 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. times of high water in the river. The canal will be located in gravelly material, and the loAver canal bank will serve as a levee, or dike, to prevent the river from breaking into the canal. Under these con- ditions it is doubtful if concrete lining could be sufficiently weeped to prevent di.splacement by external pressure. Attention is called to the section and hydraulic properties of this portion of the canal, shown on Plate 25. By reference to Plates 2 and 17 it will be noted that above Mooney Island the canal is some distance from the river channel. The velocity of the current along the river side of the dike can never be a serious consideration on account of tlie lieavy groAvth of timber and brush between it and the river. A 20-foot road is provided on the canal bank, just behind the dike, for use during construction, and for use in operating and maintaining the canal. TJie dike will probably be built with draglines. The 5-foot top width shown is for no purpose other than to produce a suitable thickness of bank at higli water line witli the slopes adopted. Under the conditions it is probable that the freeboard shown is con.servative, since it results in a levee whose top is 8 feet above a flood which has occurred only once in thirty years or more. Canal lining. Of the entire length of 120 miles of the nuiin canal it is proposed to ultimately line with 1 :2^ :5 plain concrete all but the 4.7 miles between the diversion dam and Mooney Island power plant. From station 253+33 to 2878+20, where tlie section has a bottom width of 23 feet and water depth of 9.7 feet, to carry 1485 second-feet, the lining has been made 4 inches thick. Below Station 2878+20 the thickness is reduced to 3 inches. It is possible that in certain areas, where the heavier claj's and adobes are encountered, it will not be necessary to line the canal, as seepage may be expected to be overcome by the natural silting of the canal, and economy might result by enlarging the canal in these areas ratlier than to line it. Structures. Estimates are based upon the assumption that all canal structures will be of the highest type of concrete and steel con- struction. Although canal structure drawings are not included in the report, preliminary designs were prepared in sketch form for use in estimating quantities. Siphons. Siphons to carry the canal under stream beds and Avater courses will be an expensive item of construction, due not only to the large number required, but also to the shallowness of the cliannels wliich are proportionately wide. The preliminary estimates include the construction of 29 siphons at the following creeks: Coyote Creek Rice Creek Hunters Creek Oat Creek Branch of Rice Creek Funks Creek Gerber Creek Stony Creek Stone Corral Creek Elder Creek North Fork Willow Creek Fresh Water Creek McClure Creek Wilson Creek Salt Creek Thomes Creek Sheep Corral Creek Spring Creek 1st Croek South of Thomes French Creek Cortina Creek 2d Creek South of Thomes Branch South Fork Wil- North Fork Sand Creek 3d Creek South of Thomes low Sand Creek 4th Creek South of Thomes Tx)gan Creek Shone Creek DEVELOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 125 The typical de.si-foot diameter wood stave pipeline cihout H miles in leniitli to llie head of the hi<>li line eanal. The eanal is a|)proxiiiiately 2.") niih's in len.<:th and wastes into the canal i'oi' the second pnnipin^ unit ne;ir Kii-kwood. via Rice Creek. Excavation, concrete lining and structures. The construction of tlie ])ro])osed Ked Uaidc pump canal is similar to that of the main canal. For the uppei- 4.:5 miles north of Elder Creek the excavation will be more difficult than to the south, and the estimated unit cost has been doubled. As indicated on Plate 26, the eanal is to be lined throuj^hont with plain concrete M inches thick. All structures are assnmed to be built of concrete and steel. Siphons. Ten siphons are e.stimated at the followin<: places: Ceyotc Creek ^IcClure Creek Oat Creek Soiitli Fork McClure Creek South Fork Oat Creek First creek south of Tlioines Creek Elder Creek Second creek south of Themes Creek Truckee Creek Third creek south of Tliomes Creek Wasteways. Wasteways with hand operated gates are proposed at Thomes Creek and Elder Creek. Other structures. Other structures estimated include: 22 36-inch diameter culverts. 2 flumes. 1!» checks. 14 bridges of the steel I beam type. 15 IS-inch diameter turnouts. 33 12-inch diameter turnouts. r»0 miles of fence. 2t> miles of telephone line serving nine telephones. 3 patrolmen's quarters. Right of way. It is estimated that 313 acres of right of way Avill be re(|uire(l. EAST SIDE CANAL. (To serve 7000 acres gross area east of Red Bluff.) Basis of estimates. On Plate 2 this canal is shown diverting directly from Iron Canyon reservoir. In Exhibit 6 it is described as about (i'l miles long, diverting at Iron Canyon dam at elevation 300 and ending at the northerly corner of lot 35, subdivision No. 9, of the Los ]\Iolinos Land Company's tracts. In the estimate ])repared by the State Department of Engineering the cost of this canal is given as $63,811, including 20 per cent for contingencies and extras. In order to ])ut this estimate u])on the same basis as those i)rei)ared in connection with this report, additional items are included, and the figure for con- tingencies and extras was increased to include 10 ))er cent for engineer- ing and administration and 15 i)er cent for contingencies. A summary of the revised estimate will be found in Pi-elimiiuiry Estimate No. 14. In Table S the maxinuim capacity of the canal, including a 15 per cent increa.se for the daily i)eak in July, is 86.4 second-feet. The esti- nuited cost of excavation and concrete lining for the canal of 74 second- feet cai>acity assumed in Exhibit 6 was increased by 10 ])er cent in Preliminarv Estimate No. 14 to allow for the increa.se in capacity. The DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 131 cost of items added "is based upon tlie estimated cost of similar features on the Red Bank ]Hini]i canal. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Basis of estimate. Funds available for the investigations did not permit of a detailed survey and estimate of cost of the distribution system, nor were such surveys and cstiuuites considered necessary at this time, since costs of similar construction on other nearby projects are indicative of what the Iron Canyon system may be expected to cost. Basin<>' the estimate upon the cost of the distribution system of the Orland project, and the lirentwood Di.strict recently completed in the lower 8an Joaquin Valley, the cost of the Iron Canyon .system is l)laced at a total of $30 per acre, assuming that water would be deliv- ered to each 40-acre tract by a lateral system 60 per cent of which would be concrete lined. The $30 is as.sumed as a charge to be i)aid on each acre within the i)roject against which the cost of the project is assessed (95 per cent of the gross area). DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Requirement. The conclusions of the 1920 Irtm Canyon report regarding drainage are quite correct as far as the Orland project is concerned. It has always been maintained that with the natural surface and subdrainage conditions on the project, together with the intelligent ap]ilication of a reasonable amount of irrigation water as well as maintenance of the natural water courses traversing the project area in an unobstructed state, no drainage problems would be encountered. This conclusion has been borne out by the experience of 14 years operation of the project. Where see])age or water logging has developed in the small degree that it has, it is the result of the use of an excessive amount of water and draining the surface surplus into natural water courses which have been permitted by the various landowners to become congested with vegetation and in some cases obstructed in the farm leveling operations. Basis of estimate. Natural drainage conditions, such as exist on the Orland project, are rather the exception than the rule. A portion of the area within the proposed Iron Canyon project will be devoted to rice culture, in connection with which drainage facilities are as imi)ortant as the irrigation works. Although only about one-fifth of the total area is considered suitable for rice culture, such lands are nearly all located .south of Stony Creek so that the bulk of the drainage Avater will flow into the Colusa Basin and finally into the drains now con- structed through the basin. These drains would ])robably have to be enlarged to care for the increased flow unless some other disposition is made of the Iron Canyon drainage Avater. In this enlargement con- sideration must be given to waste water from the project canals which in an emergency might equal in amount the carrying capacity of the main canal. Use of the drainage canal would probably be permitted by agreement with the drainage district but this agreement would undoubt- edly involve reimbursement to the district for Avork already doiu^ in addition to the cost of enlargement. It is not likely that extensive drainage works will be necessary north of mile 50 on the main canal, nor will drainage be required on all areas 132 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. south of there, but in absence of accurate classification of areas it is estimated that a uniform total charge of $15 per acre should provide for any construction on account of the drainage problem. Cost to be levied against 9") per cent of the gross area -within the project. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE— CAN AL AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Basis of estimate. As stated previously, it seems imperative that the rotation system of irrigation be adopted for this project on account of the long carriage system without any regulating reservoirs. Although this is not the most convenient method for tlie water users, it undoubt- edly reduces the cost of operation to a minimum. The cost of operation of the gravity system then should compare favorably with the minimum cost on other Bureau of Reclamation projects. Since, as proposed, the canal is to be constructed with water surface near the ground level, and as a generous allowance has been made in the design of the section for growth of vegetation, the item of maintenance should also be com- paratively' low. The combined operation and maintenance of the system, exclusive of pumping, should therefore compare favorably with mini- mum costs on other Bureau of Reclamation projects, and should never be more than the average. The cost reports for 1924 indicate that during the years 1918 to 1924, inclusive, the minimum average cost per acre irrigated for all projects was $2.12 in the year 1922. The average acre cost for the Yakima-Sunuyside project during the period 1918 to 1924 was $1.47 per acre irrigated. Operation and maintenance costs on the Orland project and Glenn- Colusa Irrigation District are of particular interest as the areas are adjacent to that of the proposed project. The costs are as follows : Orland project operation and maintenance for 1923, which is assumed to be a typical year. Total cost $33,081. Acres irrigable Acres irrigated' Acre-feet delivered Acre-feet diverted Number Unit cost Number Unit cost Number Unit cost Number Unit cost 20,174 $1.64 15,500 $2.13 46,922 $0.70 73,191 $0.45 Costs for 1924 not given as during that year the Orland project suf- fered the most severe water sliortage in its history. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District operation and maintenance for 1924, which was more or less a typical year, although the amount of water diverted and the area of irrigated crops were considerably less than in 1920, 1921 and 1922. Total cost $118,718.- Acres irrigable Acre-feet diverted Acre-feet diverted, exclusive of pumping expense Number Unit cost Number Unit cost Number Unit cost 116,599 $1.02 270,000 $0 44 270,000 $0 28 •Average operation and maintenance per acre irrigated, 191S to 1924, inclusive, ?2.29. * Includes item of $43,582 for pumping plant expense. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 133 Cost per acre irrigated omitted for the reason that much of the area is in rice, and a considerable portion in 1924 was in pasture. The district receives its irrigation supply by pumping from the Sacra- mento River through heads ordinarily varying from 6 to 8 feet during the greater part ot" tlie irrigation season. Estimated Iron Canyon project operation and maintenance charges. As sliOAvn in Table 8 the -water estimated to be required for the Iron Canyon project is 800,000 acre-feet per year. Based upon the above annual costs on other projects it appears that $0.50 per acre-foot of water diverted would be a safe estimate for application to the proposed project, exclusive of pumping. Assuming $0.50 an acre as correct, the annual operation and maintenance charge would be $400,000 or at the rate of about $1.55 per acre on the 263,055 acres against which it is assumed the charges will be assessed, wiiicli is equivalent to about $1.75 per acre on the 85 per cent of the gross area considered irrigable. To the above must be added the cost of operating and maintaining the pumping plants shown in Preliminary Estimate No. 13 as $299,950 per year; equivalent to a charge of about $1.15 per acre distributed over the 263,055 acres against which costs are assessed. The resulting total estimated cost of operation and maintenance for the Iron Canyon project is, therefore, at the rate of $2.70 on each acre assumed to be assessed (95 per cent of the gross area). ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED COSTS. Iron Canyon reservoir. Results of studies made to determine the relative economy of raising the water surface in the reservoir to eleva- tions 400 and 405.5 may be summarized as follows: (a) Estimated cost including 10 per cent overhead and 15 per cent contingencies : n^ To raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 405.5, Preliminary Estimate No. 17 .$748,000 To raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 400, Preliminary Estimate No. IG 18.3,000 To raise water surface from elevation 400 to 405.5 505,000 There would be no extra cost for right of way and little, if anj-, increase in operating cost. Bend embankment is not affected as free- board provided is against floods. (b) Estimated annual value of power gained by raising water sur- face from Elevation 400 to 405.5 upon tlie assumption that 90 per cent of the primary and 55 per cent of the secondary power is salable at tlie rate of 4 mills per k.w.h.: Increase in revenue from primary power iflOS.OOO Increase in i-evenue from secondary power 30,600 Total annual increase in revenue .$1.38,000 Gross annual return on the investment =^ 138,600-^565,000 = 24.5% No estimate was made of the increased returns that would accrue by raising the normal storage elevation from 392.5 to 400, as no power study was made for water surface at elevation 392.5, but the amount would bo ooiisidorablv in excess of the $138,600 sliown above. 134 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Main canal between diversion dam and Mooney Island power plant. In the .study of economics of the Mooney Island power plant various estimates Avere ])repared of the probable cost of the canal to that point. A summary of the studies will be found in Statement A under "Summary of Financial Considerations" following this analysis of estimates. (a) General considerations. ^Maximum high Avater in the river reaches an ek'vation approximately 27 feet above low water, and since it is not practicable, on account of the topography, nor desirable con- .sidering tail Avater at the Iron Canyon poAA^er plant, to divert at an elevation of more than about 15 feet above Ioav Avater, there would be required a high Avater dike for tlie ])r()teetion of the canal, gradually decreasing in height to a point near Mooney Island Slough, Avhere the regular bank of the canal extends above high AA'ater in the river. Were the canal to be lined for a capacity including Avater for poAver development at JMooney Island the difference in excavation betAveen this section and a lined section not carrying jioAver Avater Avould be slight on account of the material required in the construction of the high water dike, and the difference in cost of a lined canal Avith, or Avitliout, poAver Avould consist mainly in the difference in cost of the lining. AVith an unlined canal carrying poAver Avater in addition to irrigation Avater, the excavation Avould be greatly increased, but CA'en tlien the unlined canal Avould result in a material saving of cost, as Avill be shoAvn. (b) Saving effected by building diversion dam to raise water surface 15 feet. An unlined canal Avith bottom Avidth 88 feet, Avater depth 16.0 feet, slopes 11 :1, grade of .0001, haA'ing a capacity of 2833 second-feet, to carry irrigation water only, and without a diA'ersion dam other than a Ioav Aveir for the control of the bed of the river at point of diA'ersion. Avould require 3.164,290 cubic yards of excavation. Due to great deptli of this section beloAV the top of the liigh Avater dike, a large amount of second handling of material excavated Avould be re(iuired. The per cent of gravel and the chance of encountering hard strata Avould be greatly increased. Considering these factors it is doubtful that the unit cost Avould be less than $0.40 per cubic yard, making a Total of $1.2(r..71(i Right of Wily. 11.5 acms at .$150 17,250 $1,282,960 Eugineering aud administration, 10% 128,296 .$1,411,262 Coutingeneies, 15% 211,688 Total canal $1,622,950 Diversion works — Estimate No. 7 030,000 Total .$2,252,950 Considering a diversion dam construetefl to raise the Avater surface 15 feet, but Avith no alloAvance macU' for i)OAver at Mooney Island, the total excavation for the unlined canal 1.1 feet liigher amounts to 763,000 cubic yards, Avith 212,740 cubic yards of borroAV in addition, DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 135 required for completing tlie lii^li water dike. Tliere Avovdd be a very small amount of second liandliny of material excavated and the per cent of gravel excavation Avould be greatly decreased, but to cover possibility of encountering hard strata, this excavation is estimated at $0.30 per cubic yard, witii $0.1.") per cubic yard for bf)ri-o\v. making a Total for excavation of ."j^'JOU.slO Right of way, 115 acres at .$150 17,2.10 .<:jts. feet is. therefore $568,205 fc"! Reduction in cost of pumping effected by building- diversion dam to raise water surface 15 feet. In addition to the saving of $568,205 eifected by the construction of the diversion dam there is a saving in the cost of power required for pumping water to the Red Bank pump canal since the construction of the diversion dam results in a reduction of 15 feet in the lift, the saving in power amounting to 1,980,000 k.w.h. per year. At $0.01 per k.w.h. the monetary saving would be at the rate" of about $20,000 a year, or a total of $400,000 in the twenty-year ])eriod during which construction costs are assumed to be repaid. This is 27 per cent of the estimated cost of the diversion dam built without provision for power development at Mooney Lsland Slough, as shown in Preliminary E.stimate No. 6. In Statement A which follows no consideration is given to the above item of economy for the reason that the saving is one which may be assumed ai)plicable to the cost of operation rather than to cost of construction. In all discussions of the value of power that have been presented, it has been assumed that the output w^ould be sold, at the switchboard, to one of the distributing comjianies. It has also been assumed that power for pumping would be rei)urchased at $0.01 jier k.w.h. Any other method of handling the disposition of the power will alter the estimates made. (d) Increased cost to build the first 4.7 miles of unlined canal to include power water. In order to include water for development of ])ower at Mooney Island, the ca])acity of the canal must be more than doubled to carry 6578 second-feet (see Plate 25). Tiie excavation for an unlined canal would be increased to 2,012,267 cid^ic yards, with about 50,000 cubic yards of borrow. On account of the lai-ge amount 1;{G WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. of second handling of material, this excavation has been estimated at !r0.85 per cubic yard, and $0.15 per cubic yard for Imrrow, making a Total of -STll.TOf) Right of way, 198.4 acres at $150 29,760 $741,555 Engineering nnd administration, 10% 74,155 .$815,710 Contingencies, 15% 122,345 Total canal .$.938,055 Diversion works. Estimate No. 4 1,410,000 Total $2,-348,055 The increased cost of constniction due to building the first 4.7 miles of unlined main canal to include power water is, therefore- $617,770 (o) Saving effected by building the first 4.7 miles of canal, carry- ing irrigation and power water, unlined. In the plan most favor- ably considered it is proposed to build the main canal to include irriga- tion and power water between the diversion dam and Mooney Island power plant unlined for the reason that there is no assurance that a lined canal could be Aveeped sufficiently to prevent flotation of tlie lining. This is particularly true of a canal diverting at river grade, in which case the bottom of the canal would be below low water level, but in either case it would be below high water in tlie river. If lined, reinforced concrete not less than 4 inches thick would be required. An estimate was prepared of a lined canal to Mooney Island Slough with a 47-foot bottom width and designed to carry a 16-foot depth of water, for comparison with the unlined section. Both sections are shown on Plate 25. A summary of the estimate for the lined canal is as follows: Excavation 989.400 cubic yards at .$0..3O $296,820 Borrow 179..500 cubic yards at 0.15 20.925 Reinforced lining 33,784 cubic yards at 19.00 641.896 Right of way 170.1 acres at 150.00 25.515 $991,156 Engineering and administration, 10% 99,115 $1,090,271 Contingencies, 15% 163,540 Total canal _• ,$l,2.i3.Sll Diversion works— Estimate No. 4 1,410,000 Total .$2,663,800 The money saved by building tlie canal with capacity to include power water as far as Mooney Island Slough, unlined, is therefore esti- mated to be $;n 5,745. Seepage loss in the 4.7 miles of unlined canal is of minor considera- tio]i since tlie total seepage loss, calculated upon the basis of 1.5 feet in depth over the wetted canal surface, is only al)out 75 second-feet, or 1.1.5'f of llif cjipaeity of the canal. (f) Increased cost to build the first 4,7 miles of lined canal to include power water, Tlie cost of const nieting a lined canal between DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 137 the diversion dam built to raise the water surface 15 feet and Mooney Island power plant, but to carry irrigation water only, was estimated for comparison with the lined canal enlarged to carry power water. A canal section was consid(M"ed having a bottom width of 35.0 feet , water depth 12.6 feet, side slopes 11 .1, grade of .00015, and a rein- forced concrete lining 4 inches thick. The .estimate is summarized as follows : Excavation 533,000 cubic yards at $0.30 ipl.jD.UOO Borrow 437,600 cubic yards at 0.15 Go,G40 Lining, reinforced 24.096 cubic yards at 19.00 409.224 Right of way 115 acres at 150.00 17,250 $712,014 Engineering and administration, 10% 71,202 .$783,216 Contingencies, 15% 117,484 Total canal $900,700 Diversion works — Estimate No. 6 1.333.000 Total $2,233,700 Considering lined canals, the cost of including water for power development would, according to tlie estimates, be $430,100. A lined canal was not adopted. The figures are given for comparison only. Power used in pumping to project areas. Since in the present plan it is proposed to supply by pumps much of the land tliat under the plan proposed in the 1920 report would have been served by gravity, it is proper to compare the amount of power consumed in pumping with the power that is gained b}^ making all the water used in the irrigation of tlie project available for power development at the storage dam. As shown in Table 18 the average annual gain in power would, for the years of record of river discharge, have been 94,313,700 k.w.h. Power required for pumping project water, as shown in Table 26, is 18,865,000 k.w.li. per year. The balance in favor of pumping is there- fore 75,448,700 k.w.h. per year. If it is assumed that all of this balance is secondary power, 55 per cent of which might be sold at 4 mills per k.w.li., the average annual revenue gained would ])e approximately $166,000. In addition the Red Bank diversion makes pos.sil)le the Mooney Island power plant and any profits that accrue from that source must be placed as a credit to the plan of the low line canal. If the 15-foot drop just below Mooney Island jiower plant were utilized for the development of power, the results would be about as follows : Total project water passing per year 689,000 acre-feet Potential power at S0% efficiency 8.500.000 k.w.li. July output, 22% of seasonal 1,870,000 k.w.h. or 2,500,000 h.p. hrs. Equivalent to 3300 h.p. installed capacity. This amount of power is 45 per cent of tlic total power required for all project pumping shown in tables 26 and 27, but it would be of no partioular value uulil the secondary powt'i- developed at tlie Iron 138 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Canyon plant had been absorbed in the market. Thi.s is shown g:raphieally on Plate 10 on which, for the plan considered best (fourth column of pr k w h $0.0035 $0,004 $0.0045 $0,005 SO 006 $27,039 •24,052 $245,761 2,648 $464,483 29,348 $683,205 56,048 $1,120,649 Moonpv Island 109,448 of other Total cDinbined surplus available for payment $2,987 $248,409 $493,831 $730,253 $1,230,097 •Deficit. Item (c) of Statement B indicates tliat upon the basis of twenty equal annual repayments of construction costs, without interest, the revenue derived from the sale of ])0wer generated at the two project ])lants would be sufficient to meet the construction cost of Iron Canyon reservoir and power plant, tlie diversion dam, INIooney Island power l)lant, and the main canal to ]\Iooney Island power ])lant; and in addi- tion would be sufficient to pay the cost of operation and maintenance of the above various features, except depreciation on concrete in the storage and diversion dams, and still leave a sur])lus which coukl be used to help meet the repayment of the construction cost of the balance of the project. Taxes. In the following discussions, which involve the cost of operation, maintenance and the annual repayment of construction charges, no account is taken of state, county or any other taxes which might be a.ssessed against the land. Depreciation on concrete. In all of the cost analyses deprecia- tion on concrete, with the exception of that in the power house super- structures, is excluded during the period of repayment of construction costs with the idea of reducing the burden on the landowners during the early years of project operation. It is believed that this point of view is justified for the reason that at the time the construction costs are fully repaid there should be a large revenue from the sale of power, more than ample to build up a sinking fund toward the replace- ment of concrete structures. Any departure from this viewpoint will alter practically all of the figures. Estimated gross cost of project. Table 28 is a summary of esti- mated gross cost of the project based upon the assumption that power would be developed at Iron Canyon dam and at Mooney Island Slough ; that tlie diversion dam at Red Bank Creek would be built to raise the water surface 15 feet ; and that the main canal between the diversion dam and iMooney Island power plant Avould be built unlined with a capacity to carry both iiM'igation and jiower water. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 141 TABLE 28. ESTIMATED GROSS COST IRON CANYON PROJECT. Gross area of project, 276,900 acres. Ki'paymcnl in 20 im|u:iI annual installments without interest, a8.«ossrd at the same rate [ht acre anainst 95 per cent of the gross area or 2t)3.055 acres. Costs include overhead charges and contingencies. No credits have been allowi>cres. Total cost .?19.810 5.741 13.371 94,344 $133,266 Cost per acre $62.33 6.90 30.00 15.00 .32 $114.55 20 annual installments $3.12 35 1 50 .75 .02 $5.74 (f) East side gravity lands. Gross area, Plate 2 Gross area assessed, 95%. 7000 acres 6650 acres Item Total cost Cost per acre 20 annual installments Constructon cost of canal. Estimate No. 14, Distribution system. Tabic 28 Drainage system. Table 28 Project administration buildings. Table 28. . $134,000 $20.15 30.00 15.00 .32 $1 01 1.50 .75 02 Totalconstructioncost assessed against 6,650 acres. $65.47 $3 28 14-i WATER RESOURCES OF CAIjIFORNIA. i «.= - Q. X o cn 5 it II Ui C c -< CO w « CO ■« ^ -*• Pump units south of Willows, Hi.'JOOacres C C < o 5 WD Pump units near Oriand, 33,060 acres "a 3 C C < -<*♦ »0 Ci CO o 2 e2 00 Red Bank pump unit, 37,380 acres 3 C C ■< CO «o coo CO »C CI CO Tf 1-1 CO ft* o 1 oo .ti CO 3 c: B -< cs »c co»o « o CO o Sco" — to "3 3 a c < co^o — CO o CO "3 o CO o c c- c .£ e. c 1 c5 QC a s Si C c OQ c c a c § c c 1 C oo d .H 2 a 03 "S E 3 U £ c =z - E -1 QC iit and .")."> per cent of the secondary. .^■■e I'lati- lu. Column ."). Self-explanatorj'. Column 6. See preliminary estimates Nos. :! and li for details. Charges are entered for every six months till end of year 1934, and thereafter for each year. Up to the end of 1031, charges are made for Mooney Island plant only, because the Iron Canyon plant is not operated till the beginning of 1932. Column 7. See preliminary estimates Nos. 3 and 9 for details. In order that repayment of bonds may begin as soon as possiljle no allowance for depreciation is made during the first five years of operation. Also construction is still in progress during this time, and the machinery is new so that replacements are unlikely. How- ever, in order that the funds may be available when needed, the annual amount set aside for replacement is increased during the years 1934 to 1947 inclusive so that by the end of 1947 the amount set aside is the same as it would have been if depreciation liad been allowed as soon as equipment had gone into service. No interest is credited to this fund, althougli it is prolialile that in actual operation, enough of this fund would be on deposit to provide an income from interest payments. Column 8. Interest at ,') per cent semi-annually. Column 9. Sum of columns G, 7, 8. Column 10. Column 5 minus column 9. Column 11. Amount applied from net earnings each year to the repayment of the bonds. Column 12. Small working fund equal to column 10 minus column 11. 148 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. H z o Q a: m o H U u u z o a; Q u O o Pu o z o u o O O -J u Wi a (A CO ' O 2 > CU re O O iS « ^ - ^ ki o (U 00 Sk C in ^ 1- c a . 4J CS C8 -n T3 r: "O o a -c IT) 13 "^ C 73 •-* C C C8 O (0 u o a i-H o C (N 1. If ■< ' ' • ' • ' ' ' --C CS 00 -^ o •£ n re '^ =: -^ CI oo C: »rt — I* ' • • i^i-'icjioe^o^rcoo-.coo— cooo^--^-# • J 1 • • t • 1 t . 1 . ' ec h- tc_t^ o^t^ o f— »!^ r'- ro ic u^ CO ci «-< ^- 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 )' 1 1 1 ! |ci*ecr--'t--'oo'oo"c^"c^'r;'^'o'c;'o*o"o" •-*•--' . . . , . 1 . . , , , . ,«# — — — ^ — —« — — — C-l Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl -M - ■ ' • Ill looo oo o o oo oooooooo 1.11 .00000 00 = 0000000 < • 'Oooc:oo»coicc;oowtioooo I 1 1 J I 1 lo o »c u'T'^ •c'*'^ iVqc --'-r'ac'ci't^oo*— *»rr , , , , , «oi^ao - O "C-i re -^ -r r-oc o — »ct^ o , , — — — " n -M n CI n r» CI CI re ro cc cc « O o s- 'O 'OO 'CO '»0 it^ tCCOOOOCDOOOOO^^OOOtO — 05DCO " =D ' C) 1 «o 1 -^ 1 MS ■ lO OO OO i^ t-- CI r^ 1 ^ CI c: ic t^ CI c) CI ic OD QO or) >0\ t CO ' «3 'CO 1 OO^ "^ CD_ 0_ CO OO ^_^ 00 0__ oq — IT: co^ -^ ^ »c o c< — o |»0 loo 1-^* Icsf ;t>-' I 0*-'^'-t"'l>riO 40''^'»c'«7l^*00'^''*'oo'cYt^'oo'tO TJ"' ,co ,»c ,o W3 ,1^ .looooot^oooo — cico-^cor^ooo — icr^o ,rj? I"-* iCO ,-*!< ,0 , ^^^^C»CJC»C»ClCiC»CJCCCOCOCOCO 13 13 13 13 13 13 a> C'O0000r0C0i0»C»r5»CC0r0OOOOOOOO»C»COOOO4COOO CDOoooo-^— 'I'-i^'— t — i.oicooooicooicr^ciOtr;io»jrrc4cr. oos CI c^_o o o o_cD o -- « u:: ijt;_o_o_o lO CI »o^ -^ o_ ^ ci oo r^ O ^ eo ic lo" o"" o' -r -^' -^' -^' CO co' — * — '' r-' t— ' o' r>-' oo' oo oo' i^' o' -r ca' oo' »o o' »c »c r-' oo* CO CO 00 OO Cl Cl r^ I - to lO O --C ~ r-. 00 1-^ o to -*■ CO CI — O OC I - to -f O 00 ■X' '— -H d CI -f -f i-O »C l^ 1^ I--. I- oo 00 *"~,^\'^.t"-.*--,'''_^-,»^,i-,— .*-s,^,*-c,^.»'3»c_ 00 CD CD a S 1—4 CO OOC0C00000OO»0»0C0C0OOCOO = OO»C»0OOOOi0OOO OOOOOOOOiC»OClC10-sO»OiCOOiCOOiCI^CIO»C*Cif5C|iC»C»0 ci^ o_ co^ co_ 'to -o CO C3^ Tf^ '^_ oo_ oo_ co_^ co_ o-_ ci_ cri_ ci^ o^ cj c» — _ I-- o^ cr^ io_ -^^ »j^_ co oo lO* » ra" -r' '^' 1 - t--* 00* oo' oo' oo' O' O' oo' oo' QO' O' O' ^' ^' O* OC' iV ■*' ^* l>r CO* 00* CI '^^ COCOI-.t-^--^:0;0^— •(MCI01Cl'^''i^t^-^'*'^'*'^-*'Cororocococococicici C S- II .2 .3 3 > • • I i 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 loo o o o oo o o o o oo ooo oo t CO O CI CI CI CI CI C» CI CJ CI CI CI CI CI O CO CO I I I I I I I I I 1 I !co'co'r--'t- i-'i- i-'i-'f- 1- i-'i-'t-'r-'t^'co'co'co' , I CO CO tc -j: -JD -j:: -^ --^ --:: %z; -^ -o --o o •x> « '^ -^ , , , , , , , , , I ; , -H r-^ d CI CI CI CI C* CI Ci CI CI CI C^ CI CS CI CI .2 si o c oooio»oioio>oooooooo:roo = ooc:o:roooooo cicidCicici— . — . — r-. zr; — ococooocococooococococooacoooooo co^coco^cocc CO •— -^-o --c: --o o_co ro CO re re cere rece re re co co ro_co^co_ CO* co" co" co" co' ;o' -r' -r -t*' -f ' -* -r c^' cr^ n' c:;' erf o' c^' ^' n' o' o' o* n' o' o' o' ^ a^ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO -J= O O --C CO O -^ --O O O CO Xi CO o o m ^1 O O O O O -^ O O 00 oo O O 00 OC CO CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO CO CO -^ CO CO CO CO cocoyr«ococO'r-*oooooct^i-~r^t-t^t^t^t'-t^t^r^t^t^r^t^r- co_co_ce cocococici^'-'cocococo^co co_co_^co_co_co_ce_co_co_^co_co_co_co co Cl' cT Cl' Cl' Cl' Cl" iti iO Cl' Cl' — * «' co' co' co' co' co' CC" co' CO* co' co' CO* CO* co' CO* CO* CO* dCICICICICir-t^OOQOOOOCOcOCOCOCOCDCOCOcOcOCOCOCOCDCO ^ Energy delivered, k. w. hrs. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o_o_o o o o o o o o o^o__o_o_^o_o_o_o_o_o_o_^o^ o* o' o" o* o o* cT cd' ic* lo" ci' cf ■»*•' -^* -rt*' '-s'* ■^* ''*•* f ' -f' -r ■^* "^' ■** ■^* '^' '*" '** OC;C3C:OCr2'-H-HdClCICI"rfi-^"rt''r1<'^-t''»r'?''^-?"-*'^'*''ft''^'»' »OiO »0_iC kTS iC OO 00 iCi-O -«**__'^^oq O0_O0_O0__O0__OC O0_^ 00_^CC OO^OO^OC OO^OC oo_oo_ o' o' o' o' o o* oo' oo' *o' ^' «5* *o* o' o' o' o' o* o" o' o* o' o' o* o' O* O* O* o* COCQCOCOCOCO'^'— 't^t^-f'^^-Cr^OOCSOJOOOOOOOiOSOiO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d d Tf -^ -rj- ^ ^ rJH TJ. -^ 'tf' ^ ^ ^ ^ ■«»"<*• ^ CO Installed capacity at beginning of year, h.p. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOOOOOO o' o' o' o" o' o' o* o' o' o* o* o' o' o' o* o' o' o' o' o* o* o' o' o* o* o* o' o' w--.^^,-.T-.-«r'^ddCidddddddddddddddCid CM Indebtedness at beginning of year oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooocr = OCr C^OOOOOOOOOOO 0__0^»C »0 40 UO 0__C: C:_0_t.0 iCOC^C: — ~~~ 0_»C_»0_0__0^0_^0_»C_0_0^0_ oo OD* 'rr ■^' t^' r^' Tf' -T i^' t^' -f ' -r' -r -r' -f' -r — ' -r' 3 ir: — ' ci" V co* o" — ■' oo' -^' co' r--* oot^r-oococecoroi-r-recet-o — cicioi^fcr. co»ct^cou^o — "rf-^j-oot^t^^-i^t't^oo^'—cr. occO'^cio f^,"5.<^_o '->.^**,^,oo -^^^^^ lo'io o* o' co' co' d~ d' 00* oo' cs' o* o* ctToo'oo'oc' 00* <»*oo' ^*' t^'r--'r^* CO* co' CO* wr"»o 1(5 4^ ^^^^iddc^ddcic^ddcicicidddcicidcidddcici - CS ooooociOO'-'i-'CflcicocoTj<-*j oi CO lO re' cT — ' — ' ic* 1^* oo' r-. »c — ' cc' oo' c-.* oo ue o c^i' c-i' o i-e t^' t^' ce' co cc c i lo" re — c--r-'rrjcr--orecri--'^occc^oo-^OueCiOc. cei>-^-'^i-oc. t^ t- 1~- t^ t- t^ t^ r-- t- t- t^ i-. i^ t- t^ t-, rereccrererererecererorececererecerecececccererececeeecece re ce' re re* re' re' ^ ^ ^^2 ^ re'.re* ce' ce' cd ce re' re ce' ce' ce* ce' re' re" re' ce' re* ce* ro' o_o_o_o_o_o_o^o_o_o^o_o o_o_o o_o_o_o_o_o_o o o o o_o o_o •+ T -^ -^ -*• -* -^^ -^" -r -T* -J'' r?" tT"' Tf* T^' -rj-' Tf* -rt-' -rf " »J-' ■r*-" -r* •^' -f ' -r- f* -r •fl'* TjT QC oq^ oc_ CO OC OC OC oc_ 00 00 oo__oc 00 00^ OC; c«c_ cc oc_ oo 00 cc oo_^ oc oo 00 oo oc oo 00 o o*o'o o o o o o o o'o' o"o'o*o'o'o* o'o'oo'oo o' o'o'o'cT o o o o o o o : -*• ^ ? ^ n- ^ ^ - :000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O C) CM CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CM CI CI ^ — ,'+. ■^_-^. "^_Tf__-^__oo_oo oo oo_oc_oo oc oc oc oc 00_^OC 00 00_ o o cr;' o o' o o' en ctT oT r:* c;* cr' o cr' o:' c^' crT ^' cr' oT I CI CI ei M cj CI C) oc 00 oc 00 oc OC' oc oc oc 00 oc oo 00 00 :0«— CMs»3'*»«c0t^00c:O«-«CMC0TMr?tDt^00C; < scr:cocDcoc05o:DcDcoeDi^t*i-'-i'-i'-i^r-h»h*t^e ~ ■?-. c; =?; C" cr. cv ^^ tr-. O o: CI C c o: c; Ci o: C C-- ; 150 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. (b) Canal and distribution system. TABLE 32. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION COST CANAL AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Assumed to be built with noninterest bearing money. Area Assessed, 95 Per Cent of Gross 263,055 Acres. Item Total cost Cost per acre Total 20 annual instuUmciits Balance of diversion dam and main canal to Mooney Island not charged to power, from Statement A Items a to 11, inclusive. Table 28 SI. 684.745 16,170,787 $i.41 61.47 Subtotal, diversion dam and main canal. Distril) ition system, Table 28 Drainage system. Table 28 Project adnrdaistration b jiUings, Table 28 . . . $17,855,532 7.8J1,650 3,945,825 83,500 167.88 30.00 15.00 .32 Total C3nstr.iction cost Operation and maintenance, canals and laterals. Tabic 28. Operation and miintenance. pumping plants, Table 28. . . .\imual dc,,reciation. iten.s 17 and 18, Table 28 $29,776,507 $113.20 Total estimated annual payment . $3 39 1 .50 .75 .02 $5 66 1 .55 1 15 .30 $8.66 The result should be compared with Table 29. If tlie main canal linino- and construction of 75 per cent of the drain- age system are deferred, the orij^inal cost would be reduced to $72.09 per acre and the total annual charg-e during the first few years would be at the rate of $6.60 per acre assessed. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS. Area and water supply. An outstanding fact Avith reference to the Iron Canyon project is that the area of land available for irriga- tion in the Sacramento Valley, below the site of the proposed Iron Canyon reservoir, is greatly in excess of the area which can adetjuately be served by that reservoir. Of the 2,700,000 acres of irrigable area on the floor of the valley there are. according to census figures, only about 800,000 acres now irrigated. Other storage reservoirs on the Sacramento River above Iron Canyon are under consideration, par- ticularly one at Kennett. Considerations involved in the Kennett reservoir are many and discussion of them is outside the province of this report. Investigation might demonstrate that the water su])])ly for the Sacramento Valley can be augmented 1)\' bringing in water from otlier watersheds. A project contemplating diversion of water from tlie Trinity Kiver, kmnvn as the Sampson-Hill j)roject, has been suggested, but no consideration has been given to the propo,sal in this report. Project in northern part of valley. Other things being equal, the ideal ])roject is one including a suitable area near the source of water supply which can be servetl by a relatively .short canal. Appar- ently this ideal would be approached through the inclusion of about 200,000 acres of land on tlie west side, north of the Glenn-Colusa county line. 7000 {leres on the east side opposite Red 1)1 ufF, and a]iproximatel3" DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 151 64,000 acres on the east side of tlie valley, north oi" Butte Ci-eek and lying: below the low line canal surveyed by the State Department of Engineering:, shown on Plate 2. If it were desirable to include a comiiaratively lar-ze area on the cast side of the valley the (U.OOO acivs mentioned could replace the area south of the Glenn-Colusa county line in the project studies, thus eliminating: the "shoe strinj;" area to the south. The ])ower features would be unchanjjed. Tiie larjre east side area could be served eithei- ])y pumpiiiIied eithei- by gravity or by ])umping. I DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 153 EXHIBIT 1. November 4, lJt22. Hon. A. P. Davis. Director, U. S. Reclamation Service, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir : Referring to recent conversation relative t<> contemplated change of plan for the proposed Iron Canyon Project, whicii was outlined to you verbally during your recent visit on the ground. I submit the following : Request is hereby made for a now survey covering a proposed change of canal system or systems, together with additional studies of other details of the project, some of which will be indicated herein. The Sacramento Valley Development Association and the Iron Canyon Project Association are deeply appreciative of the interest shown in this great project by the U. S. Reclamation Service and particularly of the surveys and investigations made by the service by means of which the feasibility and di'sirability i)f the project have been established. Each of the reports heretofore made has indicated a wide variety of plans for distribution of the waters of the project ; of these only one plan has been definitely surveyed and reported upon. After very mature delibera- tion we now ask that additional surveys and studies be made with a view to developing a more economical plan of distribution, also that other features of the plan heretofore considered be reviewed with a view to the adoption of the most desirable plan which can be devised for the development of the project. As you are aware, the plan proposed in the reports above referred to involves the construction of a high line canal of expensive construction and with the added disadvantage that waters diverted through it for irrigation can not be used for the generation of power. Owing chiefly to these two factors the cost of supplying water to land through this high line canal is relatively high, and in consequence vigorous oppositon has been voiced by the owners of land comprising a very large portion of the area which woidd be benefited by the adoption of the high line as against a low line canal location. It appears from an examination of all the facts available to us that a low line canal diverting from the Sacramento River at a point somewhere below the dam may prove more economical for two principal reasons : 1. Construction costs will be materially less. 2. The waters to be diverted for irrigation would be first used for power, the value of the power plant thereby materially increased and the cost of water storage for irrigation materially decreased. We ask for a survey based upon such a change of plan of distribution and including the following : A survey of a canal line of the highest practicable level consistent with economy and with full operation of the power plant, probably heading at or near the mouth of Red Bank Creek, a short distance below Red Bluff, and extending as far southerly on the west side of the Sacramento River as may be deemed advisable. We ask that this canal line be definitely located, material tests made and costs carefully estimated. We ask that surveys be made of secondary canal system or systems to cover lands in Tehama County lying above the low line canal. In this connection we have in mind a study of alternative plans, including a small canal to follow approxi- mately the route of the high line canal proposed in the 1920 report, and a canal or canals heading south of Red Rank Creek and supplied by pumping from the pro- posed low line canal. Since completion of the survey and report above referred to, a survey has been made by the State Department of Engineering of an east side canal to be supplied by pumping from the Sacramentfi River at ii point one mile below Tehama and conveying same to land about Chico and Durham. It occurs to us that in case a diversion is made on the west side at or near Red Bank Creek, as proposed, the advisability of extending the east side canal up stream to this point should be con- sidered and wo ask that fiiis be done. We ask that the power feature of the project be reconsidered in tlie light of the proposed change, new plans and estimates made for such changes as may be advisable, including the installation of additional power units, also that the addi- 154 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. tionul investment in powor and i)rospective returns therefrom be carefully con- sidered and reported on. In connertion with such restudy and revaluation of the power plant, we ask that consideration be given to the fact that additional storage, which will no doubt in time be developed in the watershed above Iron Canyon for distribution in the .Sacramento Valley, will automatically increase the quantity of water available for power in summer and add to the value of the power plant. It has been suggested to us by engineers of high standing in this state that the available capacity of the Iron Canyon reservoir may be materially increased by the adoption of means whereby storage would be maintained at Hood level, this without any material increase in ct)nst ruction costs, lleferring to the 1020 report (page 12), we note that the capacity of the reservoir with the water surface at 400 feet elevation, will be 0(il.300 acre-feet, a gjiin of 221.800 acre-feet, or a gain in available storage of 34.5 per cent. We suggest a very careful restudy of the spillways and means wherel)y they might be raised after all danger of Hood is passed and the full capacity of the reservoir th('rel)y utilized. In this connection we invite attention to the fact that the spring and early summer How of the Sacramento River at Iron (^inyon is very large, a factor which would V)e advantageous were such a change of plan contemplated. We ask that a carefid restudy be made of the factor which will govern the duty of water on this project. The report of 11)20 assumes it will be necessary to divert 4.125 acre-feet per acre per annum at the head of the main canal. It is believed a less quantity of water A\all be ample and that the acreage to be watered in pro- portion to the quantity of water available may be materially increased, and we would like to have this matter made the subject of careful and painstaking investigation. The foregoing are the main points which have occurred to us. No doubt other features will occur to you as warranting further study. We very respectfully ask that the project be resurveyed with a view to the development of the most economical, most practical and most desirable plan, and that report be made thereon, including plans and estimates of cost. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to ]Mr. W. F. McClure, Chief, Division of Engineering and Irrigation. State Deiiartment of Public Works, with request that the division coojierate in this survey and in defraying the cost thereof. Your favorable consideration will be cordially appreciated. Yours very truly, (Signed) W. A. Beabd, President, Sacramento Valley Development Association. Vice President, Iron Canyon Project Association. M I DEVELOPMExN'T OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 155 KXHIBIT 2. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Contract between the United States; Tlie Department of I'uhlic Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California, and the Sacramento \'alle.v Development Association, providing for continuation of cooperative investigation of the proposed Iron Canyon Project and cooperative investigation of proposed control works on the Lower Sacramento River, Cal. THIS AGREEMENT, Made this 2Gth day of January, 1924, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by LIUBERT WORK, Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the act of February 21, 1$)23 (42 Stat., 1281), and the act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat.. 1540). partv of the first part; the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF EN(;iNEERING AND IRRIGATION, OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to Chapter 280, Session Laws of California 1923, and Chapter 121. Session Laws of California 192;'.. partv of the second part, and the SACRAMENTO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California), party of the third part ; Witnesseth : 2. WHEREAS, The Secretary of the Interior has allotted from the appropriation made for miscellaneous investigations of reclamation projects, available until Decem- ber 31, 1924, the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) to be expended in the continuation of investigations of the proposed Iron Canyon Project and in the investi- gation of proposed control works on the Lower Sacramento River in California, and 3. WHEREAS, The Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California, has available the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) to be expended in said investigations, and 4. WHEREAS, The Sacramento Valley Development Association has available the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) to be expended in said investigations, and 5. WHEREAS. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation has, under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, approved for investigation and is willing to undertake and make the examinations, surveys and estimates necessary to determine the feasibility of alternate plans now suggested in connection with the proposed Iron Canyon Project in California, and also investigation of a proposed system of control works on the Lower Sacramento River in the State of California. 6. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual cove- nants and agreements herein contained, it is stipulated and agreed between the parties hereto as follows : 7. The Secretary of the Interior, upon the execution of this contract, will make available for the work proposed herein, the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) ; the Department of Public Works. Division of Engineering and Irriga- tion, of the State of California, upon the execution of this contract, will make avail- able as hereinafter provided, for the work proposed herein, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and the Sacramento Valley Development Association, upon the execution of this contract, will deposit with tiie Special Fiscal Agent of the Bureau of Reclamation at Denver. Coloi-ado. for tli(» work proposed herein, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). S. As to the said sum of Ten Thousand Dolhirs ($10,000) to be made available by the Department of Public Works. Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California, the Engineer in charge of tlie work, pursuant to paragraph 13 hereof, sliall determint' in his discretion the items of expenditure which shall ho chargeable against said sum. and shall voucher the said items directly to the State officer designated by the Department of Public W^orks, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California. 9. Each item of the work need not be i)ai(l in the proportion of the funds provided by this agreement, but the aggregate cost of the woi-k shall be paid in said proportion, to-wit : one-half (^) by the United States. one-fo»irth (.}) by the Sacramento Valley Develojjnient Association and one-fourth (i) by the Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California ; provided, that any payments in excess of said proportion made by either party out of the funds available during the progress of the work shall be adjusted when the report con- templated by paragraph lij hereof is made; provided further, th.-it shoulrl the entire amount herein provided be not expended there shall be returned to each jiarty nny exces.s of the money made a\ailable by it over its i)roportion of tlie exjjenditure. 156 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 10. When the sums of money as specified in paragraphs 7 and 8 have been made available as therein provided, the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior and the State Department of Public Works acting in cooperation, wUl, so far as the expenditure of the sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) will permit; (a) Make such additional examinations, investigations and studies as may be determined advisable in connection with the water supply, flood control and power development at the proposed dam and resenoir site heretofore investigated at Iron Canyon, including the necessary changes in plans and estimates to provide reliable information theroon under such new conditions as may now be proposed, (b) Make examination and survey of a proposed canal (known as the Low Line Canal) divert- ing from the Sacramento River at or near the mouth of Red Bank Creek for the irrigation of lands on the west side of the river in the proposed Iron Canyon Project. Said investigations will include (1) classification of materials, the preparation of designs and estimates of cost of construction and the examination of irrigable lands for the purpose of determining the estimated per acre cost and the feasibility of the reclamation thereof, and (li) examination of feasibility of irrigation of lands in Tehama County, California, lying above said Low Line Canal, by pumping from said canal or otherwise. Said investigation and report are also to bring up to date the study of the water supply data for said Proposed Iron Canyon Project and the possibilities for irrigation and power development therefrom, (c) Make examination and investigation of the cost and feasibility of constructing control works on the Sacramento River so as to prevent the salt water from San Francisco Bay rendering the fresh water in the river unfit for irrigation and domestic use during periods of low river flow. Said examination and report will include investigation of surface and subsurface conditions in connection with the development of plans and estimates of cost of the proposed I'egulation. Provided, that, of the total sum of $40,000 to be made available for this work the sum of $10,0(X) or as much thereof as may be needed shall be expended upon the surveys and investigations relating to the Iron Canyon Project which are set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this .section, and the sum of $30,000 together with any surplus remaining from that portion of the fund herein specified to be used upon the Iron Canyon Project surveys, shall be expended in examinations and investigations relating to the cost and feasibility of constructing control works on the lower Sacra- mento River, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. 11. The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, the Depart- ment of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of Cali- fornia, and the Sacramento Valley Development Association, agree to furnish for this investigation, as they may be called for. all records and reports and engineering data concerning the work to be performed under this contract, that they now have or that they can feasibly obtaic. Receipts shall be given for data furnished and said data will be retui'ned to said l)arties at the close of these investigations. 12. All surveys and investigations contemplated hereunder shall follow a general I)lan of operation to be agreed upon by the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Reclama- tion, the State Engineer of California, and the Sacramento Valley Development Association, through its President and General Manager. Said plan may be amended from time to time as the work progresses. lo. The work shall he performed by tlie Bureau of Reclamation of the Depart- ment of the Interior under the supervision of an Engineer designated by the Chief Engineer of the said Bureau. An Assistant Engineer shall be designated by the State Department of Public Works. Division of Engineering and Irrigation, to work under the direction of the said supervising engineer. 14. On comidetion of the surveys and investigations herein provided for, all field notes, original plans, calculations, reports and other data ac^juired or prepared during the investigations and surveys shall be filed with the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, and complete copies thereof shall l>e furnished the State Department of Public Works. The said original records shall be accessible at all times to the State Engineer of California, or his duly authorized rei)resentative. and to the duly authorized representative of the Sacramento ^'alley Development Asso- ciation, upon application. ir». A report of the res\dts of said surveys and investigations shall be promptly made by the Engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation in charge, outlining the scope of the investigations, and giving .-i complete record thereof with detailed estimates as contemplated by paragraph 1(1 hereof, with suitable explanatory maps, plans and other documents as exhibits, together with the names of the parties hereto and all DEVELOPMENT OF UF'PER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 157 cooperatiug officers and a summary of expenditures incurred in the investigations, which expenditures shall include the usual overhead and general charges of the Bureau of Reclamation. The report and recommendatious shall be subject to the joint approval of the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State Engineer of California. In case of tlieir failure to agree, the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State Engineer of California shall submit separate conclusions and recommendations, botli of which shall be emlwdied with the report. 16. This contract provides only for preliminary surveys and investigations insofar as the funds to be made available, as provided in paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof, will pei-mit and in no way obligates the United States, the Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, of the State of California, or the Sacra- mento Valley Development Association, as to any future action regarding the pro- posed projects. All work and expenditure under this contract shall cease whenever the funds to be so made available as provided in paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof shall become exhausted whether said work shall have been completed or not. 17. No member of or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, after his election or appointment or either before or after he has qualified and during his continuance in office, and no officer, agent, or employee of the Government, shall be admitted to any share or part of this conti'act or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon. Nothing, however, herein contained shall be construed to extend to any incorporated company, where such contract or agreement is made for the general benefit of such incorporation or company, as provided in section 116 of the act of Congress approved March 4, 1909 (35 Stat., 1109). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this contract has been executed by the parties hereto the day and year first above written. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, By Hubert Woek, May 7, 1924, Secretary of the Interior. (seal) Attest: Myrtle V. Murray, Secretary. Attest : M. A. Sexton, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. By W. F. McClure, Director of Public Works and State Engineer. SACRAMENTO VALLEY DEVELOP- MENT ASSOCIATION, By W. A. Beard, President and General Manager. 158 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. EXHIBIT 3. Borkcley. Californiii, June 1), 11)24. Ajiroeniout covering general plan uf itrucediuT for surveys and investigations of a proposed system of control works on the lower Sacramento River and certain alternative plans for the proposed Iron Canvon project, all in the Sacramento Valley, State of California. The undersigned at a meeting held in the office of the Bureau of Reclamation at Berkeley, California, on the day and date above written, with : W. L. Huher A. J. Cleary G. A. Elliott B. A. Etcheverry members present of an advisory committee appointed by the California State Department of I'ublic Works, agreed upon the following as an outline of a tentative program to be followed in the above named investigations. Lower Sacramento River Control Worl served by gravity and the pump- ing lifts t(i other areas. (b) Cost estimate of canal and structures. (c) Revise estimates of power that can be developed at Iron Canyon dam. (d) Consider use of gates in spillway for increasing storage behind dam. (e) Revise cost estimates of dam. 3. Preparation of report. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, By Walkee R. Young, Engineer. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION, By Paul Bailey, Deputy Chief of Division. SACRAMENTO VALLEY DEVELOP- MENT ASSOCIATION, By W. A. Beard, President. 160 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. EXHIBIT i. STATEMENT OF COST. Iron Canyon Investigations— Sacramento Valley, California, as of October 31, 1925. Period' Engineer in charge Cost incurred by — State Association United States Total 1913-1915 J. T. Whistler $9,133.44 29,417.29 2.500.00 $9,600.39 8.839.35 5,798.21 $18 733 83 1910-1921 H. J. Gault ?8.670 38 1.627.00 26 927 02 1924-1925 Walker R. Young >9,925.21 Totals $10,297.38 $21,050.73 $24,237,95 $55,586.06 ' Hirlv costs on the Iron Canyon project were included in Sacramento Valley accounts, 1E02-1904, no detail being recorded for the v.iriius features investigated. 'Includes o.st of printing and biiding report, which expense was entirely met by the association. ' Costs as of Oetobir 31. 1025. .\t clo-^ie of current investigations in the Sacramento Valley, it will 1 e necessary to make final a Ij istment with the Stite of Califunda as provided by existing contracts. EXHIBIT 5. DETAIL STATEMENT OF COST. Total Cost of Investigation of the Iron Canyon Project, California, as of October 31, 1925, under contract dated January 26, 1924. Location surveys $3,475 . 28 Topographic surveys 43 . 63 Estimates 4,544.79 Consulting boards (engineering) 72.28 Engineering and inspection 83.34 Subtotal $8,219.32 Superintendence and accounts. 1,154.89 General expense (expenses of general offices) 551 .00 Total actual cost $9,925 .21 Contingencies (a) 74.79 Grand total $10,000.00 The above cost has been incurred by the various parties to contract of January 26, 1924, as follows: Sicraraento Valley Development .\s30ciation. $2,500.00 State of California. 1.627.00 United States 5,798 .21 Total actual cost $9,925.21 Note. — (a) Estimated; to cover minor miscellaneous expenses incurred in preparation of report, etc. EXHIBIT 6. STATE OP CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SACRAMENTO REPORT ON IRON CANYON SURVEY— EAST SIDE CANAL APRIL, 1921 J. B. Brown, Assistant State Engineer. H. L. McCready, Hydrographer. 11—50667 CONTENTS. Page Letter of transmittal 163 Outline of project 163 Duty of water and elements of high line canal 164 Estimated cost of high line canal 104 Outline of low line canal 165 Duty of water and elements of low line canal 165 Secondary canal of low line canal system 165 Duty of water for secondary canal system 165 Elements of secondary canal system 165 Estimates of costs, secondary canal system 165 Pumping station 166 Generation of electrical energy 166 Use of electrical energy in pumping station 166 Estimated cost of pumping station 166 Estimated cost of low line canal 166 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 163 STATK OF CALIFORNIA DKI'ARTMKNT OF F,\<;iNFFIJI \(; S.icrmiriilo, April 30th, 1921. -Mr. W. F. Mc'Ci.UKE, State Engineer, Building. Subject : Iron Canyon Survey — East Side Canal. Dear Mr. :McClure: There is submitted herewith a report and map of the recent reconnaissance of the Iron Capyon Survey — East Side Canal. Two routes have been studied, a high line extending from the easterly end of the Iron Canyon dam in a general southeasterly direction, passing to the north and east of Chico and terminating at Butte Creek. The irrigable acreage under this canal is approximately 78.000 acres. Construction costs would be heavy due to the difficult country traversed. The second study contemplates the diversion of water from the Sacramento River by means of a pumping plant located about one mile below Tehama. By utilizing the Sacramento River Channel a saving of 22 miles of main canal is made, with the further advantages of more favorable soil conditions for excavation and the development of additional power at the Iron Canyon dam by passing the water recpiired for this canal through the turbines. A short auxiliary canal from the easterly end of the Iron Canyon dam would serve about 7,000 acres of land to the eastward of Red Bluff. The total acreage served by the two canals under the low line project is 71,000 acres. Field work for this report was done by J. B. Brown, Assistant State Engineer, and H. L. McCi-eady, Hydrographer, during the week of March 22d to March 26th. The estimate, report and map are the work of H. L. McCready and have been compiled during the month of April, 1021. Very respectfully, (Signed) J. B. Brown, Assistant State Engineer. JBB :LAB In the report herewith submitted an effort has been made to outline in a general way an irrigation project embracing the lands on the cast side of the Sacramento River, below and adjacent to the proposed Iron Canyon project, this area to become a part of the Iron Canyon project and derive its supply from the waters impounded in the proposed Iron Canyon reservoir. The area in question extends southward beyond the city of Chico to approxi- mately the nortbeni limits of the lands irrigated by the Western Canal Co. On the east it is bounded by the lower line of a type of soil described by the Bureau of Soils of the U. S. Department of Agriculture as the Tuscan stony loams. These Tuscan stony loams are classified as lands that would not be benefited by irrigation to any extent ; they present a surface appearance of water-washed cobbles and have a deeper formation of cemented gravel. Where canals are located in this formation a high unit cost of construction is anticipated. The area of irrigable land within this scope of country not now within irriga- tion districts 'is estimated at 82,000 acre.s. The outlines of two plans for the main canal will be given. First, a gravity system canal here designated as tlie liigh line canal, starting at the dam site at an elevation of riJ^O feet passing just above the comparatively rough hills east of the city of Los Molinos, continuing iibove the upper line of the irrigable lands passing to the east of the city of Chico ending .if BuHc Creek, elevation 200 feet, in the SEJ of SW^, Sec. 8, T. 21 N., R. 2 E. Tliere are 78,000 acres of land under this canal, I).") per cent of the irrigable land considered. Four acre-feet of water per acre will be assumed as sufficient for the season, distributed as follows: 164 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Month Feet iier acre Acre-feet Per cent Second-feet Marcli 0.24 0.40 0.50 0.76 0.84 0.76 0.28 0.08 0.08 18,700 31,200 43,700 59.300 65,500 59,300 21,800 6,300 6,200 6 10 14 19 21 I'J 7 2 2 304 324 711 •Jitti July .' 1,060 996 fipntpmber 363 October 105 Novpmbpr 103 Totals 4.00 312,000 100 The following are the elements of this proposed high-line canal: Point Acres Miles Distance Depth and bottom width Slope, feet per mile Velocity, feet per second Capacity, second-feet Dam 78.000 68,000 51,000 40,000 32,000 6 37 40 44 52 56 6 31 3 4 8 10'x20' 10' X 18' 9'x 13' 8 5'xl2' 8' X 10' 1.06 1.06 1.59 1.85 1.85 4.50 4.45 4.75 4.97 4.65 1,066 930 Creek 700 llock Creek 5,50 Mud Creek 440 (^hico Creek Butte Creek 20,000 4 6.5'x 8' 2.11 4. si 270 .Side slopes of canals for estimate purposes taken as 1 to 1. Estimated cost of high-line canal: Yardage 1,538,000 Cemented gravel 1,443,000 cubic yards at |1.25=$1,800,000 Earth 95.000 cubic .yards at .40^-- 38,000 30 creeks and arroyos requiring structures, flumes or siphons, average length 200', cost of $200 per linealfoot 1,200,000 Concrete lining for 44 miles of canal: 1,162,000 square yards 3 inches thick at $1.10 $1,280,000 Right of way 20,000 35 bridges at an average cost of $1,200 42,000 Fencing 112 miles at $600 67.200 Telephone system 40,000 Contingencies, 10 per cent 448,720 Total $4.93.5,920 Cost per acre of main canal, $63. The second general plan of main canal here designated as the low-line canal, is to install a pumping station about one mile below the city of Tehama and pump water into a canal at elevation 210 feet. This canal would be located very nearly at tlie upper line of the irrigable lands and would pass to the north and west of the city of Chico, ending at the Southern Pacific Railway in NE?4, NE}^, section 24, township 21 north, range 1 east, at elevation about 170 feet. There are 64,000 acres of irrigable land under this canal in need of water in addition to 7,000 acres of land east of the eitv of Red Bluff which could be irrigated by a small canal extended directly from the Iron Canyon dam, making a total of 71.000 acres under this canal s.vstem or 86 per cent of the total irrigable land considered. The duty of water and distribution for the main canal is taken the same as for the proposed high-line canal, as follows: Month March . . . . April May June July August. . . . September . October. . . November . Totals Feet per acre 0.24 0.40 56 0.76 0.84 0.76 28 0.08 0.08 4.00 Acre-feet 255,870 Per cent 15,370 6 256 25,600 10 427 35,800 14 597 48,600 19 810 53,800 21 897 48,600 19 810 17,900 1 298 5,100 2 85 5,100 2 85 100 Second-feet DE\^LOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 165 The following are the elements of the proposed low-line canal: Point .Veres Miles Distance Depth and bottom width Slope. feet per mile Velocity, feet per second Capacity, second-feet Pump station 15 20 22 27 30 32 34 15 5 2 5 3 2 2 10.5' X 16' 9.5'x 13' 8.5'x \?.' 8.0'x ir 7.S'x 10' 7' X 8' 6' X 6' 1.06 1.19 1.32 1.45 1.53 1.59 1.59 4.31 4.30 4.31 4.00 3.95 3.45 3 10 Hock Creek 64,000 47,000 37,000 29,000 24.000 10,000 8,000 897 M ud Creek 660 Chico Creek Secondary canal 518 406 Secondary canal 336 Secondary canal 224 End canal ... 112 Proposed cannl to irrigate^ 7000 acres of land east of the city of Red BluflF to be constructed as part of the low-line cana! system. This canal starts at the Iron Canyon dam. elevation 300 feet, is Q% miles long and ends at the northerly corner of lot 35. sjbdivision No. 9, of the Los Molinrs Land Company's tracts. The amount of water diverted per acie per annum for this canal is estimated at three acre-feet itistead of four acre- feet as used on the lower main canal becau.se of the great difference in length; this canal beng only 6 miles long. The f.illowitig distribution and amounts of watrr are estimated to be required: Month March... .\pril May June July August . . . , September , October. . . November . Totals Feet per acre 0.18 0.30 0.42 0.57 0.63 0.57 0.21 0.06 0.06 3.00 .\cre-feet 21.000 Per cent 1.260 6 21 2.100 10 35 2.940 14 49 3,990 19 67 4,410 21 74 3,990 19 67 1,470 1 25 420 7 420 2 7 100 Second-feet Elements of the secondary canal of the proposed low-line canal system. Elements of Proposed Secondary Canal. Point .\cres Miles Distance, miles Depth and bottom width Slope. feet per mile Velocity, feet per second Capacity, second-feet Dam at elevation 300 feet. . . . Distributing canal 7.000 6,000 2,000 2 I'-i 3M 4'x4' 4'x3.5' 3'x3' 5.28 5.12 .0035 4.56 4.20 3.00 74 63 Salt Creek 21 End Estimated cost: 3,.500 cubic yards cemented gravel at $1.25 .?4,375.0O 17.000 cubic vards earth at 00 cents 10.200.00 5 bridges at S8()0 4.000.00 Concrete lining for 3M miles, 28,800 square yards at $1.20 34.600.00 Contingencies and extras, 20 per cent 10,636.00 Total Cost of canal per acre of ground, $9. $63,811.00 166 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Estimated Cost of Low-Line Canal Pumping Station. Maxiinuin quantity of water to he puMiped, 8i)7 cubic feet i)er second. 400.000 gillons per tiiiuute. Tliis quaiitit.v of water is to 1)0 passed through the turbines at the Iron Canyon (him generating a certain amount of electrical energy, the water will (low on down the Hieramento liiver to the pr.iposed pumping station where if will be lifted into the low-line canal: the relative generation and use of power is given in the followirg table: Month Head, feet Second- feet Foot pounds Efficiency factor ITorse- jiower Kilowatts 130 130 130 130 130 112 98 91 88 256 427 597 810 897 810 298 85 85 2.080.000 3.460.000 4.850.000 6.580.000 7.280.000 5.670.000 1.826.000 483.000 467,000 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 1,875 3,120 4.370 5,920 6.560 5,110 1,644 435 421 1,400 April 2.330 3.260 J unc 4.410 July : 4.8:m Auciist 3 810 1 .230 .320 November 310 Power Used in Pumping. Month March . . . April May June July August . . September October . November Lift 20 21 24 24 25 26 23 25 24 Second- feet 256 427 597 810 897 810 298 85 85 Foot pounds 319,000 559,000 893.000 1.212.000 1.3.18.000 1.314.000 400.000 132.600 127.200 Efficiency factor .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 .61 61 .61 .61 Horse- power 950 1.670 2.630 3.610 4.170 3.910 1.190 400 380 Kilowatts 710 1.250 1.960 2,700 3,110 2,920 8)0 300 280 Excess kilowatts generated 690 1080 1.300 1.710 1.780 8.t0 3 to 20 39 The excess electrical energy generated would have a certain value and reduce the cost of opcr.vtingand niaintainirg the pumping station. Cost of Pumping Station. Three pumps: 46-inch. 70-inch and 92-ineli $60,000.00 Three motors: 630. 1310 and 2260 horsepower 33.000.00 Three hvdraulic gate valves 5.000.00 Pipe and flanges (3 pumps) 12.000.00 Transformers, switclifjoards, transmission, etc 25.000.00 Biilding. sump 7.5.000.00 Frcisrht. cartage and installation 20.000.00 Priming and pressure system , • 6.000.00 Contingencies and extras. 10 per cent 23,600.00 Total 5259,600.00 Excavation; 160,625 cubic yards cemented gravel at $1.25. 633,125 cubic yards earth at 40 cents Cost of Low-Line Canal. S20J,780 DO 253.250.00 Sixteen creeks and arroyos requiring concrete structures, flumes or siphons, average length. 200 feet: Estimated cost at $200 per lineal foot 640.000 00 Concrete lining for 34 miles of canal, 774,800 square yards 3-inch lining at SI. 10 852,000.00 Right of wav— 44 acres at ?20 $880 .00 82 acres at 150 12.300.00 100 acres at 50 5.000.00 58 acres at 400 23,200.00 Total for right of way 41,380.00 Twenty bridges, average cost 81,200 24.000.00 Fencing. 68 miles at $600 40.800.00 Telephone system 25.000 . 00 Pumping plant 259.600,00 Contingencies, 10 per cent 233,100.00 Total Cost per acre for 64,000 acres, $40. .$2,569,900.00 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RR'ER. 167 KXHIBIT 7. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE University Farm, Davis, California, March 30, 1925. Mr. Walker R. Young, Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, 110 Agriculture Hall, Berkeley, California. Dear Mr. Young: Answer to your inquiry of November 4th last, relating to probable duty of water and percentages of laud that should be considered suitable for orchard and rice under the revised plans for the proposed Iron Canyon project, has been delayed by numerous causes, chiefly my desire to await completion of computations on our 1924 water duty studies in Sacramento Valley and my desire to spend a few days in field with your questions before me. The questions you raise would obviously desexwe much more study if the final design and the construction of the project were to be based on the answers given. For purposes of present planning, however, the answers given below ai-e believed to be safe ; i. e., generous enough to cover all reasonable net requirements on the land, but sufiiciently low to force good preparation of the land and such careful and efficient methods of irrigation as shall reasonably restrict use, first, to the amounts of moisture the soil will retain, and, as the season advances, to replenish- ing the moisture the crop utilizes or that is lost by causes it would be unreasonable to expect the farmers to eliminate. With the above explanation, our answers to your questions are as follows: 1. What is the probable net duty for rice on clay and adobe soils? Answer : 5 acre-feet per acre. We believe that land requiring more water than this will not long remain in rice. With the exception of work on six fields in 1924, all of our rice duty studies have been carried out under the irrigation practice first used almost universally but now generally followed on first and second year land only, viz : to keep the fields moist from seeding to about 30 days after emergence of the plants and then submerge with increasing depths up to about 6 inches. Present practice is to substitute all-season submergence ; i. e., from seeding to draining for harvest. Until we have more information on duty under all-season submergence we can only assume that duty under the old method will apply. 2. What is the probable net duty for orchards? Answer: From 1.00 to 1.50 acre-feet per acre, averaging (after "weighting" according to soil types and areas) 1.37 acre-feet per acre ; or, for general present purpose, 1.50 acre-feet per acre. Our basis for arriving at the above has been to take a duty of 1.00 acre-feet per acre for loam soils 6 to 10 feet deep with ground water below 10 feet, 1.50 acre-feet per acre for shallow loams with tight sub-soil free from ground water, for gravelly soils, and for clays. Witli a ground water liigher than 10 feet we assume a use of O.SO acre-feet per acre, but have not included any such areas. More is required on shallow and tight soils, not because the soil will hold more, but because of the larger number of irrigations required and the consequent greater surface losses. 3. AVhat is the probable net duty for general crops? Answer: 1 to 1.50 acre-feet per acre; or, generally, 1.50 acre-feet per acre, the same as for orchards. In this answer, please note that we do not include alfalfa in "general crops." For alfalfa we use 2.50 acre-feet per acre for loams, 2.00 acre-feet per acre for clays, and 4.00 acre-feet per acre for gravelly soils, or a weighted average of 2.75 acre-feet per acre. 4. What percentage of liie area above the proposed low-line canal should be considered orchard land? Answer: 50 jier cent. This is based on our judgment of soil, drainage, topog- raphy, and good balance combined. Note. — Furthermore, we make field crops (not counting alfalfa) interchangeable with orchards in this percentage. The percentage we assume for alfalfa is 40. 168 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. 5. Wliat ptTcoiitase of (lie ana lulow tin' jiioposcd low-line canal should be considered orchard land? Answer: Af,'ain indiidinjj; field crops (exclusive of alfalfa) interchangeably. 25 lier cent, and alfalfa 45 per cent. We have classed as orchard land all of the Columbia, Elder, and AUamont series and the AVillows loams, but all of these soils are excellent for alfalfa and might be so classed, except for their general value for orchards. G. What percentage of the area above the proposed low-line canal should be con- sidered rice land? Answer: 10 per cent. Includes Kirkwood clays, Willows clay adobes, and Tehama clays (one-half only). 7. What percentage of the area below the proposed low-line canal should be con- sidered rice land? Answer: 30 per cent. Includes Kirkwood clays. Willows clay adobes. Willows clays (in part only), Tehama clays, Sacramento clays, and Capny clays. Yours truly, Frank Adams, Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 169 KXHIlilT 8. EXTRACTS From paiier road lu'loro the Fit'ih Annual Convention ol' the California Section of tlie American Waterworks Association at Sacramento on October 24, 1924. CONTKOL OF APPROPIUATIONS OF WATER BY THE STATE DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS by EDWARD HYATT, JR., CHIEF OF DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS V STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS * * * California in her con.stitution had inherited the riparian right doctrine from the common law of England and almost from the first the difficulty, or rather impossibility, of reconciling the two theories was apparent (Riparian and Appropria- tion Doctrine). The riparian principle is that the right to the water in a stream is vested entirely in the abutting landowners ; that the right is not created by use and does not cease with disuse. It originated in England, a land of humid climate where irrigation was imknown, where there were no rights in a stream or use of its waters other than by the landowners along the banks. It is practically universally admitted that the theory of riparian rights is entirely unsuited to an arid region or one where the lands require irrigation. Thus it is seen that the two classes of water rights trace their origin to entirely different sources and are absolutely conflicting both in theory and practice. After a great deal of litigation the issue between them was squarely joined in the famous case of Lux vs. Haggin, which was decided in 1886, in which decision by a four to three majority the riparian right was held to be a right of property protected under constitutional principles and superior to appropriative claims. By this decision riparian rights were definitely recognized and the riparian doctrine definitely fastened upon the state. * * * * * * Without doubt, California, where irrigation was so important, had the poorest water laws of any state in the Union. Many other irrigation states refused from the beginning to recognize riparian rights, probably as a direct result of Cali- fornia's troubles, and in the nonirrigating states the appropriation doctrine was unnecessary. * * * * * * In California there was determined opposition to any change, however, by the holders of vested water rights, i>articularly by riparian owners, and the movement for a water code was unsuccessful until 1913, when due to the efforts of several earlier boards and commissions the present Water Commission Act was passed. The act provided a code for the orderly administration by the state of its remain- ing water resources, for ajudication of rights already in existence, for the distribu- tion of water by water master to water right owners, and for stream system investi- gations. Due to the conditions described the statute was necessarily long and complicated. The basic principles as established by court decisions through sixty years could not be more than modified, established rights could not l)e endangered, and unused riparian rights being more or l(>ss property rights were a doubtful subject of legislation. The Water Commission Act probably went as far as possible by legislation to establhsh a complete and efficient code; however, the simple fact teas that a direct and efficacious solution was not possiJilc at this late date in California as it has heen earlier in other western states. * * * * * * The increasing prosperity of the state, coupled with the fact that further agricultural and power development is limited by the water available, has tremen- dously accelerated the demand. The operation of the Water Commission Act, which provides that riparian rights not used by 1924 will lapse, has also had its effect. ♦ * * * * * As already explained, since the Water Commission Act went into effect in 1914, appropriative water rights can be acquired only under its provisions, and, since that time, all such rights are clearly defined. However, most of the ))resent irrigated acreage in the state acquired its rights prior to the Water Commission Act, and the loose methods of filing then existing 170 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. and the lack of supervision to determine wliether all or any part of such rights have become vested by use has resulted in the existence of a vast number of rights undefined and in a great many cases even unrecorded. * * * * * * It will therefore be seen that California's water code is complete as to appropriative water rights. Procedure for the initiation of new rights, for the adjudication of old rights, and for the distribution of water to all existing rights is complete, and the problems created before the adoption of the Water Commission Act could be graduiJly and surely worked out were it not for the riparian right situation. Returning to this for a moment, section 11 of the Water Commission Act provides that riparian rights not exercised for a period of ten years after the final passage of the act in 11)14 will lapse. This law will very shortly become effective. If we were able to say definitely that it will be upheld by the courts the solution of our worst water troubles would be in sight. However, legal opinion is divided as to whether or not this law will be upheld. Some of the best qualified attorneys in the state say the United States Supreme Court will in no case allow such a law, even if the State Supreme Court should, others that the United States court will uphold the state court in whatever it decides in this case. All we can do in this matter is to wait and hope for the best. * * * * * * By the United States census figures there were 10,900 acres irrigated from the Sacramento River direct in in02 above Sacramento, and 194,000 acres in 1919 ; that is, about 18 times as much land was irrigated in 1919 as in 1902 from the Sacramento River direct. The majority of the development in the valley has come about since 1910, and mainly since the Water Commission Act became effective, so that nearly all of the larger water rights from the river have been secured through permit from the State Water Commission or Division of Water Rights, making our records unusually complete as regards the Sacramento Valley. * * * The irrigable area in the floor of the Sacramento Valley is 2,700,000 acres besides the foothill lands, which will some day need water. Considering that by the census there are only about oOO,000 acres irrigated at the present time, it is seen that irrigation development Avill not be stopped by lack of suitable agricultural lauds in the Sacramento Valley. * * * * * * rpYiQ normal low flow of the Sacramento Ri\er during irrigation months is about 4500 second-feet measured at Red Bluff, which is the accepted point of measurement in this connection. In 1924 the lowest flow at this point was 2800 second-feet, which constitutes the irrigation supply for the valley and the delta regions below, since in a dry year the tributaries contribute practically no water at the critical seasons. While the Feather, Yuba and American rivers are first magnitude streams with large annual inin-offs, they are not spring-fed, such as the upper Sacramento, and their low flow amounts to only a few hundred second-feet, which is entirely diverted in critical seasons by agricultural interests along those streams. With the figures in mind that the normal low flow of the Sacramento is 4500 second-feet and the extreme low flow 2800, the existing rights to divert from the river below Red Bluff and above Sacramento are somewhat as follows : The Division of Water Rights has issued permits for about 4800 second-feet. Unap- proved applications are approximately 2000 second-feet more. These figures do not indicate the actual amount of water which will bo diverted, since each permit includes some unirrigable land or some portion of its land must lie fallow each year, or perhaps some portion of the right will be forfeited through nonuse. From the records of use of water on these projects at present on file at the division an estimate is made that tlie applications and permits now before the ofiice will ultimately be issued licenses or final water rights, to about 3G00 second-feet. From records of water pumped and such other information as is available, it is estimated that about 2000 second-feet should be allowed for the total of other used rights, botli appropriative and riparian, on the river, making a total of about 5600 second-feet of actual existing rights by use, or which may be secured under applications now pending. There are in addition large areas of riparian land along the river which have not as yet used water and if section 11 of the Water Commission Act regarding riparian rights is overruled by the courts, possibly 2000 second-feet more would be ultimately demanded by these lands, making a total of around 7500 second-feet. Adding up the total claims on the river, without reducing them in accordanc-e with actual use, brings up the total to over 10,000 second-feet. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 171 Assuming the rights by use to be about 5600 second-feet, and with only 2800 second-fcct available at Kt'd P.lnlV this year, the natural quostion is. how do these lands get sufficient water? The answer is that not all holders of water i-ights exercise them, there is a very considerable return flow, and very strict consei'vation measures were adojited. as it was aDparent as early as January, 10'_*4, that the situation was v(M-y serious and a water eonference was held at that time. As a result of this the Division of Water Rights was asked to appoint a water supervisor for the season of 1924 and as I will explain further on, this work has had a high degree of success. Summarizing the figures nuoted you will note that there are rights by use to the waters of the river to an estimated figure of 5600 second-feet, which is just double the 1924 low flow of 2800 second-feet; therefore, considering only in-igation above Sacramento, it would seem the supply is fully appropriated and that new projects will be forced to store winter waters. However, irrigation i.n tlie Sacramento Valley above Sacramento is only one angle and these irrigation projects only one of the interests having a claim upon the river. An equally important claim comes from the delta region below Sacramento. This area is little known in spite of its vast importance to the State of California. The Sacramento-San Joaquin delta contains 390,000 acres of highly productive lands requiring irrigation, and is estimated to produce annually crops valued at between $50,000,000 and $70,000,000. The delta farmers secure their water supply from either the Sacramento or the San Joaquin River or from the many sloughs which traverse the region and connect the two rivers. During the irrigation season their supply mainly comes from the Sacramento and penetrates through the sloughs into the San Joaquin delta as well, since the low flow of the San Joaquin River is comparati\ely small, around 400 second-feet. The elevation of the delta lands is just about sea level and the Avater channels are, of course, many feet below sea level ; therefore they may be considered arms of San Francisco Bay and the only reason why the salt water does not come up into the delta is that the fresh water from the two rivers keeps it out. As the fresh water supply diminishes in the summer the salt water creeps farther and farther into the delta region. This situation has been getting worse year by year, due to a variety of causes, but principally due to the depletion of the summer flow of the Sacramento River by irrigation diversions. The delta landowners claim water rights both by riparian rights and appropriation and also claim the right to have enough water in the river to keep the salinity condition below the danger point, and have stated that for this purpose it is necessary that 3500 second-feet be allowed to pass Sacramento. You will note that this is considerably more water than there was available in the river above diversions during the past summer. The salinity situation is alarming and of the greatest importance. Residents of Sacramento are probably not aware that salinity to the extent of 25 parts per 100,000 appeared at Freeport, 10 miles below Sacramento, and that if no conserva- tion measures had been taken this year it is probable that the Sacramento domestic supply would have been contaminated by salt from the ocean. A number of solutions have been suggested for the salinity problem. At the present time investigation is under way to determine whether or not a dam across the bay itself at Carquinez Straits or at some other point is feasible. Very large storage of winter waters in order to supply this necessary water to the delta region is also under consideration. A third important interest on the river is the navigation interests represented by the United States Government tlirough the Army Engineer's office. Navigation on the river below Sacramento is at the i>resent time of great importance and is of some importance above Sacramento, although in low seasons like 1920 and 1924 navigation has been abandoned above this city. However, it is admitted that the United States Government has the paramount riglit in the waters of a stream in the interests of navigation and could force, if it so chose, upper diverters to release enough water for the puri)Oses of navigation. Major U. S. Grant, the engineer officer in charge of this district, has stated that from 3000 to 3500 second-feet in the river above Sacramento would satisfy navigation requirements. Thus we have three interests, each of which apiiareully needs all the water in the Sacramento River in the summer time during a low season. The interests of the delta region and navigation would seem to be somewhat the same ; that is, if the United States Government should require 3000 or 3500 second-feet for navigation purposes this would supply the delta with all the water which they state they need. * * * 172 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, KXHIBIT 0. EXTRACTS FROM BULLETIN NO. 4. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PROBLEMS CONFERENCE AND WATER SUPERVISOR'S REPORT, 1024. Colusa trough return waters. A.s a result of tlio maintenance of the gaginj; station on the Colusa tr<)u;,'li at the Colusa-Williams highwaj', some interesting information on return water and its relation to diversion was obtained for an area of about 66,000 acres irrigated on the west side of the Sacramento River between Hamilton City and Colusa. The irrigation in this area was divided nearly e(|ually between rice and general crops or pasture. The Colusa trough at the point of measurement is the main drain of Reclamation District 2047 and as such carries practically the entire drainage from the Glenn-Colusa. Jacinto-Provident, Princeton-Codora-Glenn, Compton-Delevan and Maxwell irrigation districts. Also at the point of measurement there is very little drainage, other tiian that from these districts, flowing. Table 27 gives the data obtained. It shows the diversions and return water for each month. June to October, inclusive, and for the entire iieriod. the percentage which the return beare to the diversions, and the acreages irrigated. It is to be notetl that the Compton- Delevan and Maxwell irrigation districts have pumping plants on the trough which l»ick up this return water and again use it for irrigation. The drainage from this hittcn" irrigation returns to the trough above the point of measurement. For this reason, in computing the return flow in per cent of divei-sions, it is necessary to add the trough diversions to the measured return at the Colusa-Williams highway. As shown in the table, the rcliirn flow for Ihe ])('riod .Tune to October was .30 per cent of the diversions. DEVEIiOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 173 c/5 ^ ^ ^ (-^ 'O , ^ , c: c2 ^ O CO •^ o "?_^o oo o ■*- c- t> »-»-' -^' o' a^-O 5 CO W c: 'O'cO CO -t"" «i> c» CO a ^ ^__^ . OOOS ■* -^ (O «-t oo o 0'*t< ^ CO oo oo o CO ^ CO CIOO 1 o II »oc^ o CI co II 1 ^ **^* ^ O ■*-» > u CJ.S o s 3"i ^^ . o g O-^ CO o o o oo 00 oc O 00 " C; .^4 O OO CO »o — < o o r- OO' -1 s 3 ^'*- -^^ ^ o\ t-TcT »o" ^ o* CO ■<»* CO cf OOC <0 u •-3 t^ OOCO C4 c-i I— 1 COC N| 0» CJ »— « CO ooo ■* 1^ o ooc 5 C o f3Q e o tei ^ CO t— * d < O O CO CO iM o ^ CI >oc O COOO CO -rr CO rH CO •^ u 1 c tn -rf r-l 1-- CI c >{ »-< t-J o _o o • 6? Ci D. ooo r^ o O lO CI Oi ^ u :, " .5^ OO -^ lO ^H t^ iQ CO Oci 5 C( 3 U2 CO t^ 05 T-l »0 r- CO cc «3 ^ - I- 05 00 c > C4 a> O O »0 O CIS i^ cq CO Ot= H CO CI CO -t* O rj<^ CO^ l>*^ C^l> c •)_ ■v OJ COOO ITD lO f-T 1— r ui" -^'cl 5" C ? l-> ■^ 1-H I^ c 1 o <« ooo r- W3 OO 1-H 1-H o loa i ■'I ■* r^ (M d o CO c^ 00 o^ 4 C^ 1 to 00 CO 1-t ■*- Cl- * c^ 5 l*^ ^ ti :3 &? »-^ <=•' OJ OO oo r-t Oi ^H oo o oc > iCi CM t-- CO O o_ Cl_ o coc^ cc 1- -f'aT t-* CO cf »-<' t'.-t^ >0 IC •-< o w o ^ i o * a : o a a 5 :-S„ :.a :a Q .2 Q 1"^ fe « 2 ^°-^ V > c u e. ii 9g||g2-££-S? cs^ g-i CI. m a 2 is 1- — i o f c 3 « <1> ^ ^ H D i- « K Si o t- -a c o is 3 — .sa ]74 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Quality of return water — tests. J>iscussi(Hi has been had relative (i> the fitness f(ir irrigation ot some return waters, especially those from (he riee fields l«)(ated in more or less .-ilkali area. In order to obtain some idea, tlw-refore, of the ditferenee in salts and alkali content between the Saeramento Kiver water and that in the Colusa trough, a few samples of water were t.-iken and tested during the V.)24 season. I'lie lestinj; was done by the chemical laboratory of the State Highway Commission. On July 30th a sample was taken of the Colusa trough water at the Maxwell road, and at the same time one was taken from the adjacent Maxwell Irrigation District canal carrying water diverted from the Sacramento River at the pumping plant, about seven miles distant. The results of the tests of these two samples are given in Table 28. I TABLE 28. TESTS OF WATER SAMPLE FROM THE COLUSA TROUGH AND FROM CANAL WATER DIVERTED FROM THE SACRAMENTO RIVER. Tests Parts per million Return water in Colusa trough Canal water from Sacramento River Alkaliiiitv bicarbonatcs 207.00 000.00 104.00 0.50 05.00 40.00 24.00 good 121 00 Alkalinity carbonates . . 000 00 Total hardness 150 00 Sulphates as S0« 1.50 Chlorides as CI 05.00 .\lkali as Na 10 00 Alkali coefficient* 107.00 Alkali rating , , . good *Alkali coefficient is the depth in inches of water which on evapcration would yield sufficient alkali to render a four- foot depth of soil injurious to the most sensitive crops. Note. — Samples taken on July 30, 1924. at the Colusa trough and Maxwell Irrigation District canal crossing of the Maxwell road. It will be noted that, although the trough water had an alkali coefficient about four and a half times lower (see definition for this coefficient at bottom of Table 28) than the canal water from the river, both samples were given an alkali rating as "Good." Early in the fall the rice fields are drained of all of the water which has been ponded during the summer, and at this time, therefoi-e, there is a considerable increase in the return to the Sacramento River of such water. To show the differ- ence in the alkali content of the river water before and at the peak of this fall drainage samples were taken from the river at Elkhorn Ferry, about 12 miles above Sacramento, one on August 18th and the other on September 12th. On September 12th, also, a sample was taken from the back borrow-pit of District 787, just above its junction with the river. The borrow-pit was carrying aU of the drainage from Colusa Basin. The results of the tests of these three samples are given in Table 29. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 175 TABLE 29. TESTS OF SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER BEFORE AND AT THE PEAK OF THE RICE FIELD DRAINAGE AND OF COLUSA BASIN DRAINAGE AT THE PEAK. Parts per millinii Tests River water at Elkhorn ferry on August 18 River water at Elkhorn ferry on September 12 Colusa basiu drainage at Knights Landing ou September 12 Totalsolids 333 10 323 158 210 130 80 64 47 32 good 31G 37 2!)7 134 198 117 81 60 27 34 good 582 Suspended solids 73 500 260 Total hardness 213 Temporary liardnessv 85 298 Chlorine as CI 82 Sulphates as SO* . 95 Alkali coefficient 24 Alkali rating good Note. — Elkhorn ferry is located about 12 miles above Sacramento. The sample of Colusa basin drainage water was taken from the back borrow-pit of District 787 just above its junction with the Sacramento River at Knights Land- ing, which is located about 34 miles above Sacramento. Of the flow at Elkhorn Ferry on Angnst IS, the return fmni District 70 drain. District 108 drain, Colnsa Basin and Sacramento Sh)ugh amounted to 44 per cent. On September 12 the return from these same channels, although greater, was only 24 per cent of the flow at Elkhorn Ferry, because of the increased river flow due to decreased draft. Unfortunately for the value of the comparison, the return from District 70 drain. District 108 drain, Colusa Basin and Sacramento Slough (representing i)rac1i(ally the total of return water similar to Colusa Basin water) ou August 18th amounted to 44 per cent of the river flow at Elkhorn Ferry, whereas ou September 12th the return from these same channels, although greater in amount, was only 24 per cent of the Elkhorn Ferry flow because of the increased river flow due to reduction in divei-sions. This may account for the fact that the September 12th test appears to differ very little from the August 18th test, although a large quantity of return water of considerable hardness and low alkali coefficient, as shown by the September 12th Colusa Basin drainage test, was entering the river. No comprehensive conclusions can be drawn from the few tests that have been made, but it was desired to record the little information that has been obtained in this connection. 176 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. IRON CANYON PROJECT— CALIFORN I A. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES. 1. Iron Canyon Reservoir Right of Way. 2. Iron Canyon Dam, Bend Embankment and Power Plant — Construction. 3. Iron Canyon Dam and Power Plant — Operation and Maintenance. 4. Diversion Worlts — Construction. 5. Diversion Works — Operation and Maintenance. 6. Diversion Works — Construction^ — Alternative Plan. 7. Diversion Works — Construction — Alternative Plan. 8. Mooney Island Power Plant — Construction. 9. Mooney Island Power Plant — Operation and Maintenance. 10. Main Canal — Construction. 11. Red Bank Pump Canal — Construction. 12. Pumping Plants — Construction. 13. Pumping Plants — Operation and Maintenance. 14. East Side Canal — Construction. 15. Project Headquarters — Construction. 16. Iron Canyon Dam — Construction — Increased cost to raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 400. 17. Iron Canyon Dam — Construction — Increased cost to raise water surface from elevation 392.5 to 405.5. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 177 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 1. Iron Canyon Project California. IRON CANYON RESERVOIR RIGHT OF WAY. Estimated valuation of lands and improvements. Flow line at elevation 405.5. Estimate by California State Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, except as noted. Lands. Summary Irrigated and cultivated, 14,100 acres at $106 per acre $2,763,600 Grazing, 17,500 acres at $25 per acre 437,500 Marginal between Elevation 405.5-410.5, added to estimate, 4400 acres at $25 per acre 110,000 $3,311,100 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District. (Bond issue $1,255,000 le.ss $15,000 paid in 1925.) One-third of irrigable area submerged .ind this proportion of bonded indebtedness charged against Iron Canyon project $413,333 Capitalization of increased maintenance costs 375,000 788,333 Railroads. Anderson-Belle Vista Railroad relocation — 10 miles at $15,000 per mile $150,000 Sacramento River bridge 50,000 Churn Creek bridge 30,000 $230,000 Southern Pacific Railroad — Present location not changed. Fill at Cottonwood Creek to be increased and bridge raised and extended $75,000 75,000 305,000 Roads. State highway- Relocation of two miles at $23,000 per mile $46,000 Cottonwood Creek bridge 50,000 $96,000 Balls Ferry steel bridge 50,000 146.000 Transmission and telephoiie liiies. Pacific Gas and Electric Company power lines — Relocation 17 miles at $20,000 a mile $340,000 Telephone lines — Relocate 7 miles at $1,000 a mile 7,000 347,000 Total estimated cost $4,897,433 Roughly 4,897,500 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 2. Iron Canyon Project — California. IRON CANYON DAM, BEND EMBANKMENT AND POWER PLANT. SUMMARY OF CONSTRrCTION COSTS. Details of estimate not printed to save space. These are on file at ofiSce of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consuhed there. Estimated cost Item Field Total 1530,000 3.191.678 5.586.305 4.180,780 713,595 85.500 *37,500 6,000 810,920 195.000 250.000 64,000 60,000 $670,450 4.037,473 Power house section 7.066,675 Flood control section 5.288,687 902.698 108.157 47,437 7.590 Bend embankment 1.025.814 Construction railroad and eQuipment 246.075 316,250 Permanent camp 80.960 Finishing and cleaning up 75,900 Total exclusive of right of way $15,711,278 $19,874,760 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. 12—50667 $19,875,000 178 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 3. Iron Canyon Project — California. IRON CANYON DAM AND POWER PLANT. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Rating, 110,000 h.p 100,000 k.v.a. Four turbine driven generator units. Turbines, 30,000 h.p Generators 25,000 k.v.a Item Storage Dam. Operation and maintenance: It is assumed that the dam will be operated and maintained by the force that operates the power plant, and all charges for this pur- pose are included below under that feature. Depreciation: Flood control gates and hand rail (including engineering and ad- ministration, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) Total depreciation on gates and hand rail Remainder of dam not already depreciated under power house and flood control gates (including engineering and administration, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) Total depreciation on remainder of dam The last item is based on the assumption that the dam and reservoir will be useless after 100 years for reasons that can not be foreseen. The charge is not assumed assessed against the project during the repayment period as explained in the text. Power Plant. Operation and maintenance: Kngineering and administration Operation: Superintendent, 44% of time. Operators .\ssistant operators Supplies, 25% of labor Total operation. Maintenance: Superintendent, 44% of time. Electrician Helper Machinist Helper Laborers Supplies Total maintenance. General expense Total operation and maintenance Depreciation: Power house and equipment (including engineering and administra- tion, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) Gates (including engineering and administration, 10%; and con- tingencies, 15%) Trash rack (including engineering and administration, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) Total depreciation Total annual plant charge. Quantity $1,518,380 13,248,300 107c $4,934,765 106,260 67,298 Unit cost 4% ?3,600 2,100 1,800 S3,600 2,400 1,800 2,400 1,800 1,500 4% m7c 6H% Total cost $60,735 132.483 $6,000 $1,584 6,300 5,400 3,321 $16,605 $1,584 2.400 1,800 2,400 1,800 4,500 14,484 $28,968 5,157 $197,390 6,900 4,370 Summary S60,735 132,483 $56,730 208,660 $265,390 I DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RH^R. 179 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 4. Iron Canyon Project California. DIVERSION WORKS. Raise in water surface 15 feet. Power developed at Mooiicy Islund Slough. S1TMMARY OF CONSTRl'CTION COSTS. Details of estimate not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation iiriil niav l)o consulted tliero. Item Estima ted cost Field Total S25.000 655,460 190,202 79.999 86..500 25,000 25.000 12.500 5.000 8,000 $31,625 Dam across river channel 829 157 Sliiicewav 240,605 101,199 109,422 Railroad spur :51,625 ( 'onstruction camp .31,625 15,813 6,325 Right of way . 10,120 _ . Totals ?1,1 12,661 SI 407 516 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. 11,410,000 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 5. Iron Canyon Project — California. DIVERSION WORKS. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Elevation of water surface in canal 250 feet Diversion, including irrigation water for project and water for development of power at Mooney Island power plant, approximately 6,500 second-feet Item Quantity Unit cost Total cost Summary Operation and maintenance: Included as a part of tlie project operation and maintenance charge No charge nude against power as there are no additional expenses at the diversion dam as a result of power development at Mooney Island power plant. Depreciation — niet-.tl work: Charged against power since the cost of the diversion dam is assumed to be paid through sale of power. Roller crest gates and hoists (including engineering and administra- tion, lO'/t,; and contingencies, 15%) Foot bridge (including engineering and administration, 10%; and con- tingencies, 15%) Radial gates and hoists (including engineering and administration, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) $429,291 26,.565 27,704 4% 4% 6?i% $17,172 1.063 1,847 Total annual depreciation on metal work Charge to Mooney Island power plant one-half of depreciation on radial gates $20,082 Net annual depreciation on metal work chargeable to diversion dam Depreciation — concrete: No depreciation charged against concrete work during the period of repayment of construction cost. •Total cost of diversion works less metal work, earth dike and right of way $806,898 2% $16,138 Total depreciation on concrete in diversion dam. $20,100 900 $19,200 $16,100 $16,100 *Cost of cofferdams, excavation, sheet piling, rip-rap, etc, assumed to be distributed against concrete. 180 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 6. Iron Canyon Project — California. DIVERSION WORKS. Raise in water surface, 15 feet. No power development at Mooney Island Slough. SUMMARY OP CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Details of estimate not printed to save space, and niav be consulted there. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation Item Estimated cost Field Total Cofferdams Dam across river channel . Sluiceway Canal intake Earth dike Railroad spur Construction camp Permanent improvements. Finishing and cleaning up. Right of way $25,000 655,460 175.381 44,062 86,500 25,000 25,000 4,500 5,000 8,000 Totals. $1,053,903 $31,625 829,157 221,857 55,738 109,422 31.625 31,625 5,692 6.325 10,120 $1,333,180 Roughly Docs not include interest during construction. $1,333,000 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 7. Iron Canyon Project — California. DIVERSION V\/ORKS. No raise in water surface. No power development at Mooney Island Slough. SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Details of estimate not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there. Item Estima ted cost Field Total Cofferdams $25,000 199.008 132,807 100,000 5,000 25,000 4,500 5.000 2,000 $31,625 Low weir across river channel 251,74(1 Sluiceway 168,002 ("anal intake 126,500 Railroad siding 6,325 ( 'onstruction camp 31,625 Permanent improvements 5,692 Finishing and cleaning up 6,325 Right of way 2,530 Totals $498,315 $630,370 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. $630,000 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 181 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 8. Iron Canyon Project — California. MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT. SUMMART OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Details of estimate not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and mav be consulted there. Estimated cost Item Forebay and tailrace Power house and equipment. t'onstruction camp Permanent improvements. . . Finishing and cleaning up. . . Right of way Totals. $114,862 789.360 3,162 1.5,813 1,265 3,795 $928,257 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. $928,000 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 9. Iron Canyon Project — California. MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT. OPERATION A.ND MAINTENANCE. Installed capacity, 10,400 h.p. Item Quantity Unit cost Total cost Summary Operation and maintenance: Operation — Labor — Superintendent 1 (6% time) 3 25% of labor $3,600 2,100 $216 6,300 1,629 Operators Supplies Total operation $8,145 $216 1,500 Maintenance — Labor — Superintendent 1 (6% time) 1 $3,600 1,500 Laborer Total labor $1,716 1,716 Supplies 100% labor Total maintenance $3,432 Total estimated field cost $11,577 $11,500 General expense 10% 1,150 Total annual operation and maintenance $12,650 Depreciation: Concrete and paying (including engineering and administration, 10%; and contingencies 15%) ... . S29.750 21,632 789,360 2% 4% $595 1,442 31,574 Structural steel (including engineering and administration, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) Power house and equipment (including engineering and administra- tion, 10%; and contingencies, 15%) 33,600 $46,250 Assumol depreciation on radial gates and hoists at diversion works (one-half that shown in Estimate No 5) 900 Total annual olant charee assumed to be carried bv oower . $47,150 I 182 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 10. Iron Canyon Project — California. MAIN CANAL. SUMMARY OP CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Details of cstiniiitc not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there. Item Excavation and borrow . Concrete lining Siphons Wasteways Side drain intakes Culverts (^hecks Bridges Railroad crossings Turnouts Fence Telephone system Patrolmen's quarters . . . Clearing and grubbing. . Right of way Totals. Estimated cost Field ,986,521 208,336 917.299 335,882 16,609 104,.502 2.50,317 259,356 48,873 39,222 33,600 30,720 28,000 13,370 260,875 Sll,533.482 Total $3,777,950 7,853,545 1,160,383 424,891 21,010 132.195 316,651 328,085 61.824 49,616 42,504 38.861 35,420 16.913 330,007 ?14,589,855 I Roughly Docs not include interest during construction. $14,590,000 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 11. Iron Canyon Project — California. RED BANK PUMP CANAL. SUMMARY OF COXSTRUCTION COST. Details of estimate not printed to save space. These are on file at office of Di\Tsion of Engineering and Irrigation and mav be consulted there. Item Estimated cost Field Total Excavation $83,846 534,377 81,288 5.841 13.030 29,700 20,667 15,409 4,861 7,000 6,240 10,500 2.500 44,925 SI 06 065 Concrete lining 675 987 Siphons 102,829 7,389 16 483 Wasteways Culverts Flumes 37 570 Checks 26,144 19,492 6,149 8 855 Bridges Turnouts ' Fence Telephone system 7 894 Patrolmen's quarters 13 283 Clearing and grubbing 3 162 Right of way 56,830 Totals $860,184 $1 088 132 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. Sl.088,000 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 183 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 12. Iron Canyon Project — California. PUMPING PLANTS. CONSTRUCTION. Basic (lata: Plant efficiency assumed 70% Discliarge pipe lines — Wood stave pipe a.ssuraed. Allowance for water hammer 50% Single barrel assumed in all cases. ('osts shown in the estimate are based upon pipe in place including grading, cradles and fencing. The linear foot cost is based upon the following unit costs: Lumber, measured in the rough — Staves, delivered $4.5.00 per .M B. .M. Treatment 20.00 per M B. M. Assembling 12.00 per M B. M. Dowels. ..X 1 .00 per M B. M. Total lumber $78.00 per M B. M. Metal work — Bands and shoes -SO. 04 per lb. Installation and painting 01 per lb. Total metal work $0.05 per lb. 184 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRLIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 12— Continued. Item Intake plant, head 50 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line, 9.0 feet diameter . Total, intake plant. 'riiiimcs Creek plant, head 37.5 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line, 6.75 feet diameter Total, Thomes Creek plant . Plniit at Station 1175+00, head 42 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line 6.0 feet diameter Total, plant at Station 1175+00. Plant at station 2271+00, head 35 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line 7.5 feet diameter Total, plant at Station 2271+00. Sscond lift. Station 2271, head 34 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line 4.5 feet diameter Total, second lift . Plant at Station 3260, head 25 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line, 3.5 feet diameter Total, plant at Station 3260. Plant at Station 4307, head 25 feet: Pumping plant Pipeline, 2.0 feet Total, plant at station 4307 Plant at Station 4705, head 35 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line, 3 feet diameter Total, plant at Station 4705. Plant at Station 4976, head 42 feet: Pumping plant Pipe line 6.75 feet diameter Total, plant at Station 4976. Total estimated field cost. Engineering and administration Contingencies Total estimated cost, pumping plant.s . Quantity 371 c. f. s. 6,300 ft. 171 c. f. s. 6,700 ft. 131 cf. s. 1,850 ft. 206 c. f. s. 8,400 ft. 51 c. f. s. 5,000 ft. 35 c. f. s. 1,100 ft. 8.5 e. f . s 700 ft. 23 c. f. s. 800 feet 172 c. f. s. 1,700 feet 10% 15% Unit cost $315.00 17.00 $310.00 12.00 $315.00 10.70 $310.00 13.20 310.00 7.15 $295.00 4.85 $295.00 2.90 $310.00 4.30 $315.00 12.00 Total cost $116,865 107,100 $53,010 80,400 $41,265 19,795 $63,860 110,880 $15,810 35,750 $10,325 5,335 $2,508 2,030 $7,130 3,440 $54,180 20,400 Summary $223,965 133,410 61,060 174,740 51,560 15,660 4,538 10,570 74,580 $750,083 75,008 $825,091 123,764 $948,855 Roughly $949,000 Does not include interest during construction. Note. — The first two pumping plants listed are chargeable to the Red Bank pump canal. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 185 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 13. Iron Canyon Project — California. PUMPING PLANTS. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Item Quantity Unit cost Total cost Summary Operation and maintenance (except electric energy): Labor, materials and supplies (3 times Minidoka S. Side for 1923> 11,792,400 ac.-ft. $0.0042 $49,528 4,953 $54,481 S948,855. 4% $37,954 $37,954 Total annual plant charge (exclusive of electric energy). . . . $92,435 Gross pumping area, Plate 2 94,466 acres Area assessed, 95 per cent 89,740 acres Annual plant charge per acre (exclusive of electric energy) $1 .03 Eed Bank pump unit: Gross area, Plate 2 39,350 acres Area assessed, 95 per cent 37,380 acres Electric energy, 9.850,000 k.w.h. at $0.01 $98,500.00 General expense, 10 per cent 9,850.00 Total $108,350.00 Annual charge for electric energy per acre . Annual plant charge per acre $2.90 1.03 Total annual pumping charge per acre . $3.93 Pump units near Orland: Gross area, Plate 2 34,800 acres Area assessed, 95 per cent 33,060 acres Electric energy, 5,660,000 k.w.h. at $0.01 $56,600.00 General expense, 10 per cent 5,660.00 Total for electric energy $62,260.00 Annual charge for electric energy per acre . Annual plant charge per acre $1.88 1.03 Total annual pumping charge per acre. $2.91 Pump units south of Willows: Gross area, Plate 2 20,316 acres Area assessed, 95 per cent 19,300 acres Electric energy, 3,355,000 k.w.h. at $0.01 $33,550.00 General expense, 10 per cent 3,355.00 Total for electric energy. $36,905.00 .\nnual charge for electric energy per acre . Annual plant charge per acre $1.91 1.03 Total annual pumping charge per acre . $2.94 186 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 14. Iron Canyon Project — California. EAST SIDE CANAL. Diverting at Iron Canyon Dam to supply 7000 acres east of Red Bluff. StrUJURT OP CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Capacity of canal at its head, 86 second-feel. Item Head works and tunnel at Iron Canyon dam. •Excavation Estate's cstimatc+ 10^) •Concrete lining (state's estimate-t-10%) .... Siphons and flumes Culverts Checks •Bridges (state's estimate) Turnouts Fence Telephone system Patrolmen's quarters Clearing and grubbing Right of way Totals. Estimated cost Field Total $10,000 812.650 16,000 20,240 38,100 48,197 15,000 18,975 3.000 3,795 1,000 l.L'lM 4,000 5,(lti(i 1.500 l,8',t7 4.000 5,060 1,000 1,265 3,500 4.4l'S 500 632 8,000 10.120 .?105.600 $133,584 Roughly $134,000 Docs not include interest during construction. •Items estimated by California State Department of Engineering. (See Exhibit 6.) Excavation and concrete lining arc increased by 10 per cent in consideration of the increase in canal capacity from 74 to 86 second-feet. .\ll other items are approximated upon the basis of similar construction on the Red Bank pump canal. Preliminary Estimate No. 11. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 15. Iron Canyon Project — California. PROJECT HEADQUARTERS. CONSTRUCTIO.V. Item Quantity Unit cost Total cost Summary Improvements: Office buildings $50,000 10,000 5,000 1,000 Warehouses Garage and eQuipment Grounds Total estimated field cost $66,000 Engineering and administration 10% 6 600 Totals $72,600 Contingencies 15% 10,890 Total estimated cost of project headquarters $83 490 Roughly Does not include interest during construction. $83,500 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 187 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 16. Iron Canyon Project — California. IRON CANYON DAM. CONSTRUCTION. Es'.imatod cost to raise wator surface iei reservoir from elevation 392.5 to 400 by installing movable gates in the siphon spilbrayp anil auxiliary crests on the ogee spillway. Sec Plate 11. Storage ix;tween elevation 392.5 and 400 186,200 acre-feet Gross reservoir storage 961.300 acre-feet Item Quantity Unit cost Total cost Summary Flood control section: Station 15-1-33 to 21-t-OO. Slide gates, 15' x 7.5': Structural steel Cast iron — ^v Gates Gate guides Stem guides Stuffing boxes Rolled steel stems Steel bolts Bronze — Gate seats Screws Hoists, 54-20?^: 1 geared; 27 sets of 2 Freight Installation and painting Total, slide gates in place Total increased cost, flood control section. 117,000 lbs. 133.000 lbs. 142,000 11)8. 5,400 lbs. 4,300 lbs. 49,100 ll)S. 13,000 lbs. 25,200 lbs. 270 lbs. 45,200 lbs. 534,470 lbs. 534,470 lbs. 27 10. OS Ogee spillway section: Station 40-1-00 to 50-1-00. .\uxiliary crests, 2' 6"x 10' 1" panels: Structural steel Cast steel posts, 100 Cast iron sockct.s, 100 6" rubber belt seals, 4 ply Freight Installation and painting Total, auxiliary crests in place Total increased cost, ogee spillway section. 53,900 lbs. 7.000 lbs. 3,000 lbs. 1.490 1. f. 65,000 lbs. 65,000 lbs. 99 panels $0.08 .25 I- .15 .70 .01 K.02 96.00 Total estimated increased field cost . Engineering and administration Contingencies Total increased cost . 15% $9,360 15 19.950 15 21.300 25 1,350 35 1.505 25 12.275 10 1,300 75 18,900 75 202 35 15,820 01 5,345 05 26,724 §134,031 00 135,000 S4,312 1,7.50 4.50 1,043 650 1,300 S9,505 9.504 $135,000 9,504 $144,504 14,450 $158,954 23,843 $182,797 Roughly — Does not include interest during construction. $183,000 188 !l WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 17. Iron Canyon Project — California. IRON CANYON DAM. CONSTRrCTION. Estimated cost to raise water surface in reservoir from Elevation 392.5 to 405.5 by installing movable gates in the siphon spillways and on the ogee spillway. See Plates 12 and 13. Storage Ijctween Elevation 392.5 and 405.5 346,800 acre-feet Gross reservoir storage 1,121,900 acre-feet Item Flood control section: Station 15-1-33 to 21-|-00: Additional concrete in siphon spillway to accomodate gates. . . Slide gates, 15' x 13': Structural steel Cast iron — Gates Gate guides Stem guides Stuffing boxes Rolled steel stems Steel bolts Bronze — Gate seats Screws Hoists, 54-60: 1 geared; 27 sets of 2 Freight Installation and painting Total, slide gates in place Total increased cost, flood control section. Ogee spillway section: Station 39+29 to 50-t-OO: Excavation — Class II, base of dam and discharge channel. Class II, deep cutoff Total excavation. . . . Concrete — Crest and piers, 1:2J^:5. . Downstream cutoff, 1:3:6. Deep cutoff, 1:3:6 Total concrete in place Movable crest gates, 65' x 8' hydraulic operated drum gates — Gates, seat castings hinges Pier plates and operating mechanism Freight Installation and painting Movable crest gates in place Total ogee spillway section . Total gross Credit — elinunation of gravity section from Station 39-1-29 to 40-1-00: Excavation — Class II, deep cutoff Concrete — Dam, 1:3:6 Deep cutoff, 1:3:6 Total concrete in place . Parapets Credit for gravity section. Credit — elimination of original ogee spillway Sta. 40-1-00 to 504-00: Excavation — Class II, base of dam and discharge channel. Class II, deep cutoff Total excavation . Quantity 1,460 cy. 166,000 lbs. 138,000 lbs. 188,000 11)8. 8,10011)8. 6.700 lbs. 96.100 lbs. 17,500 lbs. 37,300 lbs. 340 lbs. 89,600 lbs. 747,040 lbs. 747,640 lbs. 27 46,800 cy. 8.530 cy. 55,330 cy. 18,300 cy. 950 cy. 8,530 27.780 cy. 1,350,000 lbs. 225,000 lbs. 1,575,000 lbs. 1,575,000 lbs. 15 530 cy. 1,500 cy. 530 cy. 2,030 cy. 142 I. f. 43,500 cy. 8,000 cy. 51,500 cy. Unit cost $9.00 .08 .15 .15 .25 .35 .25 .10 .75 .75 .35 .01 .05 7,300.00 $1.50 7.50 $14.00 7.75 7.75 $0.06 .15 .015 .07 16,650.00 $7.50 7.50 7.75 10.00 $1.50 7.50 Total cost Summary $13,140 13,280 20,700 28,200 2,0,50 2,345 24,050 1,750 27,975 255 31.360 7,476 37,382 $190,823 197,100 $70,200 63,975 $134,175 $256,200 7,362 66,108 $329,670 $81,000 33,750 23,625 110,250 $248,625 249,750 $3,975 11.250 4,108 $15,358 1,420 $65,250 60,000 $125,250 $210,240 713,595 $923,835 $20,753 DEVELOPMENT OP UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 189 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE No. 17— Continued. Kcm Quantity Unit cost Total cost Suraniary Concrete — Crest, 1:3:6 Deep cutoff 1:3:6 16,600 cy. 8,000 cy. $7.50 7.75 $124,500 62,000 Total concrete in place 24,600 cy. $186,500 Credit for ogee spillway $311 750 Total credits $332 503 Total estimated increased field cost — cost less credits $591,332 10% 15% 59,133 s $650,465 97.570 Total estimated increased cost $748,035 Rouglily $748,000 Does not include interest during construction. 190 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. WATER SUPPLY AND POWER STUDIES. Talilc 13. .Study No. 1* (Summarized on page 102). Table 14. .Study No. 2* (Summarized on page 103). Table 15, Study N'o. 3* (Summarized on page 103). Table 16, Study No. 4* (Summarized on page 103). Table 17, Study No. 5* (Summarized on page 104'). Table 18* (Summarized on page 107). Tabic 19 190 Table 20* (Summarized on page 108). Table 21* (Summarized on page 109). Table 22 191 Table 23* (Summarized on page 109). Table 24 191 'Details not printeil to save spaee. These are on file at office of Division of Engineering and Irrigation and may be consulted there. TABLE 19. OUTPUT OF POWER AT IRON CANYON IN THOUSANDS OF KILOWATT HOURS, BY YEARS. Year Maximimi water surface elevation 400. 1,000.000 acre-feet project. M.Tximura installation. Maximum water .surface elevation 400. 800.000 acre-feet project. Maximum installation. Maximum water surface, 405.5. 800.000 aere-feet project. Maximum 100,000 h.p. *57.5% 105,000 h.p. *S3.5% 100.000 h.p. *56% 105,000 h.p. •53% installation. 110.000 h.p, •53% 1895-90 527,720 586.980 518.970 507.020 568.870 548.350 543,030 581. .560 ,599.280 621.140 526.480 574.210 506.700 526.230 58G,.540 540.000 .528.380 ,562.711) ,561.680 5.56,300 558.020 530.960 4.54.230 .503,810 365.200 581,680 489,120 476,380 290.570 549,520 609,030 528,070 517,540 587,930 568,900 559,.380 603.000 626.530 645,640 548,280 698,710 .588,.500 548.030 610,040 560,800 547.440 584.510 585.080 578,000 579,820 549,100 462.560 .520.170 367,920 602,680 502,740 485,.580 290,570 534.530 596,990 497,940 512,600 581,430 551.200 548.570 580.480 600.500 625,730 534.030 .';86 040 579.130 537.370 588,440 557,220 .598,870 577,480 564,980 566,180 500.980 546.710 465.080 .508. KiO 385.160 583.530 504.1.50 500.490 313.700 554,130 621.490 508,840 523,560 602,230 570,400 567,770 602,280 626,650 652.980 554.380 608.840 600,930 556,470 610,690 576,320 617,970 599,280 586.780 587,330 ,582,780 .562.120 474,150 ,522.710 387,880 605,330 517,7.50 507,580 313,700 584 950 1896-97 652 550 1897-!'8 1898-99 565,200 550 450 1899-00 632,900 1900-01 000,500 1901-02 596,450 1902-03 633 720 1903-04 659,350 1904-05 685.800 1905-06 581.500 1906-07 606,650 1907-08 629,100 1908-09 582,800 1909-10 642,050 1910-11 603,950 1911-12 .584.300 1912-13 628 950 1913-14 616,300 1914-15 616,.520 1915-16 612.050 1916-17 588,750 1917-18 497,700 1918-19 551000 1919-20.. . 1920-21 1921-22 410.200 637.150 .544,300 1922-23 531,700 1923-24.. 334,970 .\verage annual 530.420 548,520 540.990 558,740 584,890 *.\verage percentage of time during which water is available to operate plant to full capacity. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 191 TABLE 22. IRON CANYON PROJECT. Irrigation draft 800.000 acre-foet. Maximum reservoir elevation 405.5. Maximum installaticn 105,000 horsepower and 110,000 horsepower. Primary power output in October 44,000 horsepower. Iron Canycn Only— Quantities In Horsepower. 1915-1916 1919-1920 1923-1924 Month Potential output* Primary demand Primary demand + pumping load Potential output Primary demand Primary demand -H pumping load Potential output Primary demand Primary demand -(- pumping load October 45,360 41,000 202.000 352,000 515,000 382,000 224,000 147,000 115,000 118,000 98,400 62,700 44,000 41,000 41,600 38,600 38,600 41,000 40.400 52.300 64.300 67.800 67.300 57,600 45,360 41.000 41.600 38,600 38,600 41,340 42,150 57.730 71,300 75.270 74.100 61,790 45,360 41.000 41,600 38.600 38.600 50.000 153.000 88,200 91,200 81,600 70,600 56,000 44,000 41,000 41,600 38,600 38,600 41,000 40.400 52.300 64,300 67.800 67.300 57,600 45.360 41.000 41.600 38.600 38.600 41.340 42,250 57,730 71. .300 75.270 74,100 61,790 45,360 41,000 41,600 38.600 38.600 41.340 42.150 72.400 73,700 70.700 62,800 43,300 44,000 41,000 41,600 38,600 38.600 41,000 40,400 52.300 64,300 67,800 67,300 57,600 45,360 41,000 December 41.600 January »> 38.600 38.600 March 41,340 .\pril 42,150 Mav 57.730 ,IUMC 71.300 July 75.270 74.100 September 61,790 49.500 49,500 49,500 *0n the graplis prepared from the above tables the maximum output for water surface at elevation 400 is shown as 100,000 horsepower and for water surface at elevation 405.5 the maximum output is shown as 105,000 and 110,000 horse- power. TABLE 24. IRON CANYON PROJECT. Irrieation draft 800.000 acre-feot. Maximum reservoir elevation 405.5. Maximum installation 105.000 horsepower, and 110.000 horsepower at Iron Canyon, and 10,400 horsepower at Mooney Island, total 115.400 and 120.400 horsepower. Primary power based on 44.000 horsepower at Iron Canyon in October and 9000 at Mooney Island. October output— 53,000 horsepower-t-1360 horsepower pumping load. Iron Canyon and Mooney Island CcmbinEd— Quantities In Horsepower. Month October. . . November . December. January. . . February. . March .... .\pril May June July .\ugust . . . . September . Averages 1915-1916 Potential output* 54,360 49,400 210,500 359,900 522,900 390,400 232,250 157,260 125,260 128.260 108,660 72,250 Primary demand 53,000 49,400 50,100 46,500 46,500 49,400 48.650 63,000 77,400 81,600 81,000 69,400 59,620 Primary demand + pumping load 54,360 49,400 50,100 46,500 46,500 49,740 50.400 68,430 84,400 89.070 87,800 73,590 1919-1920 Potential output 54.360 49,400 50,100 46,500 46,500 58,400 161.250 98.460 101.460 91.860 80.860 65,550 Primary demand 53.000 49.400 50,100 46,500 46.500 49,400 48.650 63.000 77,400 81,600 81,000 69,400 59,620 Primary demand + pumping load 54,360 49,400 50,100 46.500 46.500 40.740 50,400 68.430 84.400 89.070 87.800 73,590 1923-1924 Potential output 54,360 49,400 50,100 46,500 46,500 49,740 50,350 82,660 83,960 80,960 73,060 52,850 Primary demand 53.000 49,400 50,100 46,500 46.500 49.400 48.650 63.000 77.400 81.600 81,000 69,400 59,620 Primary demand + pumping load 54,300 49.400 50.100 46.500 46.500 49,740 50,400 68.430 84.400 89.070 87.800 73.590 *0n the graphs prepared from the above table, the maximum output for water surface at elevation 400 is shown as 110,400 horsepower, and for maximum water surface at elevation 405.5 the maximum output is shown as 115,400 and 120,400 horsepower. 192 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. Iron Canyon Project — California. PHOTOGRAPHS.* Numl)ors at the side of the sheet are those by which the films on tile in the Commissioner's office. Bureau of Reclama- tion, Washington, D. C, are known. If additional prints are desired, order should l.e l)y number, thus: Iron Canyon 10. 'Not included in printed report. ?Tom Ret Xndsraon-Cotij oODtour sbond Exhibit "C" d J. Qault and water in the haa been mada LE PLATE 3 ASSeSSOt'S PtATS Roads ^ Hailroads Distn'd- Bouodary Grspt Bou/idary Jedtoo Linesr Rvperty 8oi/ndaries Number of Sections Streams, 6u/crtes Main Canal Lsfferels Co/umbie Grtsyeffy Sarti^^- Co/umbfd Sttt Loam /?/ ver ^sh Columbia Fjne 5ans Lhsuryeyed ® ' % -ISi "t'l^ G ©Vl)-^- NWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT ©;i L MAP ov/i iig ct yciovi 400 » contour v'ed notes^ ' 4I-D-94 50667 — pages 192-193 ?roiB Report of Hoveniber 6, 19S3 od the «conoailc elCuatlon lo ths Andorson-Cottoiniood Irrigation DlstTlot by David waelcs. The 400 foot oontour shovra Is plotted froa the map of Iron CftDj^OD Beseirolr Bite. Exhibit "C" of the Hoport on Iron Caayoo Frojeot, California by Homer J. Gsult and ff. ?, UoClnre dated liy 1920. It is noi^ proposed to store "Bter In the reeerrolr to eleTatlon 405.5. flo eurre; of this oontour hsa been made In conneotlon nith this report. PLATE 3 EGEND fbilroaas Di'stn'cf Bovodaiy 6mr^ Boundary JtcHon unesr Pnperly Qivndariei Number of Stctioni StTzsms, 6u/cha Han CSral Ca/vmbis Gn3ire//y Sandy Loam Columbia Silt Loam River ^sh Columbia Fine Sindy Loam Anderson G nave II y Lo^m /bedding Gravelly Loam ColumtUg Loom Anderson fine Sandy Loam Rec/dli^ Lo^m Are^ Unsuryeyed ANDERSON COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOIL MAP 3h ovd ng •;^rtlon of Jlstrlot 'cclow 400' ccntoxir SV-A-7 41- D- 94 50C67 — pages 192-193 DEVELOPMENT OF UPPEU SACRAMENTO RIVER. 193 PL/\TE 4 Lun|oa -S-QSn - NOI1VA313 13—50667 DEVELOPMENT OF Ul'l'KK SACRAMENTO RIVER. 193 PL/ME 4 Ujn|oa-S'9'Sn - NOI1VA313 -50667 194 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. PLATE DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 195 PLATE 6 o Q. in UJ X o o 2 OC u. O X O. UJ o 0123456789 10 II 12 DEPTH OF PRECIPITATION IN INCHES PER MONTH FROM RAINFALL- RUNOFF CURVE BY C.E.6RUNSKY, SEE PAGE 85, VOLUME- LXXXV, TRANSACTIONS A.5.C.E.F0R 1922. ORIGINAL CURVE HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO RAINFALL AND RLH^OFF BY MONTHS. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU Or RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIFORNIA IRON CANYON RESERVOIR RAINFALL-RUNOFF CURVE DRAWN WAP,. .^^'"^ SuBM/rTeo/^, CMfCKED.75j^/Z'/y. ^^ ^^ ^y|^ ^^ ^ W^ $$$i ^^^ ^^ w^ ^^^^^ :s^x>^ A S^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^::^^^^<^^^^^ 1915-16 CAveraqe Yccir) 1919-20 (Low Year] Oct. Nov Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr May June July Auq.Sept. 1923-24 [Lowest Year of Record) Y/^/Z^'i Iron Canyon Project Demands f^^^^^^^^l Pri"or Riqhfs (Assumed) Measured at U.S.G.S.Oaqmq Station 4i Miles above Red Bluff. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOI* BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIF SACRAMENTO RIVER RUN-OFP AT RED BLUFF CHec»CE0^5!:^^.APPR0VED / SY- 33 |gERKEiEY.CAuF5io:isJ4|.p.9g Joi -^—^. — f^ m ////. --■'-r / ^ / r^'^ v^ ■"V?^ . I .d.eOA .J3 VA>A i,60 urn re ^^, A r\r\ '\ .\ ^ r U V I kj \^ o \.» \/ 1 • -> -I ? ! I -• .--> >~N-' ■^111 c )0 l-3flOA 000.006 - a* r Jir )0 006(il Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr MoyJuneJuly Auq Sept 1000 500 ^.. ,SP[ .L- •— . 1 1 ^ — 1 — 1 / \ y \ ^ s. W/////y///yy//A'//A////, M'/m///y///m', y7/, mv/A////. '^/^//a y//M/y ■v,A7m///myY//A Oct Mov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr MoyJuneJuly Auq Sept _SPILLWAY EL. 400, S TORAGE 9613pO_AJ Storaqe of 714,000 Acre-Feet below El, 353 15 reserve d to cre ate mini mum p ower tieod of lOOfr . Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr May June July Auq Sept / r-- SP LL- ^ s / ^ / s. s =^^ "T/ 7^^ Z7} ZTT: T:i^ KTT:^.-' ^^"" \-r^-r^ ""■^■^ vr^ ; ._ '._.;j 1 i ' : ' ' ' ' ,.,l.,. ,y^^. ,,/k./,i .\. ;. ,t.v.iz,i//>; ■/ p=^ ;5PiLL / \ / s ^ ^ \ ^ ■^ S, „^-- s "v. 77r, 7V77 tv,^ 7'//X///X/T7'^'77Z/ ??$^^?^^ p7^ ^^;///,y-^ V' ■>, Y ■■' ^, . ■".-■', . I . - . 1 , . . '. t : .; ;. ; ;. .; 1000 500 1000 500 Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr MoyJuneJuly Auq Sept 1915-16 Averaqe Year 1919-20 Low Year 1000 500 lOOC 500 1000 y-- SPl LL- t--. 1 — 1 / — — ■ — ' — ■^ y s / N ,^ ■^ \\ '^'■y/\'/A' '^ W/. 1 1 y///////a:7A Wyy/zy'/Ay/A m V/A '////. M'^, ^ V/.W/^//^. m mm ••1 •SPIl-L 1 — 1 ^ / ^-^ / \ / >> ^ \ ^ \ .-— — \ fi^:.,-^ ,' _ _^ _ j \ „^^„-,_J „\ ShoM3q;«]p8T00 * F ^-^^^J . /.V '/a, '.,^.;-.,l,,,,t;,,r ^",k':::. ■•■ J ,.:■ I923-2A liswest Year of Record 500 Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apt MoyJuneJuly Auq Sept." SPILLWAY EL, 405.5, STOR AGE I. I2I.90O A.F . Storaqe of 364 600 Acre- Feet below El. 368 is ?" ST" > \ / s / Nj / s f - ^^. V U- — ' 1 ^^ -^-^J . . . . J. . , , Sfio'r^aat! f|i Aoq^fta'lbo A F^s. . '" . fdrYtolt 103.100 A F-+f^^ Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr May June July Auq Sept. SPILLWAY EL. 400, STORAGE 961.300 A.F Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb. Mor AprMoyJuneJcly AuqJept. PLATE 8 Oct NoyDec.Jan Feb Mar Apr MoyJuneJuly Auq Sepi SPILLWAY EL 405.5, 5T0RA6E I 121.900 A F. fHVSICAl 'k SCIENCES ■♦ USBARV jiuiui^K ui oot Duu Mcre-reer oeiow ti. JDO is V///"" ' ■■ ' ■""A reserved to crgajgjrijnirnurTXB^ovyer_he gd of 115ft '''~ vZ.,. \ ^^ To produce a uniform output of power and to supply water required) for naviqation and prior riqhts, the discharqe,tili reservoir is filled/ ,-0=^^ -412PAloo_a Storaqe of 364.600 Acre Feet below El 368 is reserved to create minimum power head of US ft is ossunied equivalent to 4200 c'fs times the indicated minimum heads/ GROSS ANNUAL PROJECT DEMAND - 800.000 ACRE- FEET MI5_ Avoiloble Heod PHYSICAL SCIENfE? Lim.'AKY Storaqe of 214,000 Acre Feet below El 353 is reserved to creo te minimum power heod oflOOtt . 3600«l00iirii5 1"'^° produce a uniform output of power and fo supply water required Q"* 1 ,^.Mki. u^^^ { for naviqation and prior riqhts, the discharqe, till reservoir is filled, '"''^'"^"^''M IS assumed equivalent to 3600 c f.s. times the in. GROSS ANNUAL PROJECT DEMAND dicated minimum heads 1,000,000 ACRE-FEET DEPAPTf.'ENT OF THt IHTEIHO* BoRtAu OF fttCLAMA'tON IPON CAMraM PP^JtCT - Ci'-lF IRON CaNYON RESERVOIR GRAPHS OF OPERATION ^.,. »^v/°>^.^,i. ■ . . .7". ^ ^ DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 197 PLATE e I < < 3 Oct Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr May June July Auq. Sep-. \ II J 1 10 n r- 1 5 n RG. aE. FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY From Sacramento Division north, in tha ^a.ar 1911. From data furnished Nov.28. 1924 < Z UJ O (X 10 IT/^ofSJ.L.aPCosLoad is Ac riculturaiKum )inq J* 1 Oct Wov Dec Jan Feb. Mar Apr. May June July Auq. Sept. S.J.. L 8c R CO. FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY From data furnished Oct. 21. 1914 'MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BY % OF MEAN ANNUAL The Curve of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for the Sacramento Yallcy is used in this Report for dctermininq the Output of Pnmory Power. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIF. POWER DEMAND CURVES fe* ^t^.- drawn!'*''. ^''^' SUBMITTECW*^ cnEC>ceoT^»-:<*^APPPovEP SY- 13 {sehkeley.Cal. s-^^'^^|4|-D-|Q0 ^■^^ v^M l^^ noM d9l nol osO vcl/I ioO . ^ A ' ' ■■" t I — t 1 4^ .J:.. E g 1 ' 1 - — i 1 .loU 0001 OOd 51 oo > H (\) jj > UJ CO -J c> <%c?r ?P -aei as\ DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 197 PLATE e Oct Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr May June July Auq. Sepf ^UAL DEMAND D en o ^■^■^ ■ L_ ^GE OF AlVir < R6. aE. FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY From Sacramento Division north, in the yaor 1911, From data furnished Nov.28. 1924 5 10 o a: UJ a. ^ s „ 77*/^ofSJ.L.aPCos[:oad 2 isAa ricuIturalPumi )inq O ^ 'MOWTH Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb. Mar Apr. May June July Auq. Sept. S.J.. L & P. CO. FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY From data furnished Oct. 21. 1924 LY DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BYroOFMEANIAf ^NUAL The Curve of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIF. POWER DEMAND CURVES for the Sacramento YaKey is used in this drawn"'*' «'C SuBMlTTE«ii/^^<^- Kcport tor d ererm ininq ]l\(Ll 'Uipu ror rf iman KOW i\. 5Y- 13 iBeRKELEY.CAL S ->^SJ4|-D-|00 I 198 WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA. f ; N J F M A t ^ MONTHS F M A M J J A S 100 - -- ■- — — -- -- - i s — ^ bO l ^ ~ [- - « - — _ , _ N J F M A M J J A S — — -- — — i ^ i 557 g - IB -- — l_ - « 100 50 o a to a o r u. o (O Q 21 < tn D O I r— 1 1 1 - ■ . ^ 100- ~^ _^ — ■" ^ii 4-2 "i i IxJ - 1 ■I L = ■ - — m ■ . . — 4 - "" ~ n . 1- ~ ^^ ^~^ ■* 100 .— m i iA _. ^ ^ ^ ... 50 ... « jjg - — -- Vi . . * -T^ "hi -4 -, n .1 4 r M A IP'Y IC 5,0 A 00 M a 1 J ' 04 J 00 A H 3 i I 1 1 • 1 77 ... i iS 1 ^ ^ — 1 — ... »~J 77TT t.: 1 100 50 installed Capacitforage 'to El 40B.5 ONDJFMAMJJAS Inslal Capy 100,000 a 10.400 H P Storage to El 400 si.oragPtoi^^£Y ISLAND PLANTS, COMBINED PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY DEPAHTMtNT OF TH£ lNTS.IHOIf BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT CALIFORNIA POWER CURVES IRRIGATION DRAFT 800,000 AC.FT !>«,<»»< WAP, (?Mi^irTri c"''^"-** ""o^-^o •'^-^"o-'o^fl W>1iF PA/qA^ ///4tr SECTIONAL PLAN \-^ o op H/»i^ UPSTREAM ELEVATION HALF SECTIONAL ELEVATION SIPHON CREST GATE ^■••■/2V*0'£ Dnve Mec/rai^isrrr Ihr Morsfs not shoivrT 4j6 Nor7- Risinq (^afe. Sfem- Doud/e Acme Thread^ r Uad „ 8rome seat ELEVATION i&MZS SECTION SIPHON SPILLWAY Denver Office Standard Design Stem Oufde ■ 3i 'Stem Dmwinq IOO-C-223 )667 — pages 198-199 CREST GATE DETAILS See Drawinq no- 4/ - C'23 Report- on Iron Canyon Projecl t^ay 1920. DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIFORNIA IRON CANYON DAM NORMAL WATER SURFACE - EL 40S 5 SPILLWAY CREST GATES PRELIM/NARY ESTIMATE DRAWING i-nc: i.iii"iivx «r c:i'nvjmc UKawirvtf DRAWN cnecKEO jjr^^ ApPKOvto SV ~ 39 |gfg*ffi£y CAtie JwiE 18 /9?s| 4J'0-t(i§ >667— pages 198-199 ^SS%> 51a.O«oo 15 20 ELEVATION 5ta.30*00 (Normal W.S.EI. 405.5.= Crest of ■■■; Movable Gates on Iron Canyon Dam "l^ I---25 --H 1 K15h i ..••[!. 417.0 ^ ^'^ AOZO' Reinf. Concrete Corewall > EARTH >l I' ■/ .'h >- ^ rrrr El. 402 5 Batter I- 30 EMBANKMENT .^.•. ^tr E!.35 0t-; TrYTrn-nTTTTT-rrirTnyiriyn-r-y-rr.-y-i ii i /l i " / '"■/•' •'/ ASSUMED MAXIMUM SECTION NOTE Location of Bend Embankment as shown on Elevation is on Drawing 4I-C-I6 Exhibit E Report on Iron Canyon Project.Calif dated May 1920. 0667 — ^pages 198-199 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAWING DEPARIMENT Of THE INTERIOR BUOTftU OF RECIAMATION IRON CANYON PROJEaCALlFORNIA IRON CANYON RESERVOIR BEND EMBANKMENT CHMCKKOi .(.V\-..f^ A^PmOVBOt SV-37 IPtuKEliV Calif. eillbUtDIOS DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 201 CHAPTER VI. REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS ON IRON CANYON PROJECT. To the United States Reclamation Service, the California State Depart- ment of Engineering, and the Iron Canyon Project Association. Gentlemen: This board lias convened at Red Bluff, California, in accordance with the request of April 19, 1920, of the chief engineer of the United States Reclamation Service, copy of Avhicli precedes this report. Various plans of an Iron Canyon dam were discussed in tlie printed report of October, 1914. These plans Avere all based on Location I, as shown on general location map, Exliibit B, following page 76^ Subse- quent boring investigations, carried out in accordance with recommenda- tions made in 1914, revealed less favorable foundation conditions than had been assumed and further borings and drift work were deemed advisable to .ascertain whether other dam sites in the canj'on might be found where conditions are more satisfactory. In accordance with suggestions made in reports of ^Ir. Hamlin, - a member of this board, and Prof. A. C. Lawson,-' of the University of California, two lower dam sites have now been examined, marked Location II and Location III on Exhibit B, which have made possible an intelligent comparison and which have resulted in the selection of a dam site at Location III, about o miles below the original Location I. The geological conditions and the reasons for preferring Location III are explained in the following paragraphs. The dam site at Location I is that projiosed in the cooi)erative report. The one favorable feature of this site is the considerable amount of Agglomerate No. 1 in the abutments of the dam. This material, how- ever, has a thickness of onlv 35 feet across the vallev and in the river channel it has been entirely cut through into the soft sands and tuffs below, as shown on Exhibit D.' At this site the agglomerate is harder than at any other point in Iron Canyon. The unfavorable conditions are : (a) Agglomerate No. 1 and the soft sands and tuft's below dip upstream, an attitude which favors percolation outward from beneath Agglomerate No. 1. (b) The soft sands and tuft's beneath Agglomerate No. 1 are pervious, as shown by the fact that nearly all drill holes in this vicinity yielded artesian water. (c) The narrow gorge cut through Agglomerate No. 1 extends some distance upstream from the dam site. Leakage will occur from the bottom of this gorge uidess it is filled with impervious material, which ' Page 205 of this bulletin. 2 Appendix 1, page 41, "Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1920," by United States Reclamation Service. ^Appendix 3, page 71, "Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1920," by United States Reclamation Service. * Kxhibit A, lower figure, of this Imllrtin ; see pnge 203. 202 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA. may prove to be an expensive and uncertain operation. Regarding this matter Prof. A. C. Lawson states: "Water entering these sands of the river trench under the head established by the reservoir would partly pass out under the surrounding country and escape at distant points, but would tend chiefly to escape by the shortest outlet, which would be at the downstream toe of the dam. Judging by the incoherence of the sands, their coarse texture, their caving in the drill holes, the artesian flow from some of them and the strong undercutting of the river banks below low water, it seems probable that this escaping water at the lower toe of the dam, under high pressure, would acquire sufficient velocity to scour the sand at the points of escape. If this were so then a process making for the undermining of the dam and its ultimate failure would be inaugurated, since scouring would retreat upstream below the dam." (d) Paynes Creek basalt is a very pervious formation, and is in general underlaid by a thin bed of porous stream gravel. To make this formation water-tight a cut-off wall must be built, extending well down into Agglomerate No. 1, along the axis of the proposed spillway structure. In addition the spillway structure must be built on this pervious formation. (e) Extensive erosion will occur in Paynes Creek Canyon if the spillway is built as located. Agglomerate No. 1 has been deeply trenched by Paynes Creek and nearly cut through in places. Below are the soft sands and tuffs some 100 feet in thickness, before any hard beds are reached. The overflow from the spillway, falling over the west wall of Paynes Creek Canyon, will soon cut through Agglomerate No. 1 and undermine it and the basalt above. When all the adverse conditions at this site are considered it is not believed that a dam such as proposed is practicable. Obviously an earth or masonry dam would also be impracticable. Prof. Lawson recommended tests at a dam site here designated Location II, at a point where the hard Agglomerate No. 2 crosses Sacra- mento River, forming a riffle or small rapids. Here drill holes show Agglomerate No. 2 to be from 9 to 28 feet thick and that it rests upon pervious sands and tuffs of unknown thickness, but at least 100 feet thick. The pervious sands and tuffs which rise from beneath Agglomer- ate No. 1 at Location I would here form the abutments of the proposed dam. It is believed that Agglomerate No. 2 is not thick enough for the foundations of a masonry dam and that the sands and tuffs both beneath and above Agglomerate No. 2 are pervious. This dam site can not be recommended. At Location III Agglomerate No. 1 is about 140 feet thick. The river canyon has been cut down into it some 30 feet, leaving about 110 feet in thickness above the pervious sands and tuffs on which it rests. This is a sufficient thickness to withstand the upward hydraulic pressure from a full reservoir, as planned. Here Agglomerate No. 1 is not as hard as at Location I, but its bearing power is sufficient to withstand the pressures from a properly designed masonry dam. The dip of Agglomerate No. 1 and the forma- tions both above and below it is downstream, hence the removal of material from beneath Agglomerate No. 1 by percolating water is not possible. DEVEI.OI'MKNT OF ri'l'EK SACRAMENTO RIVER. EXHIBIT A, 203 Secfion" C-C Horizonfe/ Scale i / protection against erosion. The problem of spillway discharge becomes relativelv simple through a solid concrete channel section of the dam and similarly sucli section would afford the most economical means of power water discharge. Such section would also inspire the greatest confidence in view of tlie presence of a large population in the valley below the dam. The principal reason for the selection of Location III was explained in previous paragraphs to be the existence of a mass of agglomerate 110 feet in thiclmess below the river channel at the dam site. This material where exposed at the surface is a natural concrete which is probably water-tight and has considerable hardness and great bearing power, in every way satisfactory as a foundation for a high concrete dam. The records of borings, however, are not nearly so favorable. The fine bind- ing material in the interior of the mass is rather soft, so that but a small percentage of core was produced. In a drift in the east abutment of the dam also the material becomes rather soft away from air exposure. A bearing test was made by Mr. Gault indicating for the softest part of the material that no yielding resulted under a pressure of approximately 40 tons per square foot, the test surfaces being 1 square foot and the material being dry. To what extent in such test the side support of the material under stress aided in supporting the load is uncertain as is also the softening effect which water might produce. We believe, however, that this agglomerate will furnish a safe founda- tion provided the maximum pressures do not exceed 10 tons, which is close to the limiting stress in the Denver design, of which the maximum section is shown in Exhibit M.* In this section the back slope has been taken as 1 : 1, or flatter than an ordinary gravity section as a result of gate and siphon spillway design. The section is large enough to provide against one-third full pressure uplift near the heel, diminishing to zero near the toe. The general agglomerate mass is probably reasonably water-tight even where it may lack hardness. Nevertheless, a cut-off trench of 40 or 50 feet into this material at the heel may be regarded as neces.sary. The material seems to be remarkably free from seams, but grouting below the plane of cut-off* is desirable as a precautionary measure, together with providing drains back of the cut-off, these drains to be confined in depth to the agglomerate and on no account to penetrate to the underlj'ing sandstone and tuff. With such provisions it is not likely that any material uplift under the foundation will develop, and the provision to the extent explained above seems entirely sufficient. There is, however, some doubt as to whether the base of the dam should not be spread in an upstream direction with steel reinforcement reaching into the main base of the dam to take up shear and tension, to lessen tlie abruptness of the change from no load to full load, and to keep the maximum load within the 10-ton limit. * Exhibit M not included in this bulletin. 208 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, The material in the hillsides continues to be agglomerate for a height of about ;}0 feet, above whieli level occur tuffs and sandstones, which in large part seem less desirable as a foundation for a masonry dam. The estimates prepared in Denver assume concrete masonry construc- tion from end to end. It seems to us desirable that designs be also made on tlie basis of earth-dam construction, such construction to commence at points on either side of the ma.sonry section, where an abutment Avail could be feasibly founded on agglomerate by deep excavation, but "where the height of tlie dam above the surface has become diminislied to from 80 to 70 feet. This is suggested largely by foundation conditions, althougli it may also lead to lesser co.st. In regard to spillway and power outlets, the solution offered by the Denver office can not at present be improved upon in the limited time available to this board. It should be stated, however, that we believe the a])ron ])rotection below the dam may have to be extended to insure the standing wave occurring on the apron. Possibly an increase in height of upstep may be required to minimize the distance from dam to wave. It may also be wise to consider a concrete upstream apron under the earth blanket, reaching possibly 100 feet upstream on bottom and canyon sides to in.sure against water passing down between earth apron and dam face. The safety of the dam as designed, or as it may be redesigned, depends not only on the immediate foundation but also on the condi- tions of underflow in the sandstone and tuff beds below the agsrlomerate. To satisfy ourselves as to this crucial feature we have studied boring records and examined these beds. where they rise in the expo.sed canyon sides upstream from the dam site, as shown on Exhibit D.* The artesian floAv from various bore holes indicates that the sand- stone will permit slow flow of water. The most dangerous places in such cases are usually the planes of contact between different beds. Contact wherever examined seems to be perfect. The flow proceeds probably from the coarser layers which may not be extensive altliough ])ockets may occur with great frequency. We believe that danger from a rapid flow establishing itself along certain lines under the dam, sncli as miglit begin carrying material and ultimately leading to the undermining of the dam, would be very serious to the extent of causing condemnation of the dam site if it were not for the fact tliat these .sandstone layers below the dam are overlaid by a heavy capping of reasonably dense agglomerate dipping in a downstream direction. This agglomerate layer, 140 feet thick where not eroded by the river and with a minimum thickness next the dam of 110 feet, is so far as known remarkably free of seams. No springs have been discovered on the surface of this layer. The weight of this mass is sufficient, as previously stated, even where not overlaid, as in the sides of higher .strata, to resist the full upward pressure which might be caused by underflow. Should any seam exist and water rise through it, it is not readily conceivable that any sand would be discharged through it, and if any sand movement from beloAV should gain headway, it seems certain that tlie seam would become promptly clogged and choke any further upward movement of sand. * Exhibit A, lower figure, of thi.s bulletin ; see page 203. DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER. 209 The possible occurrence of seams in this material has been especially a subject of study on tlie part of Mr. Hamlin, who holds that no fear in that regard need be entertained. We conclude, therefore, that while conditions for a dam at the best site available are far from ideal, a safe dam can be constructed at this point. Location III, but it must be admitted that the item of contingen- cies to guard against all dangers which may become apparent upon opening up the foundation may be greater tlian usual and that the total for this dam, including also overhead expenses, estimated at 25 per cent, may be exceeded. Your instructions did not require us to extend this study to the problem of project feasibility. We have, nevertheless, given some thought to this matter in connection with further action contemplated by the Iron Canyon Project Association. So far as the dam and reservoir are concerned the present estimate stands about as follows : Total cost, including 60,000 horsepower development $17,977,000 00 Credit to irrigation on account of power 7,500,000 00 Net charge for reservoir to irrigation $10,477,000 00 Available capacity, 640,000 acre-feet, net cost per acre-foot available $16 40 Irrigable area, 225,000 acres, net cost per acre 46 60 As to the total acre cost we have used certain revised estimates made by Mr. Gault of the main canal and distribution features, indicating that the former may cost about $50 per acre and the latter $37, result- ing in a total cost exceeding $130 per acre. It is possible that a greater credit may be secured for power, against wliicli there is also the possi- bility that requirements as to unquestioned safety of the dam may compel large additional expenditures over those estimated. The project is one w4iich can become possible only through full support of the great majority of landowners, and it is well that they have a general knowledge of possible cost to guide them in their further efforts, for which purpose such figures as are now in our possession are above presented in this report. Comparing this cost with the cost of plan A-4 in the 1914 report, with smaller total storage, if the cost of that plan had been reduced by probable power value only and had not received credit for flood control, for which under the changed water-right conditions the reservoir contains no reservation, the acre cost as then estimated would have been $65. Additional diversion as now figured, together with a practically doubled cost of labor and materials, would, roughly, result in about the same acre cost as is now figured in connection with a changed dam location. D. C. Henny. A. J. WiLCT. ITO]MER IlAMIJlsr. W. F. I\IcClure. J. L. Savage. H. J. Gault. Red Bluff, California, May 7, 1920. 50667 1-28 4M O 14 — 50667 ILklAJ. ELtlO-5 ■i EiTos PHYSICAL SCIENCES BRARY ■Normal i .• ■■; El 36 8.1 MinWSJor Operation/ Hydraulic = Earth =£ Blanket-. W^ ■A':\ :^ /■■J -5 Concrete rEI. INSTALLED CAPACITY 110.000 H.R .-4-27,500 H.R UNITS 296 v-"^%irf ■rirninnno Hnlo^ ^ rrc Dralnaq^ tioles, S'crs. Orouf Holes 10 crs in each row. sfaqq&red 191 El 290 -y rH.W.5. El 287, Q - 278,000 1 CfS. ,■■-' ---Slope Wall -'■■•■ El 2iS- ^f r ' ^ '^ 'r ^/^ t^' ^ " ^'f ^ '^T ^' ^p^^r^ -90- P^YSICAt ^lENCES SECTION THRU POWER HOUSE NOTE- Section of dam Same as shown on Dwq aic w Report on Iron Canyon Project. May, 1910 Power Development increasod fromSO.oOO HP to 110 000 H P 50 -1- -L. 100 SCALE OF FEET 50667— pages 198-199 DCPAKTMINT Of THE iNTERIOR BUREAU OF ffecLAMAT/OfJ IRON CANYON PKOJECT- CALIFORNIA IRON CANYON DAM POWER INSTALL ATION- 110.000 HP. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAWING CHecKtoXtirG^. ... APfROvEO /-. ■- SV- 41 I BtPKl'^tY.CALtr, 7 27 244(D-/0'6 667 — pages 198-199 ^^c. '■? «1 'i«-* '*=a f<^>^; -i._ ve4 .Sctf* in fee* Ccnfour interna/- 2Ff PKCLinitlflKY C3TinmC DRftWING ^r- ^f^ Oak and SViZ \Bfrke/ey. Colr/rfti S/9/S\ 4/-0-/08 -pages 198-199 r^ \ / PLATE 19 ClevTMaV' --'•'•oi-.^ Ifanfarcin^ Sfee/ not sfi^twn ffa/afa/ef- ffa//er6attr3 onPlfi-3 B-O'F-H ■J-l W Ho'Sts and Hoisf f^ouses not sAairn SECTIOn £-£ f "carafe for pier *o ^^th ordffred i>y ^rtgineer SECTtOn AfID £LCV/ITlOh O-D ■ ,j:<,,.>.v.^.<^t**j. ^KT/on /}no £i£fiiT/on ,9 ■ /j sccnon /lAfo CLEi'/iT/o/i a3-»s seer ion ,9 no ELEt/i^rion k-k •^>\f,l — pages 198-199 I SECT I on J- J OMtRThteftTor rut tMrrinom auHEAU o^ m£ct.An4Arfon /Hort CAftran ^majrcr-CAt/lVMr/A WEST SIDE LOW UnCCA/UL DIVERSIOn WODKS DETAILS_ s>^^i \BerHetev.CalifrebN9!S^*l-D-li6' CHtCHtO.Ti ^.f^, A. r uM ' c ^v-* 290 280 270 260 250 '240L ^iL2eo_ ■^— == .—TOP OF DIKE SLOPE = .00053 ■ ^^^ GROUND SURFACE-; W ' ——_____ 0*00 10 20 30 40 50+00 60 70 80 90 290 280 270 2602 250 ; 240 100+00 CO CD 100*00 lBO+00 PROFILE 190+00 <10.0>' TYPICAL SECTION PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRA\WIN& DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATiON IRON CANYON PROJECT-CALIFORNrA DIVERSION WORKS DIKE ON EAST SIDE DiiAwn,'KhT.. M.t subkiittbdU, 7c2/atWi CHKCKEDUAi/ APPROVKD: ( SV-35 iBtRKEltT CtUT JuNiH'2S|4l>HI 50C67— pages 198-199 •n 111' I I f ,--rj^-> ■• I '\ ' '.' '", ' I " ' I \ ■^ ' I . \ '^ ' ', -J,'^. / I \ -J-' ^ ' \ ■ < ' ^ 1 > ^y --iji,-- ■ ItTTlirF . 1 1 1 ! LIJII 1 1 II I v l i- .t 3j :* /"i/?/)' or fV¥tCRHOUOC 3cale !n feet c/ip/ic/rr or wmt£»vay Msod J I ■ Siphons 'tiTOtSt it SoeS lJ7 'J7SOcf.a. Sluices j-70t3>->,s.oestSi ' mScf.a. Total • 4d7S(i.f.3. 3- lOJ.OOO c.f.3. fIxDtjmed W3. £1. ^36.0 \ 19 ' f^ije ajjumea from rating curve of ^ U.5G.2. Cayiny J fat ion above f?ed Bluff §. LOW V^aler Cl ^iTO '<- a- 6500c f^ E0G67— pages 198-199 r uni c I.C. H 5EPT 12,1923 Q'340O Q AS MEASURED AT RED 45EPT.BK-5EPT. 15 — + — Sept. 18 • Q=3490 Q'3400 Q'3!50 BLUFF GAGING STATION 4- — Sept. 11 +5ept.21*- Q' 3740 0-3660 -SEPT.26,mi- Q- 5100 + Dec,I7I92! Q-4690 I9Z 191 f90 189 IM DISTANCE IN MILES FROM COLLINSVILLE AT MOUTH OF RIVER (SACRAMENTO IS MILE 63) PROFILE SHOWN 15 A REPRODUCTION OF PROFILE PREPARED IN THE U.S.ENGINEER OFFICE. SECOND DISTRICT. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.. ORIGINAL PROFILE REFERRED TO U.S.E.D. DATUM WHICH IS MEAN LOWER LOW WATER IN 5UISUN BAY. ^^^'i^h}^^f^ REFERRED TO U.S.G.S. DATUM, (MEAN SEA LEVEL) WHICH IS 3.6 FEET ABOVE U.S.E.D. DATUM. eimilTMINT Of Tm INTIKIOR •UDKAU 0* RCCIAMATION IRON CANVON PROJECT- CAUfORN* PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER RED BlUFF TO MOONEY ISLAND SLOUCH MAW" .t'"."'.?.! .*.C. ^MtiiTttBUrKC/tTXtf^- wv*n'jwi&ti?....t.'""»n /■ ' SV-36 IBKMLtt.Cmf. 6 17-15 U|-P-|(3 60667 — pages 198-199 ji'l' f-^ i^ Aj^l^i l i f Y -, tj ) ( i' |; - ^l-.T^*"^" IZ JX .A_ X-a^-, mwiKiias^ asK ^-^ n^ tc jiu-i ^0 ^8 1 i '|s'=l AMATlON N PROJECT- FILES LOCATION iiii urn fl5i = SJDL 5 fe3_,S i § ill ^5 Z "^ 1=' iii T^ ~-=^ ac-pf fl// /177 f&i ntaus»MD fnr, S n * llp^' 5 : I - ^-^^ ^i fJX I IRON CANYON GRAVITY CANAL | STA SZOO-00 ro STA 7S00 • 00 - V ^""^ ^ ±t^' -l+l- J f- 1 .^^^ I %. i u. iMrfi* sunrAct rr FT StOflr^ O-ISrCFT PCftTHOUSAtlD. IRON CANYON GRAVITV CANAL STA. laOO^OO TO STA 8BB0*0O I ! ZGD 2M 1 •S 1 1 o c "•> ■^, I 1 .,„lH^ "".c n IBD mP-Is- iBO a , ^ c •Ma« H.W S Soc Riv. " 5- DIKE .00071 PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY ■ tjt Ma> H WS ot t^ofvf Island Excovafion 2.112 900 CY W.S, ? Section !£ Un lined 13.5 AT OIVEPSION ■Mai H.VKS Sac Riv "bo- at sro o * oo _ _ . i ; ;-• IB.O- NOTE If concrete linmq is found advisable from Diversion Dam to Sta 'iSAtSS. fhe section, as shown wfth dike, is proposed DIVERSION DAM TO MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT Sta. 9*37 to 25A+33 Q • 6578 S.f (irrigation and PowerJ W.S.-; "C3 4 Lininq ^ 47.0 CANAL SECTION AT MOONEY ISLAND POWER PLANT AND WASTEWAY Sta. 254*33 to 259 'eo Q • 6S00 S.f Sta 269+60 to 1175 + 00 Q'2869S.f Excavation Borrow Concrete 2 190.000 CY None 77 500 CY Unlined n ■ 02S Sta 1175+00 to 2045+00 Q - 2446 s.f. _ NOTE Capacity of unlined sections of the area indicoted " approximately | Q shown. Bottom widths shown ore inside of imincj. Sta. 2045+00 to 2106+00 Q ■ 2170 S.f. Excavation 880 000 CY Borrow l 1.300 Concrete 47.400 'o r W.S,-; -o 4Lininq ■• "o A 5 Un r+00 (•-IE.O-»i/ ■<< ■ 45 &5 n.-. • .00015 V ined n-.025 V' OIS sta 2106 - 25.0' --- ♦00 to 266 200* sf 439 2 75 Wa»l Excavation 1.366 000 CY Borrow Concrete A- 364 24 n - 015 S 00015 V • 408 Unlmed n- 025 v ■ 2 54 Sta 2667+00 to 3674 + 00 Q ' I486 sf Excavation I 534,000 CY Borrow Concrete 2 000 64 300 A ■ 274 34 5 ■ .00015 uniined n -025 .015 3-7S 2 31 Sta.3674+00 to 4976+00 Q' 1029 sf Excavation Borrow Concrete A • 167 83 5 ■ OOOIS Unlined n'.02S ,015 3.19 1.95 Sta 4976+00 to 5725+50 Q' 535 sf. ,^---^ ?-l3 - Waste ^y_ Excavation 124 000 CY Sorrow I 400 Concrete 10,300 3limnq -x, k9.0« n V V - 12.0'- A • 102 96 S ■ .00015 Unlmed n.. 025 .015 2 71 163 i>ta 5725+50 to 6060 + 50 Q ' 279 S.f. Waste -^^^^^^^^j' :fiy^-^ -6,4- Excavation 68,000 CY Borrow 4 800 ■ Concrete 5 200 • iita. 6060+50 to 6348+00 Q- 64 sf A ■ 34 26 n 5 ■ .OOOIS V Unlined n ',025 v PHYSICAL .015 168 I 09 :C!ENCES mm 50667 — pages 200-201 NOTL Sections lookinq downstream Poadwoy on left bank ( East side) PRELIMINARY ESIIMATE DRAWING DEPARTMENT Of- THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIF- MAIN CANAL TYPICAL SECTIONS ORfcWN Di2'i^4^ SV- 3Z APPROVED. 'r*rrff SegKEirrCfcLiF. 5 25 JsJ4i-P-n6 / he --- 13.0' — -.>i "ao d f<— ,'•'-9.0' •>■ _^ ^ ^< k ..J.... ■---[•■ . A ^ N^ "C7> 1 K-i-- -I3.0' 1 -cr. ^ -3 Lininq ^ :x 13.0 — »i ».-70-«< END OF PIPE LINE TO ELDER CREEK STA. 81*75 TO 557*20 Q = 378 S.F. EXCAVATION CONCRETE 208.000 C.Y. 16.200 C.Y. A ' 178.92 n.' .015 5 -■ .00015 Y= 2.93 ELDER CREEK TO THOMES CREEK STA. 568*15 TO 980^24 Q -■ 259 S.F. EXCAVATION 181.000 cr. A = 97.5 n = .015 CONCRETE 12.600 U. 5' .00015 V = 2.66 THOMES CREEK TO E. & W. CTR LINE . T 4 N STA. 1003*26 TO 1114 + 34 Q = 125 S.F. EXCAVATION 54.000 CY. A « 56.0 n^ .015 CONCRETE 5.000 CY. S - .00015 Y -- 2.23 E.8W. CTR LINE. T4N. TO N.BR. OF N.FORK OF RICE CR. STA. 1214+34 TO 1364 + 53 Q = 51 S.F EXCAVATION 18,500 C.y: A ■ 28.5 n = .015 CONCRETE 2.400 CV. S - .00015 V = 1.78 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAWING DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IRON CANYON PROJECT- CALIFORNIA RED BANK PUMP CANAL TYPICAL SECTIONS . APPWOVCP SV- 41 iBKKtuT.ULif, I^ID-II'T 150667 — piiges 200-201 smamt^^BBrm m THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW \\ BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL RECEIVED FKBidO 1988 PHYS SCI LIBRARY ft1 J J UN 7J^90 07/^1 D JUiM 2 S 1SS tHYS SCI library: SEP 1 9 1996 APR 1 3 2000 JAN 1 9 2000 JAN 2 7 2000 REG'O \UG 2 8 2000 1^1 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2000 PSL LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book Slip-Series 458 3 1175 00671 2015 PHYSICAL SCIEKCIS LIBRAW LIBRART UNiVERSITY OF CAUFORNX& DAVIS 111583 f • I ; ■