'■'':,■ ' ■ ; : • ' ''
'■''•-'■■ » M
■■■-*■■'.■'
1 ■ m ' ■ "
: ( *'■ ffl ■ * ■ ■■
BflRlSMfilH
■Hra
R3 ■''.'■• .•■■ , : ■
v V ■'■•■'■' '
'..•'..■'■.■•■■'■'
' • •• . : - '. . '
i;V-V ■ '
■Hill
■flliil
si I ■'■'■ ■'■
in
JfflP
h
■-
d
kg
Si
< in
a
C 3
o
ss
S J
--5
■o
E
o
m
o
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REPORTS OF THE
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
EDWARD HYATT, State Engineer
BULLETIN No. 24
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
ON
AMERICAN RIVER
An Analysis of Its Utility in the Coordinated
Plan for the Development of the
Water Resources of California
By
A. D. EDMONSTON, Deputy State Engineer
A Report to Joint Legislative Committee of 1927 on Water
Resources and to the State Department of Finance
1929
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, State Engineer to Chairman of Joint Legislative
Committee on Water Resources and to Director of Finance 13
ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 14
ORGANIZATION 15
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION 17
SUMMARY 19
General 19
Drainage Basin and Water Supply 19
Consolidated Development 19
Power Output 21
Irrigation Service 22
Valley Agricultural Lands Susceptible of Irrigation from American River 24
Flood Control 24
Salinity Control 27
Methods of operating Complete Consolidated Development Coordinately for
Flood Control, Salinity Control, Irrigation and Power 28
Effect of the operation of the Consolidated Development on Navigation on
Sacramento River 29
Capital Cost 32
Annual Cost 35
Revenue from Power 40
Chapter II
DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATER SUPPLY OF AMERICAN RIVER 41
Drainage Basin 41
Water Supply 41
Chapter III
CONSOLIDATED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER PRO-
POSED BY AMERICAN RIVER HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO 44
General 44
Folsom Reservoir 44
Auburn Reservoir 48
Pilot Creek Reservoir 40
Coloma Reservoir ■. 50
Webber Creek Reservoir 52
Chapter IV
ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT FROM CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT 53
Location and Mode of Operation of Power Plants 53
Methods Employed in Estimating Power Output 53
Power Output from Folsom Plant 55
Power Output from Auburn and Pilot Creek Plants 61
Power Output from Coloma and Webber Creek Plants 66
Power Output from Complete Consolidated Development 70
Chapter V
IRRIGATION SERVICE FROM CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT 73
Importance of Consolidated Development in Comprehensive Plan of Water
Development of State 73
Yield of Reservoirs of Consolidated Development in Irrigation Supply and
Incidental Power 74
Area of Irrigation Service from Consolidated Development 89
Agricultural Lands in Sacramento Valley Capable of Irrigation from Ameri-
can River 91
(5)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter VI Page
UTILIZATION OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT FOR
CONTROL OF FLOODS ON AMERICAN RIVER 93
Necessity for Flood Control on American River 93
Plans for Flood Control 93
Data Used and Methods Employed in Analysis of Flood Flows 94
Floods of Record '•' I
Frequency of Flood Occurrence 96
Reservoir Space Required to Control Floods 98
Size of Floods Controllable with Specified Amounts of Reservoir Space 100
Maximum Storage Reservation for Flood Control in Reservoirs of Consoli-
dated Development 101
Proposed Method of Operating Reservoirs of Consolidated Development for
Flood Control Coord lnately with Conservation 103
Pryive of Protection Afforded by Supplementary Reservoir Control 106
Interference of Flood Control with Conservation Values of Reservoirs of
Consolidated Development 107
Chapter VII
UTILIZATION OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT I'OR
CONTROL OF SALINITY IN DELTA OF SACRAMENTO AND SAN
JOAQUIN RIVERS 120
Need for Salinity Control 120
Methods of Salinity Control 120
Data Available on Salinity Conditions 121
Rate of Fresh Water Inflow into Delta required for Salinity Control 121
Supplemental Flow required for Salinity Control 122
Salinity Control with Reservoirs of Consolidated Development not coordinated
with other uses 123
Salinity Control with Reservoirs of Consolidated Development coordinated
with other uses 124
Salinity Control obtainable through operation of Reservoirs of Consolidated
Development primarily for Power 133
Chapter VIII
METHODS OF OPERATING THE COMPLETE CONSOLIDATED DEVELOP-
MENT COORDINATELY FOR FLOOD CONTROL, SALINITY CON-
TROL, IRRIGATION AND POWER 134
Chapter IX
COST OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT — 141
< teneral 141
Folsom Reservoir 141
Auburn Reservoir 146
Pilot Creek Reservoir 150
Coloma Reservoir 152
Webber Creek Reservoir 156
Complete Development 159
Chapter X
ANNUAL COST OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT 160
Chapter XI
GEOLOGY OF DAM SITES OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT 175
Examinations and Subsurface Explorations 175
Geological Report by Hyde Forbes, Geologist 175
(6)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Elevation of American River Drainage Basin above Fair Oaks Gaging
Station 41
2. Seasonal Run-off of American River at Fair Oaks Gaging Station, 1904-1927 42
3. Average Monthly Distribution of Seasonal Run-off, 1904-1927 43
4. Capacity of Folsom Reservoir 45
5. Present Diversions from American River above Folsom Dam 46
6. Estimated Seasonal Run-off of American River at Folsom Dam Site,
1904-1927 47
7. Capacity of Auburn Reservoir 48
8. Estimated Seasonal Run-off of North Fork of American River at Auburn
Dam Site, 1904-1927 49
9. Capacity of Coloma Reservoir 51
10. Estimated Seasonal Run-off of South Fork of American River at Coloma
Dam Site, 1904-1927 52
11. Monthly Distribution of Electric Power Demand, State-wide Average 54
12. Net Evaporation from Reservoir Surface 54
13. Power Output of Folsom Plant — Folsom reservoir operated in accord with
schedule of water release to develop maximum primary power 57
14. Power Output of Folsom Plant — Folsom reservoir operated in accord with
schedule of water release proposed by American River Hydro-electric
Company 58
15. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom Plant — Power output with water
release from Folsom reservoir to develop maximum primary power,
.1905-1927 59
16. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom Plant — Power output with water
release from Folsom reservoir operated in accord with schedule of water
release proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company, 1905—19 27 60
17. Power Output of Auburn Plant — Auburn reservoir operated in accord with
two schedules of water release 62
18. Characteristics of Power Output of Auburn Plant with two Schedules of
"Water Release from Auburn Reservoir, 1905—1927 63
19. Power Output of Pilot Creek Plant with Auburn Reservoir Operated in
Accord with two Schedules of "Water Release 64
20. Characteristics of Power Output of Pilot Creek Plant with Auburn Reservoir
Operated in Accord with two Schedules of Water Release, 1905-1927 65
21. Power Output of Coloma Plant — Coloma reservoir operated in accord with
two schedules of water release 66
22. Characteristics of Power Output of Coloma Plant with two Schedules of
Water Release from Coloma Reservoir, 1905-1927 67
23. Power Output of Webber Creek Plant — Coloma reservoir operated in accord
with two schedules of water release 68
24. Characteristics of Power Output 2^ Webber Creek Plant with two Schedules
of Water Release from Coloma Reservoir, 1905—1927 69
25. Power Output from Complete Consolidated Development Operated Primarily
for Power Generation with two Schedules of Water Release 71
26. Characteristics of Power Output from Complete Consolidated Development
Operated Primarily for Power Generation with two Schedules of Water
Release, 1905-1927 72
27. Irrigation Demand, in per cent of Seasonal Total 74
28. Effective Capacity of Reservoirs of Consolidated Development Operated
Primarily for Irrigation 75
( 7 )
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
29. Irrigation Yield and Power Output of Folsom Reservoir Operated Primarily
for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not
constructed 76
30. Irrigation Yield and Power Output of Folsom and Auburn Reservoirs Oper-
ated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Coloma Reservoir
not constructed 77
31. Irrigation Yield and Power Output of Folsom, Auburn and Coloma Reser-
voirs Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Com-
plete development 78
32. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom Plant wtih Folsom Reservoir
Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs not constructed — 1905-1927. Load factor=0.75 79
33. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom Plant with Folsom Reservoir
Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs not constructed — 1905-1927. Load factor-=1.00 80
34. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom Plant with Folsom Reservoir
Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs not constructed — 1905-1927. Load factor^=0.75, Janu-
ary to July; 1.00, July to January 81
35. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn and Pilot Creek Plants,
with Folsom and Auburn Reservoirs Operated Primarily for Irrigation
with Incidental Power. Coloma Reservoir not constructed — 1905-1927.
Load factor=0.75 82
36. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn and Pilot Creek Plants,
with Folsom and Auburn Reservoirs Operated Primarily for Irrigation
with Incidental Power. Coloma Reservoir not constructed — 1905-1927.
Load factor=1.00 . 83
37. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn and Pilot Creek Plants,
with Folsom and Auburn Reservoirs Operated Primarily for Irrigation
with Incidental Power. Coloma Reservoir not constructed — 1905-1927.
Load factor=0.75, January to July; 1.00, July to January 84
38. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn, Pilot Creek, Coloma
and Webber Creek Plants with Folsom, Auburn and Coloma Reservoirs
Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Complete
development — 1905-1927. Load factor=0.75 85
39. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn, Pilot Creek, Coloma
and Webber Creek Plants with Folsom, Auburn and Coloma Reservoirs
Operated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Complete
development — 1905-1927. Load factor=1.00 86
40. Characteristics of Power Output of Folsom, Auburn. Pilot Creek, Coloma and
Webber Creek Plants with Folsom, Auburn and Coloma Reservoirs Oper-
ated Primarily for Irrigation with Incidental Power. Complete develop-
ment — 1905-1927. Load factor=0.75. January to July; 1.00, July to
January 87
41. Irrigation Yield of Reservoirs of Consolidated Development Operated Pri-
marily for Power Generation with Water Release to Develop Maximum
Primary Power 88
42. Irrigation Yield of Reservoirs of Consolidated Development Operated Pri-
marily for Power Generation with Water Release in Accord with Schedule
Proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company 89
43. Irrigation Service from Consolidated Development 90
44. Twenty Largest Floods on American River at Fair Oaks Gaging Station 96
45. Estimated Flood Flow of American River at Fair Oaks Gaging Station 98
46. Reservoir Space Required to Control Floods on American River at Fair Oaks
Gaging Station 100
47. Size of Floods on American River Controllable with Specified Amounts of
Reservoir Space 101
( 8 )
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
48. Maximum Storage Reservation for Flood Control in Reservoirs of Consoli-
dated Development 102
49. Size of Floods Controllable by Maximum Storage Reservation for Flood Con-
trol Assigned to Reservoirs of Consolidated Development 103
50. Power Output of Folsom Plant with and without Flood Control. Fol-
som reservoir operated primarily for power generation. Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs not constructed. Yearly Summary of Computations
carried out on a Daily Basis 110
51. Power Output of Folsom Plant with and without Flood Control. Fol-
som reservoir operated primarily for power generation. Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs not constructed. Monthly Summary of Computations
Carried out on a Daily Basis — (six pages) 111
52. Effect of Flood Control on Power Output from Consolidated Development.
Reservoirs operated primarily for power generation with water release
to develop maximum primary power — 1905—1927 , 117
53. Effect of Flood Control on Power Output from Consolidated Development.
Reservoirs operated primarily for power generation with water release
in accord with schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric
Company — 1905-1927 118
54. Effect of Flood Control on Irrigation Yield of Reservoirs of Consolidated
Development Operated Primarily for Irrigation — 1905-1927 119
55. List of Salinity Observation Stations Maintained by Division of "Water
Rights (opp.) 120
56. Supplemental Flow Required for Salinity Control 123
57. Power Output of Complete Consolidated Development with and without
Salinity Control. Water release to develop maximum primary power
consistent with salinity control requirements 126
58. Characteristics of Power Output from Complete Consolidated Development
with and without Salinity Control. Water release to develop maximum
primary power consistent with salinity control requirements — 1905-1927- 127
59. Power Output of Complete Consolidated Development with and without
Salinity Control. Water release in accord with schedule proposed by
American River Hydro-electric Company consistent with salinity control
requirements 128
60. Characteristics of Power Output from Complete Consolidated Development
with and without Salinity Control. Water release in accord with
schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company, consistent
with salinity control requirements — 1905-1927 129
61. Irrigation yield and incidental power output of complete consolidated
development with and without salinity control 130
62. Characteristics of Incidental Power Output from Complete Consolidated
Development Operated for Irrigation with and without Salinity Control
— 1905-1927. Load factor=0.75 131
63. Characteristics of Incidental Power Output from Complete Consolidated
Development Operated for Irrigation with and without Salinity Control
— 1905-1927. Load facton=1.00 132
64. Inflow into Delta of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers with Reservoirs of
Consolidated Development Operated Primarily for Power with two
Schedules of Water Release for Months in which Average Inflow was
less than 5000 second-feet — 1920-1927 133
65. Power Output of Complete Consolidated Development Operated Coordinately
for Flood Control, Salinity Control, Irrigation and Power. Irrigation
Supply for San Joaquin "Valley of 334,000 acre-feet per season 136
66. Characteristics of Power Output of Complete Consolidated Development
Operated Coordinately for Flood Control, Salinity Control, Irrigation and
Power. Irrigation Supply for San Joaquin Valley of 334,000 acre-feet
per season 137
(9)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
67. Power Output of Complete Consolidated I "evelopment Operated Coordiuat'ly
for Flood Control, Salinity Control, Irrigation and Power. Irrigation
Supply for San Joaquin Valley of 1,000,000 acre-feet per season 18S
68 Characteristics of Power Output of Complete Consolidated Development
Operated Coonlinately for Flood Control, Salinity Control, Irrigation and
Power — 1905-1927. Irrigation Supply for Ban Joaquin Valley of 1,000,000
acre-feet per season 1 10
69. Estimated Cost of Folsom Reservoir ane\ clopment operated primarily for
generation of power with schedule of water release to develop maximum
primary power. Private financing 164
81. Estimated Annual Cost of Consolidated Development. Operated primarily
for the generation of power with water release in accord with schedule
proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company. State financing 1G6
82. Estimated Annual Cost of Consolidated Development Operated primarily for
generation of power with water release in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company. Private financing 168
83. Annual Cost of Consolidated Development. Water release to develop maxi-
mum primary power consistent with other requirements (three pages) 170
84. Annual Cost of Consolidated Development. Water release in accord with
schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company modified
to meet other requirements (two pages) 173
( 10 )
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
^ I. Coordinated Plan for Development of Water Resources of California
as reported to the Legislature of 1927 (opp.) 18
v II. Geographic Relation of Consolidated Development on American River
to Certain Agricultural, Overflow and Salinity Areas (opp.) 18
III. Profile of Consolidated Development on American River Proposed by
American River Hydro-electric Company 20
IV. Probable Frequency of Flood Discharge on American River at Fair
Oaks 97
V. Reservoir Space required to Control Floods on American River 99
VI. Hydrograph of Flood of 1928 on American River 100
*— VII. Salinity Observation Stations maintained by Division of Water
Rights (opp.) 120
— VIII. Folsom Dam with Power Plant and Flood Control Features (opp.) 142
IX. Auburn Dam with Power Plant and Flood Control Features 147
X. Pilot Creek Dam with Power Plant 151
XI. Coloma Dam with Power Plant and Flood Control Features *153
XII. Webber Creek Dam with Power Plant 15 7
XIII. General Topographic and Geologic Features pertaining to proposed
dam sites on North and South Forks of American River 178
XIV. Photographs showing Geology at Upper and Lower Auburn Dam Sites 179
XV. Photographs showing Geology at Upper and Lower Auburn Dam Sites_ 181
XVI. Photographs showing Geology at Lower Auburn Dam Site 182
XVII. Photographs showing Geology at Pilot Creek Dam Site 183
XVIII. Photographs showing Geology at Upper Coloma Dam Site 184
XIX. Photographs showing Geology at Upper Coloma Dam Site 185
XX. Photographs showing Geology at Lower Coloma Dam Site 186
XXI. Photographs showing Geology at Lower Coloma Dam Site 187
XXII. Photographs showing Geology at Webber Creek Dam Site 188
XXIII. Photographs showing Geology at Webber Creek Dam Site 189
XXIV. Location of Test Holes — Folsom Dam Site (opp.) 190
XXV. Log of Test Holes — Folsom Dam Site (opp.) 190
(11)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Honorable B. S. Crittenden, Chairman
Joint Legislative Committee on Water Resources.
Mr. A. R. Heron, Director of Finance.
Sirs : In accordance with your requests there has been prepared and
is transmitted herewith a report on a proposed development on the
American River. This report analyzes the contemplated hydroelectric
project of the American River Hydro-electric Company on the lower
American River. The power possibilities of the project are studied
under two methods of water release primarily for power generation,
and the service obtainable from the development in flood control,
salinity control and irrigation, has been calculated and is included.
Surveys and certain other data furnished by the American River Hydro-
electric Company have been used in the preparation of the report.
Very truly yours,
C_*s
State Engineer.
Sacramento, California.
( 13)
ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tli is bulletin has been prepared in consultation with an engineering
advisory committee. The members of the committee are:
Paul Bailey Louis C. Hill
A. J. Cleary W alter L. Huber
G. A. Elliott A. Kempkey
B. A. Etcheverry J. B. Lippincott
F. C. Herrmann Lester S. Ready
H. A. Van Norman
Cooperating with committee :
F. E. Bonner,
District Engineer, U. S. Forest Service, representing the Federal
Power Commission in California.
T. H. Emerson,
Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A ring, Member and Secretary
of California Debris Commission.
A. V. Guillou,
Assistant Chief Engineer, State Railroad Commission.
( 14 )
ORGANIZATION
B. B. Meek Director of Public Works
Edward Hyatt State Engineer
This report has been prepared by
A. D. Edmonston ----- Deputy State Engineer
Chief Assistants
C. B. Meyer E. W. Roberts
Theodore Neuman A. M. Wells
( 15 )
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The American River Hydro-electric Company contemplates a major
hydro-electric development on the American River which would
include construction of storage dams and reservoirs of large capacity,
together with power plants below the dams. One of the major reser-
voirs, Folsom, is a unit in the "Coordinated Plan"* for the develop-
ment of the waters of the State. The other two reservoirs, Auburn
and Coloma, are located on the lower reaches of the North and South
Forks, respectively, above the Folsom reservoir and are important
elements in the ultimate comprehensive plan t of the development of the
State's waters. The geographic relation of the proposed development
to the units of the ' ' Coordinated Plan" is indicated on Plate I, ' ' Coordi-
nated Plan for the development of water resources of California, as
reported to the Legislature of 1927." On this map only the Folsom
reservoir of the proposed development is shown. The others would be
directly upstream from it. Because of the importance of the American
River in the state-wide plan for the development of its water resources,
the Joint Legislative Committee on Water Resources and the Depart-
ment of Finance requested that a study and a report be made of the
utility of the proposed development in the state-wide plan.
In connection with the investigation, assistance has been received
from the American River Hydro-electric Company, State Reclamation
Board and American River Flood Control District. The American
River Hydro-electric Company furnished topographic maps of the
several reservoirs and dam sites, a geological report on the dam sites,
data on subsurface explorations at the site of the proposed Folsom dam
and a proposed method of operating the reservoirs primarily for power.
The State Reclamation Board and the American River Flood Control
District, in the early stages of the investigation, furnished engineering
assistance in certain phases of the study.
In 1924, a general study of the American River, comparing various
schemes of utilization of water resources of the basin, was made and a
report§ rendered thereon by a board of engineers appointed by the
Federal Power Commission and composed of representatives of the
Federal Government and a representative of the State of California.
The purpose of the investigation was "to make a general study of the
American River in California with a view to comparing various schemes
of utilization of water resources, and outlining such schemes as are best
suited to the needs of power, irrigation, and domestic supply, bearing
in mind the effect produced on interests dependent on the lower Sacra-
mento River, notably navigation and island irrigation."
* See Bulletin No. 12, "Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and
a Coordinated Plan for their Development," Division of Engineering and Irrigation,
State Department of Public Works.
t See Chapter VI, Bulletin No. 4, "Water Resources of California," Division of
Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works.
§ Report to the Federal Power Commission on the uses of the American River,
California.
2 — 72924 ( 17 )
18 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Among the conclusions of its report, the board states:
■■|i. Thai storage facilities in the American River Basin should be « 1 « •« 1 i -
cated to irrigation and power primarily, since their economic value for these
purposes is too greai to justify their development solely for Hood control."
"(I. Thai until investigations show thai targe storage for ralley irrigation
can not be feasibly developed <>n the lower reaches of 1 1 1 « - North and Middle
Forks below river elevation 1150 it is inadvisable t<> permil power develop-
ment which would interfere with irrigation Btorage below iliis elevation."
"e. That the Columat Reservoir has BUfficient capacity and is so located
that it can regulate lor the benefit of irrigation almost tin- entire Bow of the
South Fork of the American River below power developments. Its primary
value is for irrigation Btorage."
"f. Thai the Folsom Damf site admits raising the dam to a considerable
additional height, and that this site is located at the logical point for divert-
ing American River water for all lower gravity irrigation."
It, therefore, would appear that it was the opinion of this board that
storage works on the American River should be dedicated primarily to
irrigation and power and, on the lower reaches of the stream, particu-
larly below elevation 1150 feet on the North and .Middle Forks, to
irrigation. The value of the Coloma reservoir on the South Fork was
to be considered primarily as irrigation storage and the Folsom dam
site was the logical point for the diversion of irrigation water for lands
adjacent to the American River.
The Auburn reservoir located on the North Fork lies below elevation
1150 feet and the Coloma and Folsom reservoirs analyzed in this report
occupy generally the same position as the ones mentioned under the
same name in the Federal Power Commission report.
This investigation does not deal with the development of the entire
watershed but only with a specific project proposed by the American
River Hydro-electric Company. It analyzes the service obtainable
from this development in flood control, salinity control, irrigation and
power. Engineering, economic and financial phases have been con-
sidered in relation to the power development. The economic sizes of
reservoirs, however, at the several sites have not been investigated. The
sizes of reservoirs as proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company have been used as a basis for the analyses. The probability
of improving the financial aspects of the development by enlarging the
existing power plant at Folsom city -which might be justified by the
creation of upstream storage has not been investigated. The surveys
of the American River Hydro-electric Company have been accepted as
being correct and are a basis for the estimates appearing in this report.
Only one dam site, Folsom. has been drilled. The other sites have been
examined by a geologisl and a favorable report rendered thereon for
the heights of dam considered in the proposal.
The project herein discussed is not presented as the most economic
development Oil the lower American River, nor as the one that would
be most desirable for inclusion in the state-wide plan. Rather, it is
analyzed as a specific project to determine its utility in the state plan.
Further studies might indicate changes in reservoir capacities and
power plant installations to he economically justified, which changes
would be reflected In the yield and cost estimates.
t Reference is to upper Coloma dam site mentioned in this report.
j Reference is to existing Poison Prison dam.
PLATE I
COORDINATED PLAN
FOR
;nt of water resources of California
AS REPORTED TO
THE LEGISLATURE OF 1927
^
San Bernardino £ )tf
'^J
fAll*"
j? x /
£" ©
18 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Among the conclusions of its report, the board stales ■
"b. Thai Btorage facilities in the American River Basin Bhould in- dedi-
cated i<» irrigation and power primarily, since their economic value i'< » r these
purposes is too great to justify their development BOlely for Bood control."
"(I. That nniil investigations show that large storage for valley irrigation
can not be feasibly developed on the Lower reaches of the North and Middle
Forks below river elevation 1150 it is inadvisable to permit power develop-
ment which would interfere with irrigation Btorage below this elevation."
"e. That the Colomaf Reservoir has sufficient capacity and is so located
that it can regulate for the benefit of irrigation almost tl mire flow of the
South Fork of the American River below power developments. Its primary
value is for irrigation Btorage."
"f. That the Folsom Dam§ Bite admits raising the dam to a considerable
additional height, and that this site is located at the logical point for divert-
ing American River water for all lower gravity irrigation."
It, therefore, would appear that it was the opinion of this board that
storage works on the American River Bhould be dedicated primarily to
irrigation and power and, on the lower reaches of the stream, particu-
larly below elevation 1150 feet on the North and Middle Forks, to
irrigation. The value of the Coloma reservoir on the South Fork was
to be considered primarily as irrigation storage and the Folsom dam
site was the logical point for the diversion of irrigation water for lands
adjacent to the American River.
The Auburn reservoir located on the North Fork lies below elevation
1150 feet and the Coloma and Folsom reservoirs analyzed in this report
occupy generally the same position as the ones mentioned under the
same name in the Federal Power Commission report.
This investigation does not deal with the development of the entire
watershed but only with a specific project proposed by the American
River Hydro-electric Company. It analyzes the service obtainable
from this development in flood control, salinity control, irrigation and
power. Engineering, economic and financial phases have been con-
sidered in relation to the power development. The economic sizes of
reservoirs, however, at the several sites have not been investigated. The
sizes of reservoirs as proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company have been used as a basis for the analyses. The probability
of improving the financial aspects of the development by enlarging the
existing power plant at Folsom city which might be justified by the
creation of upstream storage has not been investigated. The surveys
of the American River Hydro-electric Company have been aeeepted as
being correct and are a basis for the estimates appearing in this report.
Only one dam site, Folsom. has been drilled. The other sites have been
examined by a geologist and a favorable report rendered thereon for
the heights of dam considered in the proposal.
The project herein discussed is nol presented as the most economic
development Oil the lower American River, nor as the one that would
be most desirable for inclusion in the state-wide plan. Rather, it is
analyzed as a specific project to determine its utility in the state plan.
Further studies might indicate changes in reservoir capacities and
power plant installations to be economically just died, which changes
woidd be reflected in the yield and cosl estimates.
t Reference is to upper Coloma dam site mentioned In this report.
§ Reference is to existing Folsom Prison dam.
PLATE I
® M JK
It
A
COORDINATED PLAN
^ DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA
AS REPORTED TO
THE LEGISLATURE or 1927
]E X 1
72924 — Opp. page 18
I
1
v
I
5
-
>v
n
er
a
ill
f\
m
d
b
a
h
!>
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
19
SUMMARY
General.
In the analysis of the consolidated development, consideration has
been given to three progressive stages of development operated for
various uses and combination of uses; that is power, flood control,
salinity control and irrigation. The operation of the reservoirs pri-
marily for power generation has been studied for two methods of water
release. Capital and annual costs have been estimated for both state
and private financing and the annual costs under private financing
have been estimated both with and without state taxes. The power
installation at each reservoir has been based on two plant load factors.
The report, therefore, contains many tables under the many analyses,
and on account of their volume, only a summary of the results of the
studies is presented in this chapter. Details supplementing this sum-
mary will be found in the succeeding chapters.
Drainage basin and water supply.
The American River, the second largest tributary of the Sacramento
River below Red Bluff, drains an area of 1919 square miles. The
average yield in seasonal run-off was 2,953,000 acre-feet for the period
1904-27, which varied from a minimum of 551,000 acre-feet in 1923-24
(18.7 per cent of the average), to a maximum of 5,783,000 acre-feet
in 1906-07 (196 per cent of the average). The average monthly dis-
tribution varied from 0.5 per cent in September to 19.8 per cent in
May, of average seasonal run-off for the period 1904-27.
The drainage areas and seasonal run-off s above the three major
reservoirs are as follows:
Location
Drainage area
Average seasonal run-off
1904-1927
Reservoir
Square miles
Per cent of
total above
Fairoaks
gaging
station
Acre-feet
Per cent of
total above
Fairoaks
gaging
station
Folsom
North Fork
1,875
965
708
97.7
50.3
36.9
2,948,000
1.718,000
1,063,000
99.8
Auburn
58.2
Coloma
South Fork
36.0
Consolidated development.
The plans of the American River Hydro-electric Company call for the
construction of three major reservoirs, Folsom, Auburn and Coloma,
and two minor reservoirs, Pilot Creek and Webber Creek, together with
a power plant below each of the five dams. The plan of the development
is delineated on Plate II, ' ' Geographic relation of consolidated develop-
nent on American River to certain agricultural, overflow and salinity
ireas. " The total storage capacity of the major reservoirs would be
,719,000 acre-feet. The capacity of the minor reservoirs is relatively
mall. A power drop could be developed between the water level eleva-
ion of 900 feet and 885 feet of the Auburn and Coloma reservoirs,
espectively, and the tailrace elevation of 162 feet of the lowest power
•lant. The maximum water surface elevation of the Folsom reservoir
wild be 390 feet. The power drop obtainable by the development is
20
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
shown on Plate III, "Profile of consolidated development on American
River proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company." The
total power installation as proposed by the company would be 200,000
kilovolt amperes and is based on a power factor of 80 per cent and
operation at a maximum monthly plant load factor of 60 per cent fin-
all plants except Folsom which would be installed on a plant load
factor of 100 per cent. Plant load factor as used herein is the ratio
of the average power output in kilowatts to the rated capacity of tin-
plant in kilowatts. An alternative installation based on a plant load
factor of 75 per cent for all plants is proposed in this report, which
would allow a comparison of costs of the units of the "Coordinated
plate in
1,000 -
900 -
£
3
rt 800
Q
in
6
7.
700
600
0) 500
jB
100
p
> 300
•
W
200
AUBURN RES.
COLOMA RES. Capac.i, 59«.0O0 « ft
'«.0O0xfl tin *5 *XV
^American River
v Folsom c»nal
PROFILE OF
CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
AMERICAN RIVER
PROPOStD ev
JwtRICAN BivER HYDRO-ElECTRiC CO.
10
Distance in Miles
20
Plan." With this plant load factor and 80 per cent power factor the
total power installation would be 179,000 kilovolt amperes.
In the following table of data on the various units, the figure for the
power installation of the Folsom plant for each proposal is for the
ultimate development or in conjunction with Auburn reservoir. With
Folsom alone, the installed capacity would be 35,000 k.v.a. under the
first proposal and 43,000 k.v.a. under the second. The plant layout
at the Folsom plant as proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company would release part of the water from the turbines into the
existing Folsom Canal and part into the American River below the
existing Folsom Prison dam, at tailrace elevations of 207 and 162 feet,
resulting in max i mum power heads of 183 and 228 feet, respectively.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
21
The layout for the Folsom plant as proposed in this report would release
all the water from the turbines into the Folsom Canal, deepened 7
feet for a distance of about 1600 feet, at tailrace elevation 200 feet,
which would give a maximum power head of 190 feet. As the capacity
of the Pilot Creek and Webber Creek reservoir is relatively small, no
consideration in the studies has been given to any possible usable
storage.
Reservoir
Height
of dam,
in feet
Capacity
of
reservoir,
in
acre-feet
Maximum
power
head,
in feet
Installed capacitv of power
plant, in k.v.a. P.F.=0.80
Load factor
=0.75
Load factor
=0.60
Folsom
190
390
110
340
90
355,000
598,000
183-228
385
110
330
115
54,000
66,000
19,000
30,000
10,000
♦45,000
82,000
Pilot Creek
23.000
Coloma
766,000
37,000
13,000
Total
1,719,000
179,000
200,000
♦Load factor =1.00.
Power output.
In estimating the power output of the development operated pri-
marily for power generation, two methods of water release from the
reservoirs have been analyzed. One method of release would develop
maximum continuous or primary power throughout the year in con-
formity with the state-wide demand for power, including extremely
dry seasons such as 1923-24, by varying the water release with the
head on the plant, and also additional intermittent seasonal or secondary
power up to the capacity of the economic power installation when
water would be available in excess of that required for the generation
of the primary power. This method has been employed in estimating
the power yield of the various units of the ' ' Coordinated Plan, ' ' when
operated primarily for power purposes and is included herein to allow
a comparison with those units. The second method, proposed by the
American River Hydro-electric Company would release water through
the turbines at a more or less constant rate, developing a larger amount
of power but somewhat more variable than in the first instance. In
this method, the reservoirs would be drawn to low levels at the end of
each season and the amount of power generated would have a greater
variation from season to season and from month to month in the
season than with the first method.
The average total power output of the development for the period
1905-1927. operated primarily for power generation would have been
689,500,000 kilowatt hours per year, with a schedule of water release
from the reservoir to develop maximum primary power and for a
layout at the Folsom plant with a tailrace elevation of 200 feet. It
would have been 773,100,000 kilowatt hours per year with a schedule
of water release proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Com-
pany and for a plant layout at Folsom with tailrace elevations of 162
22
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURi I g
and 207 feet. The average annual power oatpnts of the several plants
are:
Power plant
Av irage annual power output.
1005-1927, in kilowatt hours
With schedule
of water n
toch-v ■•lop maxi-
mum primary
power
With uhedok
of water n lease
in accord with
schedule pro-
posed l>v Amer-
ican K i v <■ r
Hvlro-clectric
Company
•217.400.000
221,900.000
63.900,000
136,700.000
19,000.000
t262,7O0,O00
245>
80.500,(H)0
133,700.000
5(1. 100,000
689,500,000
773.100,000
•Power output with Auburn and Coloma rsservoirs constructed. Power output with Folsom reservoir onlv con-
structed. 153.700,000 kilowatt hours per year: with Auburn reservoir constructed, 195,300.000 kilowatt hours per year.
fPower output with Auburn and Coloma reservoirs constructed. Power output with Folsom reservoir only con-
structed, 160.200,030 kilowatt hours par y>;ar; with Auburn reservoir constructed. 242,900,000 kilowatt hours per year.
The characteristics of the power output, 1905-1927, for the complete
development operated primarily for power generation with the two
methods of water release are shown in the following table:
State- wide
average
monthlv
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output, 1905-1927
With schedule of water release to
develop maximum primary power
With schedule of water release
proposed by American River
Hydro-electric Company
Month
Maximum
year. 1907,
in per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Maximum
year, 1909,
in per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year. 1924
In per cent
of annual
total
In per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
In per cent
of annual
total
In per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
9.0
8.1
9.0
8.7
9.0
8.7
9.0
9.0
7.3
6.7
6.8
8.7
7.2
6.8
7.7
7.8
8.7
8.8
9.3
9.5
8.7
8.7
8.2
8.6
4.7
4.5
S.I
5.1
5.7
5.8
6.1
6.2
5.7
5.7
5 4
5.6
7.7
7.9
8.8
8.4
8.8
8.4
8.7
8.6
8.1
8.2
7.9
8.5
13.0
lit
12.0
13.7
12 6
8.7
8.7
2.5
0.8
1.8
4.7
7 1
5.2
February
5.8
March
4.8
April
5 5
Mav
5.0
June
3.5
July
3.5
August
1.0
October
0.3
0.7
November
1.9
1 )■•(■■ inbcr
2.9
Total
100.0
100.0
10(1
65.6
100
100.0
40 1
Irrigation service.
It was found, in formulating the comprehensive plan of water
development of the State, that storage works on the streams of the
State must be provided to equalize the large volumes of run-off from
the mountain watersheds occurring during the flood season, for the
irrigation of the agricultural lands lying at lower elevations. The most
favorable position for these storage works is at elevations intermediate
between the agricultural and mountain areas where mining and power
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
23
uses predominate. The reservoirs of the consolidated development are
in this position on the American River and are capable of being
developed to large capacity, which could be utilized for the purpose of
equalizing the irregular flow of the American River for irrigation
purposes.
The comprehensive plan of water development for the Sacramento
and San Joaquin valleys comprehends the storage of flood waters in the
Sacramento River drainage basin for fully supplying the demands of
the agricultural lands of the Sacramento Valley and also, releasing the
water surplus to needs of the Sacramento Valley, to areas of deficient
water supply in the San Joaquin Valley. The American River with
other streams has a surplus to the local irrigation needs, which could be
transported to the San Joaquin Valley.
The yield of the reservoirs in seasonal irrigation draft, without deduc-
tion for downstream prior rights, and the area capable of being served
for each stage of progressive development is given in the following
table for the period 1905-27, with the reservoirs operated primarily
for irrigation purposes and also with the two methods of water release
primarily for power generation. The seasonal irrigation drafts are
estimated on the basis of a total deficiency in the irrigation supply of
50 per cent of a perfect seasonal supply for the entire period, 1905-27.
The total deficiency would have occurred in one year or would have
been divided among several. The area of service is estimated on a
seasonal duty of water of 2.5 acre-feet per acre, which includes full
use of return waters. In the estimates for the reservoirs operated
primarily for irrigation, the operation of the existing Folsom City
power plant is subordinated to the operation of the reservoirs for
irrigation.
Reservoirs operated
primarily forirrigation
Reservoirs operated primarily for power generation
Seasonal
irrigation
draft.
without
deduction
for
downstream
prior rights
and with an
average
seasonal
deficiency
in supply,
2.2 per cent
of perfect
seasonal
supplv, in
acre-feet
Area of
service,
in acres
With method of water
release to develop
maximum primary power
With method of water
release proposed by
American River
Hydro-electric Company
Stage of development
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
without
dcduction for
downstream
prior rights
and with an
average
seasonal
deficiency
in supply,
2.0 per cent
of perfect
seasonal
supply, in
acre-feet
Area of
service,
in acres
Seasonal
irrigation
draft.
without
deduction for
downstream
prior rights
and with an
average
seasonal
deficiency
in supply,
2.0 per cent
of perfect
seasonal
supply, in
acre-feet
Area of
service,
in acres
Initial development —
Folsomreservoiralone. . .
Second s'age of develop-
ment—
Folsom and Auburn
reservoirs
664,000
1,250,000
1,757,000
266,000
500,000
703,000
207,000
430,000
578,000
119,000
172,000
231,000
49.600
96,000
729,000
20,000
38,000
292.000
Complete development—
Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs
24 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Valley agricultural lands susceptible of irrigation from American River.
North and south of the American River and cast of the Sacramento
and Feather rivers there is a gross area of valley floor and plains lands
whose natural and economic irrigation supply lies in the American
River. The total .irrigation requirements for full development of these
lands are estimated at 650,000 acre-feet per season.
Of the total area, on the north side of the American River, 200,000
acres, 65 per cent could be irrigated with the supply diverted at the
tail water of the Folsom plant, elevation 200 feet. The remainder, 35
per cent, would require a diversion above the Folsom reservoir, probably
at the Pilot Creek dam. To irrigate a total gross area of 150,000 acres
lying between the Cosumnes and American rivers would require a
diversion at the tailrace of the Folsom plant, elevation 200 feet. If the
plans of the American River Hydro-electric Company were consum-
mated, and water discharged into the stream at elevation 162 feet below
the Folsom Prison dam, the area on the south side of the American
River, capable of being served, would be reduced by 30 per cent.
Flood control.
The need for flood control on the American River has long been
recognized by the state and national governments. The United States
Congress in 1917 and the State Legislature in 1911 adopted a general
plan of flood control for Sacramento Valley, which included a pro-
vision for flood control on the lower American River. In 1927, the
State Legislature created the American River Flood Control District
comprising the cities of Sacramento and North Sacramento, and con-
tiguous unincorporated territory in Sacramento County.
Several plans for the protection of this area from floods have been
proposed, which can be divided into two general systems of control,
with and without supplementary control by upstream reservoirs. Both
systems would require leveed channels along the river. With supple-
mentary reservoir control, the width of the channel could be reduced
about one-half, thereby reclaiming a larger area and minimizing the
cost of crossings.
The largest flood during the 24-year period of stream flow measure-
ment at the Fairoaks gaging station of the United States Geological
Survey, occurred on March 25, 1928. It was the largest flood on which
there is authentic record. The crest discharge was 184,000 second-feet.
The mean for the day was 120,000 second-feet and for the maximum
24-hour period, 10 a.m. dh March 25 to 10 a.m. on March 26, 148.000
second-feet. The second largest flood occurred on March 19, 1907,
when the crest discharge was 119,000 second-feet and the mean for the
day was 105,000 second-feet.
An analysis of the flood flows for the period of stream measurement
at the Fairoaks gaging station indicates that still larger floods than
those measured may be expected to occur in the future. The size of
flood flows that may occur at various average intervals of time has
been estimated from an analysis of the floods which have occurred
during the period of stream measurement, in a manner similar to that
set forth in Bulletin No. 14, "The Control of Floods by Reservoirs"
of the Division of Engineering and Irrigation. The only assumption
made in the analysis is that whatever relation exists between size and
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RTVER
25
frequency of occurrence of floods is contained in the period of stream
measurement. The following table sets forth the size of flood expressed
in second-feet, inches depth on the drainage area and second-feet per
square mile of drainage area, that may be expected to be exceeded on
specified average number of days in 100 years. The values given in
the table are mean daily flows. Values of crest discharge of any par-
ticular flood would be considerably larger than the figures set forth in
the table. It may be noted that a maximum mean daily flow of 56,000
second-feet may be expected to be exceeded on the average of 100 days
in 100 years or one day each year, and a maximum mean daily flow
of 162,000 second-feet may be expected to be exceeded one day in 100
years.
Average number of days in
Maximum mean daily flow at Fairoaks gaging station
100 years on which maximum
mean daily flows may be
expected to be exceeded
In second-feet
Inches depth in 24 hours
on drainage area,
(1919 square miles)
Second-feet per square mile
of drainage area,
(1919 square miles)
100
10
4
2
1
0.1
56,000
104,000
126,000
144,000
162,000
230.000
1.1
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.1
4.5
29
54
66
75
84
120
The reservoir space required for flood control would vary with the
degree of protection desired. An analysis similar to that contained in
Bulletin No. 14, of the floods of the period of stream measurement, indi-
cates that to control floods to 100,000 second-feet, reservoir space in
excess of 175,000 acre-feet would be required on the average of one
day in 100 years and to control to 75,000 second-feet, space in excess
of 270,000 acre-feet would be required for the same average interval of
time. The space required for other average intervals of time is given
in the following table. By controlling floods to 100,000 second-feet or
less, the overflow area on the lower American River could be protected
by levees of economic height placed near the banks of the existing
channel.
Maximum
controlled flow in
• second-feet
Reservoir space reauired to control floods at Fairoaks gaging station, in acre-feet
Exceeded
one day in
1000 years
Exceeded
one day in
100 years
Exceeded
one day in
50 years
Exceeded
one day in
25 years
Exceeded
one day in
10 years
75,000
100,000
410,000
310,000
270.000
175,000
235.000
140,000
190.000
100,000
125,000
15,000
It is proposed to reserve an aggregate space of 500,000 acre-feet in
the reservoirs of the consolidated plan for flood control, divided among
the reservoirs as follows: Folsom, 175,000 acre-feet; Auburn, 200,000
acre-feet; and Coloma, 125,000 acre-feet. The sizes of floods with flow
characteristics of the March, 1928, flood, controllable with these
amounts of reservoir space in the reservoirs of the progressive consoli-
dated development are given in the following table for two maximum
controlled flows, 75,000 and 100,000 second-feet.
2(5
DIVISION OP WATF.R :
Maximum
space ret mred
fur Hi. ill
control in
acre-fi r!
Maximum
controlled
Bow at
Fairoaks
gaKiiiK
station, in
second-feet
( 'rrnt dUoharge ol flood
controllable
Stage "f development
In second-feet
In per sent
of crest
discharge
of March,
1028, flood
Folsom alone
175,000
375,000
500,000
75,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
184,000
225,000
260,000
300,000
300,000
340,000
100
Folsora and Auburn reservoirs
ill
141
Folsom, Auburn and Coloma reservoirs
108
163
185
Rules have been evolved for the operation of the reservoirs of the
consolidated development for flood control coordinately with conserva-
tion without materially impairing their conservation values. The rule
for a maximum controlled flow of 100,000 second-feet at Fairoaks gag-
ing station is as follows :
Some space he held in reserve for Hood control from December 1 to May 1
in each Hood season whenever the total precipitation up to any date in the
season is more than 50 per cent of the precipitation to the same date in a
normal season. The flood control reserve would be increased at a uniform
rate from zero on December 1. the beginning of the Hood season, to the maxi-
mum reservation for flood control on January 1. This maximum space would
be held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at a uniform
rate to zero on May 1. This space would be maintained as nearly as possible
without exceeding the maximum controlled How of 100,000 second-feet measured
at the Fairoaks gaging station of United States Geological Survey. Precipi-
tation to be measured at the cooperative rainfall station of the United States
Weather Bureau at Folsom.
By employing 175,000 acre-feet of space for flood control in the
Folsom reservoir and providing adequate flood control works in the
dam to insure a discharge of 100,000 second-feet and a leveed channel
of adequate capacity on the lower American River, greater protection
would be afforded the overflow area than with either the plan recom-
mended by the California Debris Commission or the plan which would
provide a channel of capacity of 180,000 second-feet with a clearance of
:i feet on the levees, without supplementary reservoir control. A still
greater degree of protection would be obtainable with the reservation
of additional space for flood control in the Auburn and Coloma reser-
voirs. The reduction of the flood flows by supplementary reservoir
control would also increase the safety of the levee system on the Sacra-
mento River below the mouth of the American.
The reservoirs of the consolidated development could be operated
coordinately for flood control and conservation without materially
impairing their conservation values. The results of the studies for the
period 1905—1927, indicate that the Folsom reservoir could be operated
primarily for power generation and to control floods to a maximum con-
trolled (low of 100. 0()() second feet utilizing a maximum reservation of
17."). 000 acre feet for flood control in the reservoir, without loss in power
output. The greatesl loss in power output in the several analyses was
1.2 per cent for the complete development, operated primarily for power
generation with water released in accord with schedule proposed by the
American River Hydro-elect ric Company, and utilizing an aggregate
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 27
space of 500,000 acre-feet for flood control in the reservoirs for con-
trolling floods to 100,000 second-feet. The effect of flood control on the
yield of the reservoirs in irrigation supply would be negligible. In
the analysis of the complete development, the irrigation supply
remained the same but the average deficiency in seasonal supply was
increased 1.0 per cent.
Salinity control.
During months of low flow in the tributary rivers, salty water from
Suisun Bay is carried by the tides into the channels of the delta of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and mixed with the fresh water
from which the irrigated lands of the reclaimed islands obtain their
water supply. By means of storage of flood waters in mountain reser-
voirs and their subsequent release at the proper time and in sufficient
volume to supplement the low flow, the incursion of salinity into the
delta could be controlled.
The rate, time, and amount of release in total, in any season would
vary with the point and degree of control and with the normality of the
season. Preliminary studies indicate that a sustained fresh water
inflow into the delta of 5000* second feet would control salinity at
Ant.ioch to a mean daily salinity of about 100 parts of chlorine
per 100,000 parts of water and meet the present irrigation demands in
the delta. The total amount of release from the reservoirs to supple-
ment the natural low water inflow would vary with the season. In
1924, 766,000 acre-feet would have been required; in 1920, 465,000
acre-feet ; and in 1927, practically none. The greater part of these
releases would have occurred in the months of July, August and
September. The salinity content at points upstream, however, would be
less than at Antioch, decreasing progressively upstream. With control
to 100 parts of chlorine per 100,000 parts of water at Antioch, nine-
tenths of the delta area would have a water supply with a salinity con-
tent less than one-third of the content at Antioch.
The reservoirs of the consolidated development could be utilized for
salinity control. By the reservation of a total of 797,000 acre-feet,
including an allowance for evaporation, of stored water in the major
reservoirs, and released only as needed to meet the demands of salinity
control, an inflow into the delta area could be maintained at 5000
second-feet, in a year like 1924, based on present irrigation and channel
conditions in the delta and on present irrigation and storage develop-
ments in the Sacramento and San Joaquin drainage basins.
The power and irrigation yields of the reservoirs operated coordi-
nately for salinity control by maintaining an inflow of 5000 second-feet
into the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, would be
* The rate of inflow of 5000 second feet may be considered as tentative only and
may be modified as a result of an intensive investigation of salinity which is
now in progress for the 1929 season. This investigation comprehends in addition to
the regular salinity observations, that have been made during the past several years,
special salinity surveys, stream flow measurements in the delta channels, tidal
surveys and detailed analytical studies of the data thus procured from which it is
anticipated that definite conclusions as to the behavior of salinity and the relation of
salinity to fresh water inflow and to tidal action may be obtained. However, the
preliminary estimates of rate and volume of supplementary fresh water inflow as
used in this report are believed to be sufficiently accurate for the purpose of estimat-
ing reservoir capacities and releases required for salinity control. Since the con-
sumptive use of water in the delta varies from month to month, increasing during
the irrigation season, the fresh water inflow necessary to control salinity to any point
and degree would have a monthly variation. For the purposes of the study con-
tained herein, a uniform rate of 5000 second feet has been assumed.
28 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
impaired to some extent, as indicated by studies for the period 1905-27.
With the reservoirs of the complete development operated primarily
for power generation \vitli schedule of water release to develop
maximum primary power consistent with controlling salinity at
Antioch, by maintaining an inflow of 5000 second-feet into the delta,
the average annual power output would have been reduced from
689,500,000 kilowatt bonis without salinity control, to 652,900,000
kilowatt hours with salinity control, or 5.3 per cent. If the water
were released from the reservoirs primarily for power generation in
accord with schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric Com-
pany, modified, however, to be consistent with salinity control require-
ments to same degree and point of control, the average annual power
output would have been reduced from 773,100,000 kilowatt hours with-
out salinity control, to 742,500,000 kilowatt hours, with salinity con-
trol, or 4.0 per cent. The maximum irrigation yield obtainable from
the development, assuming an average seasonal deficiency in the irriga-
tion supply of 2.2 per cent of a perfect seasonal supply for the period
1905-27, would have been diminished from 1,757,000 acre-feet per
season without salinity control to 1,070,000 acre-feet per season or
39.1 per cent.
Some degree of salinity control could be obtained through the opera-
tion of the reservoirs primarily for power generation, however, to
insure control to any particular degree and point of control, the reser-
voirs must be operated specifically for salinity control purposes.
Methods of operating complete consolidated development coordinately for flood
control, salinity control, irrigation and power.
An opportunity is afforded with the complete consolidated develop-
ment to operate the major reservoirs with an aggregate capacity of
1,719,000 acre-feet coordinately for flood control, salinity control, irri-
gation and power and obtain a substantial value for each use. One
method of operation, based on an analysis of the period 1905-27, would
have resulted in the following accomplishments :
1. Floods controlled on American River to 100.000 second-feet maxi-
mum flow measured at the Fairoaks gaging station of the United States
Geological Survey.
2. Inflow into the delta of Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers main-
tained at 5000 second-feet for salinity control and to meet the irrigation
demands of the delta area.
3. An irrigation supply of 334,000 acre-feet per season (1000 second-
feet maximum rate of flow) made available for San Joaquin Valley,
without deficiency in supply.
4. A power output of 632.300.000 kilowatt hours per year, of which
the primary power output would have been 340,800,000 kilowatt hours.
Although the irrigation supply is designated for the San Joaquin
Valley, it eonld as well have been for the local areas adjacent to the
American River, however, there would have been a slight difference in
the monthly distribution . of the irrigation demand. Existing prior
rights Eor irrigation along the American River downstream from the
Poison) dam are included in the estimates.
Tf the irrigation supply to the San Joaquin Valley or to the local
areas were increased to 1,000.000 acre-feet, floods on the American River
still could be controlled to 100,000 second-feet, and an inflow of 5000
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 29
second-feet into the delta maintained. For the period, 1905-27, the
power output, however, would have been reduced to 585,700,000 kilo-
watt hours per year and would have been seasonal in character and the
irrigation supply would have had a deficiency of 32 per cent of a perfect
seasonal supply in 1924. In order to furnish a perfect supply in a
year like 1924, larger reservoir capacity would be required. In this
studj T the operation of the existing" Folsom City power plant was
subordinated to the operation of the reservoirs of the consolidated
development and as in the previous study existing prior rights along
the American River are included in the estimates.
Effect of the operation of the consolidated development on navigation on Sacra-
mento River.
Through the operation of the units of the consolidated development,
navigation conditions in general would be improved on the Sacramento
River below the mouth of the American River. The extent of the
improvement would be dependent on the stage of the development and
the method employed in operating the reservoirs. The following table
gives the average flow in the months of low flow for the years 1924-1927,
inclusive, compared with the average flow in the same months, had the
reservoirs of the consolidated development been in operation. The
figures given in the table are based on the assumption that no water
would have been diverted from the American River below the Folsom
dam. If water were diverted, these figures would be reduced by the
amount of the diversion for any particular month in a season. With
Folsom reservoir operated alone to develop maximum primary power,
the average flow in July, 1924, would have been increased from 910
to 1760 second-feet and with Folsom, Auburn and Coloma reservoirs
operated to develop maximum primary power consistent with main-
taining an inflow into the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers for salinity control, the average flow in the same month would
have been 4580 second-feet.
30
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
E
2
E
S
1-i
go
5-2
*i
Ho
JO
"o
O
i a >,e.^.g *,
-•s o
feii'fl.S S 9 £■£"» S
&° « C j* •>.£ E «-
o o a » °|| a °
** -_
- §
-O 09
si
*rf __
'S F
«?.'. h
c . — — > ^
So
a
3
^ £
"3 =
11
*•• r- CO t,
SCO*—
3 CO «•* W
TO v ■' - t—
o _
a
I- o
-si
aSralilal^g-a-s
2 > S 2 -- a^°.T3- E 5n=i:
O o
sob a
"■ 09
.£'<5 e-o e9 r j? c « e
1*
■Jilt
S So fc P.5 * •> S
I
g^2 _
« s fl a >,.s
Hill
O o g &
o
.J3
eg
a «
c.8
C i-
~ c
•,- 1-
■0.0
•s 3
°<
4)
■2 a
iSt
£4 qj
_ "T* en
3-C
Hi*
? 09 o 03
- «° g
E.I 3 - o
=
3
5,
§
c
'_■
ill 1 1
O o| c.
§
Jj
Q
G
-
oi
>
■i-
•o
L-
"T5
5
3
-~
B
Jh
■S «
■s-p
O.
O 03
a
"o Its gi „ b
t* o 2 •- oj H
3
o
J3 «»
■2 &gi
O o f|
sss
5 r iq
oooo
t i r :■: - i
— •- i - C
5 -=. 1
— «C CT-
CO* CO* — «" c^"
oooo
c. t^. r~- -r
ci o: -r i -
ooo
-r "-C t^
-r »0 •-*
.■^ c i co -r
uo -j. O
OOOO
OOf- «i*
ci oo co :o
ooo
- i r r-
— — OO
« --r»
a>o«
ss
>oo
MNW^t"
OOOO
o — t^ O
9 c -
co ~ cor^
j: i - r^
~- — • c*
*o -r o
oooo
OOO
— O -r
•f* CO* >o"
-Is g
iil-s s
is Is: I
oooo
c-i — t- o
-«" — id
ooo
00 OC ■"»•
•coo
I
1
:U
CM-5 — - 1-
OOOOO
o
43
a
Q OO O O
oo_o_oo
o
o
£1
o
_CJ
TjTto"*0 uoW
l-T
"S.
■*# OO CO CO ■*+*
•^
^CDOOOO
o
Q
s
o
CO CO -H CM
60
w
109
'u.
PL,
3
T3
43
i
OOOOO
o
u
OOOOO
o^oo^o
o
V
o
"fl
oo""o""o"co*"co"
cm"
t— <
t>- OS -«Ct* OS O
•^ CO OS i>* *0
CM_
S o3
oo'co' o*
-rjT
q2
e^i-< •-<
CO
OOOOO
o
OOOOO
o
4a
°- - . - .
o_
in
o
u
cfirsirt co~oc
*tfT
OO O CO O CM
1>-
CM CM Oi t*- rjH
cO
g
A
CM t— •— i CM •— t
UO
4a
*<*
3
O
w
lip
g
H
p
c3
h
Ml
« 2
OOOOO
o
49
O O o
o
a
oi3
° a f
cm"
onal
dco
ture
CO ■**< iO
CO
lO^ ON
• -» o rt
OO
- o S
-osa**- 1
t3 t-
9|
oTirToToo
oT
a
CNNCCTO
CM
(— 1
CO i— t Oi lO U5
IO
as
Q2
oo* eo o
co"
Wl- 1 1— (
CO
-*a
•3
P
**
>
•
E
3§
l-
i
i
■-
c "*
a
£
c
a
c
I
z
-
i
1
i
c
c
5
f
a
[
i
s
1-
1-
i
$
a
1
883
00* CI 00
r*- -t» 2? ~ c3 a
o'S S 2
» 3 a t5
Vr 1 a,QpH<
■S
2
OQ
3—72924
:M
division OK WATER RESOURCES
&
c c
3
sis
saw- 1
-C u.
<£
•c.
~ rt O
c - —
d
B -
75"*
c —
eg c3
c d
«= o
01 'Z.
2 =
: P f
■S 5"
^ > —
— .
-*j ra o
d o co
a >-
(5-C S
ri — r- <"
58°l
o o <
r--oooo cc -r
aMwifioa
© O © © O
s s © © c
OO©©©
00" — " ©*co* (O*
•4*CQO»NlQ
© © © © ©
— © -f CO CO
CO © — ©_40
© ©© © ©
©© ©© ©
© © © © ©
©_©©©_©_
~.*r- »o ©*eo"
^j- iO © cm r-
Ol* -1-" m CM
i
00000
§8
_ ©
©©©
© *C
© ©>©
CM CM c "
CO —
© »c»o
OO CO
©
•• —
s
*- - 8
B
H *J t,
"S g 8 E S
8* -5
gg 2
iil
co — ao
— -* 1-
-
5 c - —
- a - —
SQPk-41
a
©© ©
© © ©
s©©
© ©00
CM © ig
CO ■* *C
00 cm
•fr
§
■3
—
d
Si
■ c
— c
il
B
—
« 3 la
Jsliia
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 35
Annual cost.
The estimated annual cost of the three stages of the consolidated
development are given in the two following tables, for several modes of
reservoir operation, both with and without inclusion of flood control
features and under both state and private financing. In the first table,
data are given with a power plant installation for a plant load factor
of 75 per cent and in the second table with an installation proposed
by the American River Hydro-electric Company. The annual costs
are expressed both in per cent of the capital cost and in mills per
kilowatt hour of power produced under the various conditions. Under
private financing and operation, the annual costs are given both exclud-
ing and including state taxes. Explanation of the methods employed
in arriving at the annual costs are set forth in detail in Chapter X.
The annual costs for other methods of reservoir operation and those
given in the following tables are also set forth in Chapter X.
36
DIVISION OP WATER RICSOUR-
in
o
8
H
O
<
O
z
o
z
o
CH
H
<
z
I— I
OS
O
Oh
E
H
H
Z
Oh
O
w
Q
Q
W
H
<
Q
l-H
C/D
z
o
u
s
s
u
<
c
o
•c
o
■a
a.
X
a.
81
B.2
3-3
C M
St «
35
K «
3 Of
a b
&
BUS
C K
pi a;
B 03
-TJ C3
^JS
W-
5.5
eS «
O
©
oo
to
00
o
o
s
s
s
ex"
s
s
§
•-*
o
2
3 SSL'S •- S =
c Be g 3 3
t~S' s s
Sqse
-1°
o
8
03 <
SE
3
o
5
0. — C HJJ
s
8
CO
8
c £"-0 a
i Sir c
o o g
k. 4> O
isi
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RTCER
37
00
«5
CO
O
O
o
o
s
10
to
o
o
o
o
o
cm"
©
OS*
o
o
s
to
■flf
1<
o
o"
g
8"
::s
DIVISION- OF WATER RESOURl l -
cc
z
<
II
3.S
— =
■a?
is
tag
2§
ws
■a
c
a
•9 rt
q ~
3
=
C
its
be £
x a
o
d
o
s
8
8
CO
«— •
o
~ c
"O to
5 2=
•* 2 a
1
9 B
Eg
- - - ~->
* w fc- «J
; — ' -
as
a I —-Z- "
~ — pa
s
£'
Siss
■ £ S.K 8~
Cm
=
a
S
O W C o
ills
~ m <" «- - t -
1 "i c u ~ e—
E
— _ « 2 fji
iiC 5 : - u m
aiss :?- ■
§i a.
o
~.~ So „-£•«£ S| J; &*
8* g°«s «§-.>!£
||£-£|
■t : r.
: ■--='£: t-
P —
■sf 6
3 Q fi "O
-5 Ms.
■— s a
!§'•§
° a
■s 2 e
BM
- r. ; I-
CO C oS
I - § g
' ~
i
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
39
o
o
o
o
o"
o
CO
o
o
o
tti
c c
£-2
D
"= >— .5
,3 -a n S.|
.2 s «
- : <=.- —
2 a o
u = -
CO
QJ
J-T3-- —
» 8 fe °
i ~ — QJ
3 S B —
j "-^ «
■ — - ." ^:
O QJ a S
— § Qj QJ
C J "
=
S ? a
a £
■oS
§ b .-s a & >
E art
5 o £
S § fe
SS S Jg
a 5 "«
«^- £
= 3=4 _
>>.5 ° ?
ill!
"3.S-SS.2
o CS-r- S QJ
QJ r^ S — i
£> QJ <3 T
• - •• O
»| Lm
te-e 8 §• >
Sg-2
.2 a 5 a ,_i <
fe. > o " '
o —
Sa
CO
s ■
o 3
3 *
= £ 'E
■IS S*c*»
M f*& a
« o t> o
qo a gj —>
— — • r.
2 9
-3 DO
"? g cj a o>>
■a a-o"o
^ ■?! a a'
•3-0 S
*^.^ Q) - > *^ ~*
a
3 1 a 3 El S
oa a.i u 70 o
40 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Revenue from power.
The revenue that may be obtained from the sale of electric power
produced at the power plants of the consolidated development for the
three stages of the development and for the various modes of reservoir
operation, will depend on many conditions which are not known at this
time or possible of being definitely established. Although the power
output has been estimated and its characteristics have been determined
for the period 1905-1927, under assumed methods of reservoir opera-
tion, the actual method of operation might vary materially from those
assumed in the report, resulting in a different amount of power output
and in quite different power characteristics. This condition is particu-
larly true of the operations for the generation of power but applies to a
lesser degree to the operations to secure flood control, salinity control
and an irrigation supply. The conditions under which the power
Avould be produced, the condition of the general power market relative
to its ability to absorb the power produced, the cost of power from
other and competing sources and other conditions pertaining to the dis-
posal of the power at the time it would come on the market, are
important and unknown elements which would affect the revenue from
power that could be expected from the development. In view of these
conditions not being fixed, it is not possible to determine with any
degree of certainty, the revenue that would be obtained from disposal
of the power produced.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 41
CHAPTER II
DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATER SUPPLY OF AMERICAN
RIVER
Drainage basin.
The American River is the second largest stream tributary to the
Sacramento River below Red Bluff, being exceeded in size only by the
Feather. It rises in the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and
drains 1919 square miles of mountainous area. Three main forks,
North, Middle and South, join above the valley floor to form the main
stream which discharges into the Sacramento River at the city of
Sacramento. The geographic location and extent of the drainage basin
are delineated on Plate II.
Elevations in the watershed vary from about 100 feet at Fairoaks
gaging station to over 10,000 feet at Pyramid Peak and Round Top, on
the crest of the Sierra Nevada divide. The following table shows the
distribution of areas between various elevations.
TABLE 1. ELEVATION OF AMERICAN RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
ABOVE FAIROAKS GAGING STATION
Drainage area
Elevation above sea level
In square
miles
In per cent of
total drainage
area
Below 2,500 feet
524
600
795
27.3
Between 2,500 and 5,000 feet
31.3
Above 5,000 feet
41.4
Totals
1,919
100.0
Precipitation on the watershed varies from a mean seasonal of 25
inches in the lower areas to about 70 inches at elevations of 4000 to
5000 feet.
Water supply.
The run-off of the American River has been measured continuously
at the Fairoaks gaging station of the United States Geological Survey
since 1904. In order to obtain the unimpaired flow at this station, the
measurements were corrected for upstream diversions, storage and
contributions for the period during which these various conditions
existed.
The principal diversions are the Towle and North Fork ditches on
the North Fork, the Pilot Creek ditch on the Middle Fork and the
Eldorado, Webber Creek and Natomas ditches on the South Fork and
the Alder Creek pumping plant on the main stream. The amounts
diverted by these ditches were added to the measured flow in obtaining
the unimpaired flow. The measured flow was corrected also for storage
and release from reservoirs on the head waters of the tributaries;
namely, Echo, Medley Lakes, Twin Lakes. Silver Lake and Webber
Creek on the South Fork drainage, Lake Valley on the North Fork
42
DIVISION OF WATFK RKS(
and Loon Lake on the Middle Pork with an aggregate capacity of about
50,000 acre-feet.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, through its South Canal,
diverts from the tailrace of the Wise power plant into the North Fork
of the American River, water originating on areas outside of the
American River watershed. Tliis contribution was deducted from the
measurements in obtaining the unimpaired flow.
In Table 2, the seasonal run-offs measured ;it the Fairoaks gaging
station, expressed in acre-feel and those unimpaired by upstream
diversions, storage and contributions, in acre-feet and acre-feel per
square mile, are set forth for the period 1904-1927. The figures show
a vide variation in seasonal run-off. The maximum run-off occurred in
the season of 1906-07, with 5,783,000 acre-feet and the minimum in
1923-24, with 551,000 acre-feet, 196 per cent and 18.7 per cent, respec-
tively, of the average for the period 1904-27 of 2,953,000 acre-feet .
TABLE 2.
SEASONAL RUN-OFF OF AMERICAN RIVER AT
FAIROAKS GAGING STATION
1904-1927
Seasonal run-off
Season (Octolter 1 to September 30)
Measured at
Fairoaks
gaging station
in acre-feet
Unimpaired by upstream
liversions and contributions
In acre-feet
In acre-feet
per
square mile
1904-06
1,955,000
4,763,000
5,710.000
1,464,000
19,000
12,000
5,481,000
1,264,000
1,434,000
5 1 ,000
3,061,000
3,818.000
2,832,000
1,420,000
2,155,000
1,891,000
530,000
2,769,000
1,374,000
:s,000
2,050,000
4,836,000
5,783,000
7,000
(.62;
3,61{
5,555.000
1,336,000
1,512.000
1.1172,000
3.180,000
3,965,000
2.918.000
1,541,000
2,266,000
1,502,000
3,212,000
3.2S'
2.757,000
551,000
2,726,000
1,894,000
3,642,000
1 068
1905-06
2,520
3,014
790
1906-07
1907-08
1908-09
2,409
1 884
1909-10
1910-11
2,895
696
1911-12
1912-13
804
1913-14
2 122
1911-15
1 657
1915-16
2 066
1916-17
1 536
1917-18
803
1918-19
1 181
1919-20
783
1920-21
1 674
1921-22
1 7! 2
1922-23
1 137
i
in:' 1-25
1 121
16
726
1926-27
1,898
Average, 1904-27
2,890,000
2,958,000
1,539
The distribution of the seasonal run-off among the months also has a
wide variation. In Table :i. the average for the period of stream measure-
ment is shown For each month of the year. It may be observed that,
on the average, the maximum occurs in May and the minimum in Sep-
tember, with 19.8 per cent and 0.5 per cent, respectively, of the seasonal
total.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
43
TABLE 3. AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF SEASONAL RUN-OFF
1904-1927
Month
Run-off by months
In acre-feet
In per cent of
seasonal total
October . . .
November.
December.
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August. . . .
September .
Totals
25,000
60,000
120,000
315,000
367,000
434,000
526,000
585,000
376,000
104,000
25,000
16,000
2,953,000
0.9
2.0
4.1
10.7
12.4
14.7
17.8
19.8
12.7
3.5
0.9
0.5
100.0
An examination of the daily discharge records at the Fairoaks gaging
station of the United States Geological Survey, discloses a greater
variation in the daily run-off than for the seasonal and monthly values.
The greatest recorded daily discharge occurred on March 25, 1928, when
the flow reached a crest discharge of 184,000 second-feet. The mean
for the day was 120,000 second-feet. The minimum flow of record
occurred in 1924, when the flow dropped to 5 second-feet for three weeks
in July and August.
44 DIVISION OF WATER RESOUK' I 5
CHAPTER III
CONSOLIDATED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN
RIVER PROPOSED BY AMERICAN RIVER HYDRO-ELEC-
TRIC COMPANY
General.
The plans of the American River Hydro-electric Company call for
an extensive reservoir and power development on the lower American
River. They include the construction of three major and two minor
reservoirs, together with power plants at the dams for production of
electric power. The locations of the various units of the development
are delineated on Plate II. It may be observed that the reservoirs
are strategically located to control the run-off of practically the entire
watershed of the American River.
The reservoirs have large capacity in aggregate. The major reser-
voirs, Folsom on the main stream, Auburn on the North Fork and
Coloma on the South Fork, have a total storage capacity of 1,719.000
acre-feet, 58 per cent of the average annual run-off of the American
River for the period 1904-1927. The two minor reservoirs, Pilot Creek,
located on the North Fork between the Folsom and Auburn reservoirs,
and Webber Creek, below the Coloma reservoir on the South Fork, have
relatively small capacity and would be utilized primarily for creation
of power head. However, a part of their capacity, if so desired, could
be used for re-regulating the daily fluctuations in the water release from
the upstream major reservoirs.
A substantial power drop may be obtained from the development as
indicated on Plate III. The water level of the uppermost reservoir is
900 feet and the elevation of the tailrace of the lowest power plant is
162 feet. On the North Fork, 495 feet of power head would be devel-
oped, on the South Fork 445 feet and on the main stream from 190 to
228 feet, depending on the plant layout at the Folsom dam. A total
power installation of 200,000 k.v.a. P.F.=0.S0 is proposed by the
American River Hydro-electric Company. With this installation an
average output of 88,250 kilowatts of electric power would be produced
if operated primarily for power generation.
Folsom reservoir.
Two sites, about 2000 feet apart, have been proposed for the dam of
the Folsom reservoir. Both are Located about two miles upstream from
the town of Folsom and above the diversion dam of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. The upper site was used for the estimates set forth
in Bulletin No. 12, "Summary Report on the Water Resources of Cali-
fornia and a Coordinated Plan for Their Development," published by
the Division of Engineering and [irrigation. The Lower site lias been
selected by the American River Hydro-electric Company for its pro-
posed development. Studies indicate that both sites are essentially
equal as regards foundation, unit cosl <>r storage, and total potential
power out put of the stream. The lower site has been used in the studies
for this report. This site is Located in section 24. T. 10 X., R. 7 E.,
M. I). B. and M., about two miles upstream from the town of Folsom
and one mile below the junction of the North and South forks. The
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
45
dam would rise 190 feet above the streambed elevation of 205 feet with
a crest length of 5280 feet, and would back water up both forks, flood-
ing 6460 acres of land to elevation 890 feet and impounding 355,000
acre-feet of water.
The site has been extensively explored by the American River Hydro-
electric Company. Hyde Forbes, geologist, has examined the site
and the cores of the diamond drill explorations. He reports that the
foundation is granite and is suitable for the dam proposed, provided it
is properly sealed by grouting. His report on this and the dam sites
for the other reservoirs is given in full in Chapter XI of this report.
Two auxiliary dams would be required on the rim of the reservoir.
These would be low earthen embankments located in sections 28 and 29,
T. 10 N., R. 8 E., and in section 13, T. 10 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. and M.,
respectively.
The lands and improvements within the reservoir area are important
items to be considered in the construction of the Folsom reservoir. The
lands comprise both agricultural and grazing, with the area used for
grazing predominating. Although the net area flooded is 6460 acres, a
considerably larger acreage would probably have to be acquired in
carrying out the development. The two most important improvements
that would be flooded are the Natomas and the North Fork canals. Each
has a capacity of about 60 second-feet. The Natomas canal heads on
the South Fork near Salmon Falls, below the Webber Creek and Coloma
dam sites and supplies water to gold dredgers and agricultural lands in
the vicinity of Folsom. The North Fork canal diverts from the North
Fork below the Auburn dam site at a point about 17 miles upstream
from the junction of the North and South forks. It serves an agricul-
tural area on the north side of the American River in and around Fair-
oaks. These canals could be relocated above the flow line of the reser-
voir. Other improvements that would be submerged and would require
relocation are county roads and bridges and a power line which trav-
erses the reservoir site. The cost of acquiring the lands and marginal
areas required for the reservoir site and removing all improvements
within the reservoir area is estimated at $1,500,000, or equal to 18 per
cent of the total cost of dam and reservo.ir.
Based on the topographic maps and data furnished by the American
River Hydro-electric Company, reservoir areas and capacities for the
several heights of dam have been calculated and are tabulated as follows :
TABLE 4. CAPACITY OF FOLSOM RESERVOIR
Height of dam, in feet
Water surface elevation of
Area of water surface,
Capacity of reservoir.
(5 feet freeboard)
reservoir, in feet
in acres
in acre-feet
80
280
920
29,000
90
290
1,150
39,500
100
300
1,400
52,200
110
310
1,600
67.700
120
320
1,980
85,600
130
330
2,350
107,300
140
340
2,800
133,000
150
350
3,300
163,800
160
360
3,900
200,000
170
370
4,610
242,500
180
380
5,460
293,800
190
390
6,460
355,000
46
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
The Folsom reservoir is particularly well situated to control the
run-off i'roin the American River watershed, since practically ;ill of it
originates above the dam site. The unimpaired run-off above the
FoLsoni reservoir is estimated to be 0.1! per cent less than the unim-
paired run-oil' ai the Fairoaks gaging station; however, it is do1 all
available for use at the Folsom dam. It is reduced by the upstream
diversions from the tributaries. At the presenl time, diversions are
made in six principal ditches. These are Towle and North Fork
ditches on the North Fork, Pilot Creek on the .Middle Fork, and
Fldorado. Webber Creek and Xatomas on the South Fork. These
diversions are made for domestic, irrigation, power and mining uses.
The total amount diverted in a season based v njatraam
diversions, in
acrc-f "i t
Upstream
diversions, in
acre-f'it
Available
for power
development,
in acre-feet
1904-05
786,000
1.718,000
2,101,000
570,000
1,687,000
1,331,000
1,994,000
482,000
169,000
1,305,000
,000
1,353,000
1,091,000
584,000
7H4.O00
568,000
1,245,000
1,269,000
1,012,000
211,000
1,080,000
535,000
1,367,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15.000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
771,000
1905-06
1 703,000
1906-07
2,086,000
1907-08
555,000
1908-09
1 '172,000
1909-10
1.316,000
1910-11
1,9 79,000
1911-12
467,000
1912-13
454,000
1913-14
I :".'0,000
1914-15 .•
884,000
1915-16
1,338,000
1916-17 .'
1.076,000
1917-18
569.000
1918-19
749.000
1919-20
553,000
1920-2 1
1,230,000
1921-22
1,254,000
1922-23
1,027,000
1923-24
199,000
1924-25
1,0115.000
1925-26
520,000
1926-27
1,352,000
Average, 1904-27
1,063,000
15,000
1,018.000
Webber Creek reservoir.
The dam for the Webber Creek reservoir would be located in section
30, T. 11 N., R. 9 E., M. D. B. and M., on the South Fork of the
American River about 1 mile downstream from its confluence with
Webber Creek. The dam would be 90 feet high above low water ele-
vation 460 feet and would back water up to the Coloma dam power
plant at elevation 550 feet. The capacity of the reservoir has not been
calculated but it would be relatively small. The purpose of the dam
would be to create a power head of 115 feet between the Coloma and
Folsom reservoirs.
The site has been examined by Hyde Forbes, who found it to be
suitable geologically for a concrete dam 150 feet high. The foundation
rock is of igneous origin, hard and durable.
About 200 acres of land of relatively low value and no improvements
of importance would be flooded by the reservoir. The Natomas Canal
diverts from the South Fork about 1\ miles below the dam and there-
fore would not be affected. The Monte Mine, an inactive property, is
above the flow line of the reservoir.
The water supply available for power generation at the dam would
be the release and spill from the Coloma reservoir augmented by the
run-off from Webber Creek. In the power estimates, however, the run-
off from Webber Creek has been neglected. It would be relatively
small in amount in the critical months and in months of large run-off,
there probably would be a surplus passing the Coloma dam, which
could not be utilized without increasing the capacity of the power plant.
Only a detailed study could determine whether this would be justified.
This has not been made.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 53
CHAPTER IV
ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT FROM CONSOLIDATED DEVELOP-
MENT
Location and mode of operation of power plants.
Power plants for the generation of electric power would be located
below the dams and would operate under the head created by the reser-
voirs. The head would be variable in the case of Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma and constant for Pilot Creek and Webber Creek reservoirs.
Estimates of power output have been made for various modes of
reservoir operation and power plant capacities. These have been
prepared with the reservoirs operated primarily for power generation
and for irrigation use. The effect on the power output and irrigation
use of utilizing space in the reservoirs for flood and salinity control has
also been estimated and is set forth herein.
The power output has been calculated for two methods of water
release from the reservoir operating primarily for power. One method
of release would develop maximum continuous or primary power
throughout the year, including extremely dry seasons such as 1923-24,
by varying the water release with the head on the plant, and also
additional intermittent seasonal or secondary power up to the capacity
of the economic power installation when water would be available in
excess of that required for the generation of the primary power. This
method has been employed in estimating the power yield of the various
units of the "Coordinated Plan," * when operated primarily for power
purposes and is included herein to allow a comparison with those units.
The second method, proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company would release water through the turbines at a constant rate
when available, developing a larger amount of power but much more
variable than in the first instance. In this method, the reservoirs would
be drawn to low levels at the end of each season and the amount of
power generated would have a greater variation from season to
season and from month to month in the season and, therefore, would be
less dependable than with the method of water release developing
maximum primary power.
Methods employed in estimating power output.
The power output from the several power plants was estimated,
month by month, from 1904 to 1927, the period of stream measurement
at the Fairoaks gaging station, taking into account the draft from the
reservoir, the head on and the efficiency of the power plant. A constant
tailrace elevation was assumed for each particular plant. The overall
plant efficiency was taken at 75 per cent and was assumed constant
for all heads. This figure allows for all losses between reservoir and
tailrace, including entrance, penstock and draft tube losses.
In the method of water release, developing maximum primary power,
the primary power output was maintained, month by month, by vary-
ing the release through the turbines with the changing level of the
* See Bulletin No. 12, "Summary Report on Water Resources of California and a
Coordinated Plan for Their Development," Division of Engineering and Irrigation,
State of California, Department of Public Works.
54
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
reservoir so as to meet the demand for each particular month in accord
with the schedule of state-wide demand for power, given in Table 11.
Power in addition to the primary power was included in the computa-
tions up to the capacity of the generators when water was available,
taking into account the load factor on which the plant would be
operated. Plant load factor as used in this report is the ratio of the
average power output for a month in kilowatts to the rated capacity of
the plant in kilowatts.
TABLE 11. MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
STATE-WIDE AVERAGE
Month
Electric
power
demand in
]>er cent of
annual total
Month
Electric
power
demand in
per cent of
annual total
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
Julv
100.0
The average maximum daily output capacity of a plant was taken the
same for each method of water release but the installed capacity varied.
For the method of release, developing maximum primary power, all
power installations were based on a 75 per cent plant load factor, and
for the method proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Com-
pany on a 60 per cent load factor, except for the installation at the
Folsom dam, which was based on the plant operating on a 100 per cent
load factor.
In the computations an allowance was made for evaporation and pre-
cipitation on the surface of the reservoirs. The net evaporation was
estimated at 3.5 feet depth per season, distributed as follows:
TABLE 12. NET EVAPORATION FROM RESERVOIR SURFACE
Month
Net evaporation
Depth
in feet
In per cent
of seasonal
total
0.32
0.44
0.52
0.62
0.58
0.45
0.34
0.23
April. .
9.2
12.6
15.0
July. ..
17.8
16.6
12.7
9.6
6.5
Total
3.50
100.0
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 55
Power output from the Folsom plant.
A power plant would be located below tbe Folsom dam, near the head
of the Folsom Canal, which supplies the Folsom City plant of the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, located 9000 feet downstream from the
proposed plant at the Folsom dam. Water would be delivered to the
proposed plant through a tunnel under the left abutment of the dam.
Two alternate power plant layouts have been studied. They differ
only in the point of discharge of the tail water from the plant. The
first layout, proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Company,
would consist of two generating units, one discharging its tail water
directly into the Folsom Canal, with the second unit discharging into
the American River below the present Folsom Prison dam, which serves
as a diversion dam for the Folsom Canal. The tailrace elevation of
the first unit would be 207.0 feet, and that of the second 162.0 feet.
With the reservoir full (water surface elevation 390 feet) this would
give maximum static heads of 183 and 228 feet for the first and second
units, respectively. In the power studies, the A^olumes of water released
through each unit varied with the natural stream flow and amount of
release from storage. The release through the first unit was the natural
stream flow up to 1000 second-feet, the capacity of the Folsom Canal,
supplemented with stored water when available during periods of low
stream flow. The release through the second unit was limited by the
requirements of the first unit and the water capacity of the second unit.
In the second layout, all the water released through the turbines
would be discharged into the Folsom Canal. The upper 1600 feet of
canal below the plant would be enlarged and deepened to make avail-
able an additional 7 feet of drop now being utilized at the Folsom State
Prison power plant, which would be abandoned. The maximum head
on the plant would then be 190 feet, 7 feet greater than that of the
first unit of the first layout. All water discharged through this plant
could be carried to and through the Folsom City plant of the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company by enlarging the Folsom Canal and recon-
structing the present Folsom City plant. By this arrangement a con-
siderable increase in total power output would be obtained in the power
development. This, however, would result in the released water being
discharged in the river at an elevation too low for gravity irrigation
of a large part of the valley agricultural lands dependent on this source
of supply and would be of particular value only during the period pre-
ceding the need of the water for irrigation.
The .installed capacity of the Folsom plant would vary with the mode
of operation of the reservoir and with the stage of development of the
project. A larger installed power plant capacity would be justified
if Auburn or Coloma reservoirs were constructed due to the regulatory
effect they would have on the stream flow for this plant. The installed
capacity would vary from 35,000 k.v.a. P. F. =0.80, and a load factor of
1.00 with Folsom reservoir as a first installation in the development,
to 54,000 k.v.a. P.F — 0.80 and a load factor of 0.75 for the complete
development with Auburn and Coloma reservoirs constructed and
operated in conjunction with Folsom.
In Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16 that follow, are set forth the power
output and power characteristics of the Folsom plant for different
methods of water release, plant layouts and stages of development.
56 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Table 13 gives the total yearly power outputs in kilowatt hours for the
period 1005-1927, for the following stages of development: (1) without
either Auburn or Coloma constructed; (2) with Auburn constructed
and operated to develop maximum primary power and Coloma not con-
structed ; (3) with both Auburn and Coloma reservoirs constructed
and operated to develop maximum primary power. All the tail water
would be discharged into the Folsom Canal at tailrace elevation of
200 feet. The total primary power output would be increased from
85,900,000 kilowatt hours per year without Auburn and Coloma reser-
voirs constructed to 172,600,000 kilowatt hours with both Auburn and
Coloma constructed and correspondingly the average total annual out-
put would be increased from 153,700,000 kilowatt hours to 217,400,000
kilowatt hours.
Table 14 sets forth similar data for the schedule of water release
proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Company with the
plant layout that would discharge part of the tail-water into the Folsom
Canal at elevation 207 feet and the remainder into the American River
at elevation 162 feet.
In Tables 15 and 16, characteristics of the power output are shown
for the two methods of water release from the reservoirs operated pri-
marily for power for various stages of development. The monthly
output is tabulated for years of maximum and minimum output
expressed in millions of kilowatt hours and in per cent of annual total,
and also for the minimum year in per cent of annual total of the
maximum year. These tables show that there is a wider variation in
the values for the maximum and minimum years with the schedule
of water release proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Com-
pany than with that developing maximum primary power. The output
with the latter method of release conforms more nearly to the state-wide
average demand for power which is given at the left of the tables.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
57
TABLE 13. POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT
Folsom reservoir operated in accord with schedule of water release to develop
maximum primary power
Height of dam, 190 feet Tailrace elevation of
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet power plant, 200 feet
Power output, in kilowatt hours
Year
Auburn and
Coloma
reservoirs not
constructed.
Installed
capacity of
power plant
43,000 k.v.a.
P.F.=0.80
L.F.=0.7o
Annual primary
power output
85,900.000
kilowatt hours
Auburn
reservoir
constructed and
opented to
develop
maximum
primary
power.
Coloma
reservoir
not
constructed.
Installed
capacity of
power plant
54,000 k.v.a.
P.F.=0.80
L.F=0.75
Annual primary
oower outout
126,200,000
kilowatt hours
Auburn and
Coloma
reservoirs
constructed
and operated
to develop
maximum
primary
power.
Installed
capacity of
power plant
54.000 k.v.a.
P.F.=0.80
L.F.=0.75
Annual primary
power output
172,600 000
kilowatt hours
1905
150,000,000
179,900,000
192,800,000
145,600,000
185,200,000
156,000,000
162.600,000
125,300,000
136,400,000
165,700,000
164,500,000
178,200,000
158,200,000
133,500,000
134,000.000
138,200,000
163,300,000
166,500,000
156,000,000
87,700,000
140,800,000
145,200.000
131,400,000
196,900,000
229,400,000
241,100,000
183,000,000
233,100,000
195,600,000
210,200.000
158,800,000
174,100.000
210,400,000
206,000,000
223,000,000
197,800,000
168.400.000
175,500.000
185,300,000
207,700.000
208,600,000
198,800,000
126,200,000
183,700,000
165,200,000
165,800,000
212,700,000
1906. .
246,900,000
1907. .
254.100,000
1908 . .
198,900,000
1909. .
246,800,000
1910
220,800,000
1911
233,400,000
1912
190.400,000
1913
208,000,000
1914
232,800,000
1915... .
232.100.000
1916. .
239,700,000
1917
• 219,700,000
1918
193,300,000
1919
201,900,000
1920
199,500,000
1921
225,800,000
1922
218,600,000
1923 . .
221,200.000
1924 .
172,600,000
1925 . .
198,600,000
1926
199,100,000
1927*
178,500,000
153,700,000
195,300,000
217,400,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1
58
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 14. POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT
Folsom reservoir operated in accord with schedule of water release proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Tailrace elevations of power plant,
207 and 162 feet
Year
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922.
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927"
Average
Power output, in kilowatt hours*
Auburn and
Coloma
reservoirs not
constructed.
Installed
capacity of
power plant,
35,000 k.v.a.
P.F.=0.80
L.F.=1.00
152
193
209
152
202
167
175
122
123
180
166
186
155
130
132
141
181
180
180
41
163
143
161
000,000
200,000
,700,000
900,000
,700,000
,800,000
,700,000
,500,000
,500,000
900,000
.200,000
,100,000
200,000
400,000
200,000
600,000
,700,000
600,000
200,000
300,000
700,000
100,000
800,000
Auburn
reservoir
constructed and
operated in
accord with
schedule of
water release
proposed by
American
River
Hydro-Electric
Company.
Coloma
reservoir not
constructed.
Installed
capacity of
power plant,
45,000 kv.a.
PF.=0 80
L.F.=1.00
243,500,000
278,400,000
iio.ooo
239,600,000
281,100,000
268,900,000
275,400,000
172,200,000
183,200,000
276,700.000
266,500,000
277.400,000
270,000,000
220,400,000
219,900,000
222,700,000
274,300,000
268,400,000
272,800,000
62,100,000
250,600,000
210,700,000
207,400,000
160,200,000
242,000,000
Auburn and
Coloma
reservoirs
constructed
and operated
in accord
with
schedule of
water release
proposed by
American
River
Hydro-Electric
Company.
Installed
capacity of
power plant,
45,000 kv.a
P.F.=<).80
L.F.=1.00
251,700,000
279,600,000
286,800,000
278,500,000
286,000,000
286,200.000
290,100,000
248,000,000
194,800,000
286,300,000
288,500,000
288,600,000
286,700,000
247,900,000
259,900,000
211,600,000
275,400,000
285,400.000
286,900,000
152,300,000
254,700,000
246,300,000
204,100,000
262,700,000
•Estimate of power output based on measured stream flow at Fairoaks gaging station.
"Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
59
ft
* ° 3 •»
e ea.s v
c3*—
°§1
3 O O
3-*
g-3
So|g
1 3^
lO •!■ »C >0 "^ - '- CiC i.^ <-C C
MOiOOOOOO^mNiOOM
QO-— i00iOCO»O0000'-'O5'— '00
OO QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt^C©
TPCO^N^NtJt-^OlOO^
S * ° a *-
CD -^>
O g M
3 egg
s 3^
3*3 g
is 3-
t^-cot^-t^oociosoioocooooo
NNMOhtPOsOONhcO
0!C0 05OhhhN-(OOO
CO'J'PSOCCOeCM'ttDO'-'
Tt'*r--T}<^iO'*ioo
a
P
P
B
<»
d
Ph
4^
£
43
p
5
<*..
d
93
f0^»Ol000O(MJ^t^t^O00CRC10000I>-00
.a
—
c
g
3
s
112
-3
5
—
5
B
3
a
o
JO
cooiNoocoNfHMioecao
lis
p ■
w^cooeoocowiowooM
OJ00OSOiO5OsCsO3
^ O
o 3
p-g
>>
c
H ^ &
£ o £
°.S 'I
a
■n
u
o)
V
fc™^
»"■<
(^
^
m
u
IS
cu
&
■3
ir,
O
o
>> c
'o
a:
■h
>— 1
C/D
U
>
u
o
>
i— i
H
(A
s
c
i— i
£
5
CO
OS
u
•iM
-i
v>
c
H
U
o
£
2
£
<
s
o
V-
<4-i
u
(0
CB
•
»—h
»-H
W
«H
-J
o
3
CO
3
a
+->
3
O
u
o
I
O
a,
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 61
Power output from Auburn and Pilot Creek plants.
Power would be generated in power plants located below the Auburn
and Pilot Creek dams on the North Fork of the American River. Water
would be conveyed to the turbines of the plants through tunnels similar
to the layout at the Folsom dam. The Auburn plant would operate
under the fluctuating head created by the reservoir in a like manner to
that of the Folsom plant. The head would vary from a maximum of
385 feet with a full reservoir (water surface elevation 900 feet) to a
minimum of 165 feet. A constant tailrace elevation of 515 feet has
been assumed for the estimates. The Pilot Creek plant would operate
under practically a constant head as it is contemplated that no water
would be drawn from storage in the reservoir since the main purpose of
the dam would be to develop power head between the Folsom and
Auburn reservoirs. The plant would utilize the water released from
the Auburn reservoir without re-regulation ; however, some daily regu-
lation could be obtained if desired. The normal static head on the
plant, 110 feet, would be the difference in elevation between 515 feet,
the maximum water surface of the reservoir and the tailrace elevation
of 405 feet, 15 feet above the maximum water surface elevation (390
feet) of the Folsom reservoir.
Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20 give information on the estimated power out-
put and on the power characteristics of the two power plants with the
Auburn reservoir operated in accord with the same two methods of
water release used in the estimates for the Folsom reservoir, for the
period 1905-1927. In Table 17 are set forth the yearly power outputs
of the Auburn plant with the Auburn reservoir operated by the two
methods of water release. The characteristics of the power output from
this plant for both methods of water release are compared in Table 18
for years of maximum and minimum power output. Similar data are
given in Tables 19 and 20 for the Pilot Creek plant.
62
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 17. POWER OUTPUT OF AUBURN PLANT
Auburn reservoir operated in accord with two schedules of water release
Height of dam, 390 feet Tailrace elevation of
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet power plant, 515 feet
Power output, in kilowatt hours
Water
release to
Water
develop
release in
maximum
accord with
primary
schedule
Year
power.
proposed by
Installed capacity
American River
of power plant
Hydro-electric
66,000 k.v.a.
Company.
P.F.=0.80
Installed capacity
L.F.=0.75
of power plant
Annual primary
82,000 k.v.a.
power output
P.F.=0.80
142,000,000
L.F.=0.60
kilowatt hours
1905
217,700,000
231,300,000
1906
260,800,000
288,800,000
1907
290,600,000
301,400,000
1908
187,800,000
216,400,000
1909
283,700,000
304,700,000
1910
229,900,000
285,000,000
1911
253,400,000
295,200,000
1912
185,400,000
163,900,000
1913
198,500,000
200,100,000
1914
245,300,000
293,400,000
1915
238,000,000
274,100,000
1916
263,700,000
292,700,000
1917
223,400,000
276,900.000
1918
177,600,000
195,200,000
1919..
188,400,000
228,000,000
1920
201,000,000
206.800,000
1921
239,900,000
281,700,000
1922
223,800,000
258,300,000
1923
238,800,000
284,800,000
1924
142,000,000
56,300,000
1925
186,100,000
259,100,000
1926
188,000,000
180,100,000
1927*
183,500,000
217,500.000
221,900,000
245,800,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RrVER
63
w
u
to
<
<4H
w
U5
J
rH
§
10
4J
Pi
5
0)
w
i-H
H
Ut
<
u
£
*
to
a
O
*M
CO
o
W
c
hJ
p
4J
Q
cd
>
a
u
u
u
C/3
o
CO
o
h
i
H
H
EC
H
oo
a
I
U5
>
s
co
U
4->
u
cS
a
CO
O
■!->
CJ
C8
Mi
o
bD
K
3 >. to . 3
•a cj 2
.c &o ^_>
a poo^
£° II o
J: a .o
O I > o
C3 uCN -
© ® 00 1±
• .£.♦*- P.
i. _ o3 3
*« O L K
> i- 0) te
.t; c o a
j< a.
*- >* o 3
2-° >>«
3 ©3 d
tgaM
» o cs f
O 0-T3 >
0- £,<
"e3
o £
_ °q 3
o o o
% 115
2 •—
»••>:-*
2 * -o
.£ g.^8
i: Pco— 1
«.3 „_o^o_
o o o"o"o"o' 00 o" o* o"o"
OOOOOOOOOOOO
»Q~ ^-T 10" ^H 0O~ C^" tjh" cd"
rHi-t01t*01t-0)0iO00»0k0
t^ooc»oooocooooocot-t^-co
000
000
000
o'o'o*
000
t— toco
000
000
o o o
o'oo
000
tJ« CO •*
000
000
000
o"o"o"
000
CM CN CM
000
000
000
§"o"o"
00
CD O OS
iO-*COOseOTt*CDCDCCCMOO
MDCOQOOO^»ONW)OM
t>-cot^-t^ooaiaiOiQOoocxicx>
oooooooooo>oo>
C3OOOOO0>OOOOO
000000 o_o_o o o_
o" o o" o" o" o" o*" o* o" o o* o"
000>00>OOOOCZ>OCD
o" aT r-T rH cm" cm" co co" cm" cm" t-T *h
*- ° g o
CU^>"
O^OOOiOiOiOiOiOCOiOiOOO
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
o" o* o" o" o" o" o" o o" o" o" o"
000000000000
eOCDCO^CO^COCOCOCMOSCO
t-J" ^*T t^-" co" !>."■ co" i>T rC oo" o" co" »o~
MCMCMCMCMcMcMCM^«-i'-HCM
M01C003XOtJ,400,O00
66,000 000
1913
57,700,000
74,300 000
1914
69,500 000
90,100,000
1915
68,100,000
87,800,000
1916
74,500,000
90,100 000
1917
63,800,000
89,500 000
1918
50,700,000
71,600,000
1918
53,800 000
75 000 000
1920
57,300,000
75,900,000
1921
68,400,000
89,800,000
1922
63,500,000
85,800,000
1023
67,300 000
89,300,000
1924
49,900,000
23,800,000
1925
58,000,000
83,300,000
1926
53,500,000
69,400.000
1927*
56,200,000
67,500,000
Average
63,900,000
80,500,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
65
u
fi
03
•
•n
o
.
a
•a
Per cent
of
annual
total
of
maximum
year
MiC'faOO^OOOOf-M
nonw-* o © cm co
re
ad
CI
Per cent
of
annual
total
ooowcii-o^ooaiO'©
oo •— © ^-» m © cm oo cm
cm cm^h ,-t
©
©"
©
4J
oooooooooooo
o © © o o o o o o
©^© # ©^©_©_ o o o o
©'©*©"©"©" ©" ©"©"©"
©©©©© © ©©o
n* «^© CM CM © i— i t- © ©
cm'iocm'wsco" vTcq
©
©
©
©
°°-
co"
04
C3
a
3
>.
a
3
a
a
Per cent
of
annual
total
CDatOMOWOMrHfQrHM
©
©
©
OOt^OOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOO
Kilowatt
hours
©>©©©©©©©©©©©
©©©©©©©©©©©O
©_© © ©_©_o ©_©_© © ©_©
©" ©' ©" ©" ©" © ©" ©" ©" ©" ©" ©"
©©©©©©©©oo©©
t*-"r-~"r^-"i>." .>.".>-" t-*-" t*-"t-"t*-"t>-"t*-*
o
©
©^
o"
©
©"
©
Power output with water release from Auburn reservoir to develop
maximum primary power
Installed capacity of power plant, 19,000 k.v.a. P.F =0.80 L.F =0.75
Average annual power output, 63,900,000 kilowatt hours
•<*
CJ5
s
a
a
•a
Per cent
of
annual
total
of
maximum
year
t*»iO©i-iW3t"-CMI--©©CMi— t
CO
©*
CO
Per cent
of
annual
total
NOO^CO-^OOOiONONO
©
©
©
©iO i ©cOt--l>.00©Oi©©'— '
a*
©©©©©©©©©©>©©
©o©©o© ©©©©©©
© o © ©_©©©©©©© ©
©" ©" © ©" ©" ©" ©" ©" ©" ©' ©" ©"
©©©©©©©©©©©©
i-h_© CC i -#_t^._©_CC_t--_CD © •— Oft
co cm" eo co'co" co~ ^*" ^*T rt<" 10 *o" 10*
©
o
©_
©"
©
©
©~
O
o>
«
a
•a
03
2
Per cent
of
annual
total
©CO-^CM^CMtPCMCM©©©
OO OO © © © © ~ ~- — ■ »o — 00
©
©"
©
43
is
3"
©o©©©©©©©©©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©
©^©_©_©_o ©_© ©^© © © ©
©" ©* ©" ©~ © ©" ©" ©*" ©" ©" © ©r
©©©©©©©©©©©©
^_^_c© co^oo^co^ ao_ ©_•-<_© © ■**«_
r^-" t"-"t*-T t^-* t>."t>-" r>-"r^»" io ^s* u? t*-~
©
©
©
©~
©
oo.
cm"
oo
73. »
hi
02
monthly
demand
for
power
in per
cent of
annual
total
co©oo©oo©^ior*-*o©CM
©
©'
©
t*-©t>-t*-0O©©©000OO0CO
3
3
i
—
E
E-
July
C6
DIVISION OP WA'lii; |{i:sol'Kn the
righl hank of the South Fork, aboul 2000 feel below the dam. and
would operate under a maximum head of 330 feel and a minimum head
of l(i.") feet. The tail race of the plant has been taken at 555 Eeel in
estimating the power output. The Webber Creek power house as pro-
posed by the American River Hydro-electric Company would he Located
about 4000 feet downstream from the dam with a diversion tunnel about
3000 feet Long. The plant would operate under a constant head of
115 feet.
The power output and power characteristics of the two plants are
shown in the Tahles 21, 22, 2:? and 24 for the period of 1905-27. Data
are given in Tahles 21 and 22 for the Coloma plant and in Tahles 23
and 24 for the Wehher Creek plant.
TABLE 21. POWER OUTPUT OF COLOMA PLANT
Coloma reservoir operated in accord with two schedules of water release
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Tailrace elevation of
power plant, 555 feet
Power output in kilowatt hours
Year
Water
release to
develop
maximum
primary
power.
Installed capacity
of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a.
rr =0.80
LP. 0.78
Annual primary
power output
127,900.000
kilowatt hours.
Water
release in
Moord with
schedule
proposed by
\iii'Tican
River
Hydro-electric
Company.
Installed capacity
of power plant
.■{7.000 k.v.a.
P.P. 0.80
LP. 0.60
1 905
134,900.000
144,700,000
147,200.000
132,500.000
1 17.200.000
139,300.000
143.300.000
129,600,000
ILT/IOO.OOO
136,000,000
(K).OOO
147,600,000
137,600,000
1 L" ''.700.000
131,100,000
100,000
1 It. "00,000
i::-. 000.000
130,900,000
127,900,000
I2S.500.000
129,100,000
108,300,000
138,600,000
1906
143,200.000
1907..
144,900,000
1908
141,200,000
1909
115.000,000
1910
1 12,700.000
1911
1 43. 700.000
1912
130,200.000
1913
85,700.000
1914
1 .'12.100.000
1915
1 10,100,000
1916
144,000,000
1917
112.400,000
1918
100.000
1919
133,200,000
1920
1 2 0, 100,000
1921
141,800,000
1922
112,100,000
1923
143,400,000
1924
81,100,000
1925
123.200,000
1926
133,500.000
1927*
106,200,000
Average
136,700,000
133,700,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
67
<
a
<^
o
s
U
i— i
H
4>
O
CO
u
i— H
CO
H
CJ
o
C8
o
o
u
co
*8
u
CO
a
CO
U
o
CO
73
J2
bD
■g E«?£
■a oh
<- a> . o
O I > o
• E "5.S«
S eSco "S
"■as*
o> c-3 o
a a a >-
.t: c g o.
*** & ^=
■^ S> ° 2
3 S'S d
O O) 2 a)
L°tt«
So g2
> u w a)
p a.-o >
s
o 5
II I
t- .o
a> c3 o
I E o -
^3
13 O.
SEoft
3 C_
° •««
L. O 3
® t*. S3
* -1
O - S =3
a. ca »
O. M
C3 «
-a >
£•4
S
"a
§
s
o
o
of
annual
total
of
maxim ui
a
er cent
of
nnual
total
II
NcCCOOOi-ilONOO«'-<
©©©©©OOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO'OO
ooooooo o q o o o
o" o* o* ©* o" o' ©' o" ©* o* o" o"
oooooooooooo
t«cNOOWcM o^r- t*<_oo 00 *^M
«-? o* o* o* o" a:" iC eo~ csT -&
l§
c^
« a
& 3
«'
»HatD^0'-'»o«'0 , tooo r-_co
»-7 r-T co" ooooooo©
oooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
o' o" o" o" o" o" o" o* o" o" o" o"
ooool>iOC^UOUOOOC5000
uf CO »0 •— *0 •™i. w ^* r 3. T ~i, w S , ™ , 1 . u 5,
e
o
re
bO
E
If
— w fH S2
•S t^-s
j=o II &
O — rt o
§"?►§■
— >"0
ffllOlO
« ssd"*
CD g>-< 3
:! a> g o
>- >»•« 2
3J3 O q
— w ^' C3
§ P rt S
£ o." >
£ ■*<
CD
a
t,
►J
I
o
'•3
OJ _i O
.- «g"
El
«« 3
* E
BE
O, f!
-a
a
•a
2
Nil's .is
!°"3&
o«— 3 J^
.1
2
Ml
a* 1
Ch
is
.2 o
. o a n O »rl .V-t^-t^
ascDt^r^cftcocoaicocococo
OOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
o" o" o" o" o* o" o" o" o* o" o* o"
oooooooooooo
•^"co eo'co" ^*" tjT ^jT tjT -^jT tjT eo^ tjT
a
•a
eg
5 o
O 3
S o
M- 3
^2«
OO
: 2 5
§
3
COb-COCOCOCOCOOOCOOOOOCO
oooooooooooo
ooooooooo-ooo
oooooooo o_o CD o
o~ o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o
oooooooooooo
bJ co t>-* t>.* CO Oi OS O 00 CO OO CO
70 DIVISION OF WATEB RESOURCES
Power output from complete consolidated development.
The power output of the consolidated development, when fully com-
pleted and operated primarily for power generation, luis beeE assembled
and presented in Table 2f». Data arc given for the two methods of water
release, one developing maximum primary power and the other in
accord with schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric Com-
pany. The average yearly power output for the period, 1905-1927,
under the first method of water release, is estimated at 6S9,.">00,000 kilo-
watt hours. Under the second method of release the average yearly
power output for the same period as in the tirst instance, is 77:5. 100, 000
kilowatt hours. A part, L'7.000,000 kilowatt hours (32 per cent), of the
extra power that could he developed under the second method of water
release is due to the additional head available at the Folsom plant with
the layout as proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Company.
In this layout one unit of the plant would discharge into the American
River at an elevation of 38 feet below, and the other unit into the Fol-
som Canal 7 feet above, the tailrace of the layout in the first instance.
The characteristics of the power output for each method of water
release are given in Table 26. It may be noted that for the minimum
year, 1924, the output is 65.6 per cent of the maximum, with the method
of water release developing maximum primary power, while with the
method of release of the American River Hydro-electric Company it is
40.1 per cent of the maximum.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
71
to O
10
W
3
o
o
o
3 5
■* >
>- ° o
K o >>
V- 4-J ■ —
•§IU
u
■3 -a
'_■■—.
O
o
o
oo"
fl? ° ^
~> i_)
I- *J —
3 « of
•§lu
<
> .
se
U.M
ix.
o
o
o
o o
cr- >
Leg
« O >>
E.SPg.
0»(j
•glU
« c
> a.
— -a o
el-S
O a a,
^ © Q*
«s s
o oo oo
O © CD tO tf)
^ © o o o"
II II II 1 II
fe En' Ck' fe fc
ttftt
Pu'Pu'Ph'Ph'Ph'pl,'
cs w rt rt rt rt
■ .>>>>>*;
5 ooo ooo
— o £ o p o o
p, o^ <^ o_ o_ o o^
.- CO O
c
*J" c3
c « -S ~5 -2 , ~
=3*3 3:3 G.5 O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'OOO
O O O O O © O 0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0__0_0_O h O_0_0^
o ©" o" ©* ©" o* ©~ o" o" o" o" ©" o" ©~ o" o" o" o o" o o" o" o"
ooooooooooooooooooooooo
« (O rj« f-- o co co ^* cc •-< t-* t^t^- co cc t>- co_— • ec tO C^U^CO
>0«5NtONU5N»00»CfCO^'0' , !)"NCOiMlO>CtDOOeO
r»t»00t^CO0000CO00CX)0000t^.(>.CDC30000OC0t , »COCD
Si
a o
i a-
x: £•
.t: a
s E
si
r E
ll
c o
OO OOO o
II II II II II 5
pt2 fe ck' pt,' pE<' -g
o o o oooJ2
oo oo oo oo oo oo OOOOOOOOOOOOO^OOOOC3
05TjOCtONtDNiOtOtO»0
iCtDNXCO'-'CNCO'i'iCtDNOOa; O-CNCOfiC'ON
COOOO'H-.wiHiHiHwiH-.i-.NNWNWWflC'l
CO G> Oi Oi CO OS CO CO — . CO CO CO OO CO CO CO CO ~- C- OO OO _ . _-
■§
o
o
a
72
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
8
o
o o
C I
ill- 1
•si
pi "^
O
O
o
00
§1
iL _• «
o 5 <-
£-0-5
g c >•
U 4_1 •-*
_f- (J
|:§a
•glU
<
'o —
> .
o E
ft a
V
u *->
<-> >--c
Si U EP
£ °X
so:
3 j?
|f
"§ E
o*
« 6
— >>
SI
iJ
O tii
k S
Is
>oooo
5 CO CO cD CO
iim
a
o
M
fi-' U - U- pu u* £
o o o o o o ©
oq oo oo oq op oq ~
fflf
od-
fc &.' pL| fcu u. fe g.
Z. cJ ~ P- ~' ~ 5
rt cs rt ej c3 rt fo'
*; > > > > > ; -
>OoOO 3
_ j o o ir
°"US«>feO [■-."»" of 3
i- •)■ » w p: ^ o o
? *f J
o e "3.
frails *ao «
c3 — *- -. i— o
° Ecj 8 « m
Bjiii cS-%2 o
= ~ as o." o >
I
s
1-
P»
s.13*J8
a"
i
s
s
a
Ma
II
o3 u
>
g||
Q 'J 03
2 .-
"> £
« 2
££•
2 E
* °-
x:E
s E
o oooo
3
o
—
ooo oooj2
OO OO 00 00 00 oo . ^
II it X ii. ill
pc' fe fe tb fe d," g.
Ph' p^ Qh' Ph* eu Ph' O
fcD_
C3 C3 rt c3 C3 rt Ci
>>>>>: >:»
"£0000003
i
o
5
° §
o »j c.S-f 5 £
= ~ 3— O.t O ^
i
. <=*
s
§
s
■i
>— 3 « ^ a -.
°g° C x^.
* a
cNoooo>couau)onr«o)0>
O-fONiONNiO00»NW
88S88gSSgS8§
oo t C 1 ! fj r. i- r a o -r o n
t*OJOO'fl , QO'<»"tN.cO^C^Oi»ft
(■* t^ OO 00 OO 00 00 00 00 QC t— 00
§
88888888888";
WKWN CT. CI CI -.O — CO CC »
t^.io^^Mt^oo^oi^-t^'n to
■^Tt-* t>-* o* — ' r^* t^-" ■"?<* to
O^ONONOOWNOON
C; OO C- OO — - OO CI Cs t*» CD CD 00
§
oooo2<
iiiis;
o'oco'd:
ooSSSi
8
* JfS g ^ s s © g-a
itla^lNlo
GO
B
o
M0i00a«O-*iONWON
t— co t - * I s * n 9) o o oo oo oo oo
§
lit:
£-2 * S.
&8iIIIfI
c
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 73
CHAPTER V
IRRIGATION SERVICE FROM CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Importance of consolidated development in comprehensive plan of water
development of state.
In formulating the comprehensive plan* for the development of the
water resources of the State, it was found that provision must be made
for storage works on the streams of the State to equalize the large
volumes of flood run-off that occur in the mountain watersheds for the
irrigation of agricultural lands lying at lower elevations. The most
advantageous postion for these storage works is pointed out on page
23 of Bulletin No. 12, "Summary Report on the Water Resources of
California, and a Coordinated Plan for Their Development," published
by the Division of Engineering and Irrigation. Here it is stated,
" Since these mountain uses (mining and hydro-electric) of water return
to the stream channels practically the full amount diverted, reservoirs
to re-regulate the flow situated at levels intermediate between the agri-
cultural and the mountain areas will permit the unrestricted develop-
ment of hydro-electric power and mining in harmony with a complete
re-use of the same water on the plains below. Large reservoirs at these
intermediate elevations, therefore, are important features of a compre-
hensive plan to secure the greatest use from the State's waters."
The comprehensive plan of water development for the Sacramento
and San Joaquin valleys contemplates the construction of storage reser-
voirs on Sacramento Valley streams for the purpose of fully suplying
the irrigation demands of the Sacramento Valley and in addition releas-
ing a surplus to the needs of the Sacramento Valley to areas of deficient
water supply in the San Joaquin Valley. The American River is an
important element in this plan for it contributes 13 per cent to the total
flow of the Sacramento River, and has a mean annual flow in excess of
the irrigation needs of the lands that would naturally be supplied from
it. The "Coordinated Plant" of water development, which selects the
units of the comprehensive plan necessary to meet the increasing
demands for water in the next fifty years, includes, among other reser-
voirs in the Sacramento River drainage basin, the Folsom reservoir on
the American River. This important reservoir, however, has not suf-
ficient capacity to make available the maximum amount of water for
domestic, irrigation and industrial uses capable of being economically
developed from the American River. Additional reservoir capacity will
be required at some future time to do this. Reservoirs for this purpose
m order to avoid conflict with power and mining uses of water must
be located on the lower reaches of the stream. The reservoirs of the
consolidated development proposed by the American River Hydro-
electric Company are in this position and, furthermore, are capable of
being developed to large capacity. Therefore, they should be consid-
ered an important and necessary part of the comprehensive plan of
development of the water resources of the state.
* See Chapter VI, Bulletin No. 4, "Water Resources of California," a report to the
Legislature of 1923, published by the Division of Engineering and Irrigation, State
Department of Public Works.
t See Bulletin No. 12, "Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and
a Coordinated Plan for their Development," published by the Division of Engineering
and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works.
74
DIVISION' UK WATI'.K HKSdl'ld I -
Yield of reservoirs of consolidated development in irrigation supply and inci-
dental power.
Estimates have been made of the irrigation yield of the reservoirs of
the consolidated development, if operated primarily for irrigation use,
for three stages of development. The Polsom reservoir has l" 1 ''!! con-
sidered as ;i firs) anil with Auburn and Coloma reservoirs following in
order of construction. In estimating the seasonal yield that could be
obtained from the reservoirs, it was assumed ;i total deficiency in the
irrigation supply of approximately 50 per cent of a full supply for a
season could lie endured during the period L905 1927. This deficiency
was permitted to occur in one season or be divided among several. It
was also assumed in estimating the yield that no water would he
released from the reservoirs during months in which there is no irriga-
tion demand to satisfy the prior right of the Polsom ('anal, which sup-
plies the Polsom City power plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Com-
pany. If water were passed for this prior right, the irrigation yield
woidd he reduced to some extent. A deduction was made for evapora-
tion on the surface of the reservoir as in the power estimates. The
seasonal irrigation drafl was distributed monthly in accord with sched-
ule for the Sacramento Valley floor set forth on page 63 in Bulletin
No. 6, "Irrigation Requirements of California Lands." published by
Division of Engineering and Frrigal ion. State Department of Public
Works. The distribution is as follows:
TABLE 27.
IRRIGATION DEMAND IN PER CENT OF SEASONAL TOTAL
Month
Irrigation
demand, in
per cent (if
seasonal total
Month
Irrigation
demand, in
per cent of
seasonal total
1
5
16
20
22
20
February
12
March
4
April .
June
July
Total
100
The draw-down in a reservoir was limited to that whch would give a
minimum operating head on the power plant of one-half the maximum.
This conforms with the assumption made in the operation of these reser-
voirs, developing maximum primary power. This method of operation
resulted in the followng effective reservoir capacities:
TABLE 28. EFFECTIVE CAPACITY OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR IRRIGATION
•
Total
capacity,
in aore-teet
Bead on power plant, in feel
Effective
rvwr
Maximum
Minimum
capacity,
in acre-feel
Folsom
355.000
508,000
700,000
I'M)
385
330
M
i".'
165
310,000
Auburn
506,000
686,000
Totals
1,710,000
1,502,000
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 75
Information on the irrigation yield and ineidental power output is
set forth in Tables 29 to 40, inclusive. The irrigation yield, with the
Folsom reservoir operating alone, is 664,000 acre-feet per season; with
Folsom and Auburn, it is 1,250,000 acre-feet, about twice that from
Folsom alone ; and for the complete development, Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma, is 1,757,000 acre-feet, nearly three times that from Folsom
alone and about 60 per cent of the average seasonal run-off from the
watershed above Fairoaks. Maximum deficiencies in supply occur in
1924, varying from 28 per cent of a full seasonal supply with Folsom
reservoir operated alone, to 40 per cent for Folsom and Auburn
together and 41 per cent for the complete development.
The power that could be produced from the irrigation draft has been
estimated with the identical power installations used with the reservoir,
operated primarily for power generation developing maximum primary
power and for three different conditions of load factor, namely: (1)
a plant load factor of 75 per cent throughout the year; (2) a plant
load factor of 100 per cent throughout the year and (3) a plant load
factor of 75 per cent for the first six months, and 100 per cent for the
last six months of the year. The figures for the last assumption more
nearly represent the amount of power that could be absorbed without
waste because the power produced in the last six months of the year
would occur when there is a greater demand for hydro-electric power
and could be absorbed probably on a 100 per cent load factor, whereas,
that produced in the first six months could be absorbed only if operated
on a load factor of 75 per cent or less, since there is generally an over
supply of hydro-electric power during that period. These data are
presented in Tables 29, 30 and 31, for the three stages of development.
The characteristics of the power from the irrigation draft are set
forth in Tables 32 to 40, inclusive, for corresponding stages of develop-
ment and for the three conditions of load factor.
76
DIVISION OP WATER RESOUK'
TABLE 29. IRRIGATION YIELD AND POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM
RESERVOIR OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR IRRIGATION WITH
INCIDENTAL POWER
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
Height of dam, Capacity of reservoir,
190 feet 355,000 acre-feet
Seasonal irrigation draft, 664,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights .
Installed capacity of power plant,
43,000 k. v. a. P. F. = 0.80
Maximum deficiency in supply
28.0 per cent in 1924
Seasonal
irrigation draft,
in acre-feet
(no deduction
for downstream
prior rights)
Deficiency in supply
Power output from irrigation draft
delivered at tailracc (elevation 200 T
of Folsom plant, in kilowatt hours
feu
In acrc-fcet
In per cent
of a perfect
seasonal supply
Load factor
=0.75
Load factor
=1.00
Load factor
=0.75,
January
to July
Load factor
=1.00,
July to
January
1905
664,000
664,000
064,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
625,100
664,000
664,000
664,000
664,000
480,300
664,000
556,200
664,000
38,900
183,700
107.800
6
28
16
134,700,000
173,300,000
175,800,000
150.700.000
190,100,000
147,000,000
154,500,000
120. 700.000
120,300,000
153,800,000
139,800,000
158.800.000
150,600,000
114,600.000
123,800,000
126,400.000
150,000.000
156,500,000
152,700,000
75,000,000
132,800,000
117,000,000
•148,400,000
166,000,000
221,500,000
217,900,000
180,300.000
237,800,000
180,000,000
106,000,000
139,800.000
137, 100.000
1 00,000
171, "00,000
in7.300.000
182.600.000
135,700.000
140,600,000
151.200,000
188,600,000
101.300,000
190,600.000
75,400,000
00,000
139,200.000
•186,100,000
137,000,000
1906
186 500 000
1907
182,000,000
1908
153,200,000
1909
202,800 000
1910
149 800 000
1911
161,000.000
1912
123.100 000
1913
122 600 000
1914
158 100 000
1915
142,900 0C0
1016
162,100 000
1917
153 600 000
1918
116 100 000
1919
124 800 000
1920
134,700 000
1921
153 600 000
1922
165,300 000
1923
155,600 000
1924
75,200 000
1925
131 900 000
1926
1 1 7 000 000
1927
•151,100,000
Average
649,600
14,400
2.2
143,700,000
175,700,000
147,900 000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
77
TABLE 30. IRRIGATION YIELD AND POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM AND
AUBURN RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Coloma reservoir not constructed
Folsom reservoir-
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 3 55,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam. 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,250,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights). Maximum deficiency in supply, 40.0 per cent in 1924.
Seasonal
irrigation draft,
in acre-feet
(no deduction
for downstream
prior rights)
Deficiency in supply
Power output from irrigation draft
delivered at tailrace (elevation 200 feet)
of Folsom plant, in kilowatt hours
Year
In acre-feet
In per cent
of a perfect
seasonal supply
Load factor
=0.75
Load factor
=1.00
Load factor
=0.75,
January
to July,
Load factor
=1.00,
July to
January
1905
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1.250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
749,500
1,250,000
1,153,600
1,250,000
500,500
96,400
40
8
364,100,000
447,200,000
489.500.000
440,600,000
572,600,000
498,100,000
492,500,000
323,000,000
318,400,000
516,000,000
452,800,000
473,000,000
439,200,000
340,000,000
337,300,000
297,300,000
477,000,000
403,000.000
472,700,000
158,400,000
408,300,000
302,600,000
•440,300,000
461.300,000
567,200,000
622,600,000
552,200,000
736,800,000
648,200,000
631,600,000
399,600,000
394,300.000
666,900,000
573,900,000
605,200.000
560,000,000
432,900,000
429,900,000
372,000,000
613,200.000
507,600,000
591,600,000
186,800,000
510,900,000
386.800,000
'"571,900,000
402,700,000
1906
486 100 000
1907
528.400,000
1908
479,000,000
1909
625 200 000
1910
536,200,000
1911
531,300,000
1912
361,800,000
1913
356 500 000
1914
554,900 000
1915
491,700,000
1916
511 900.000
1917
478 000 000
1918
376 700 000
1919
373,700,000
1920
334,300,000
1921
515 200,000
1922
441,900 000
1923
511,500,000
1924
158,500,000
1925
447 200 000
1926
330,600 000
1927
•479,100,000
1,224,000
26,000
2.1
416,000,000
528,500,000
453,300,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
78
DIVISION OF WATER RESOUR< l S
TABLE 31. IRRIGATION YIELD AND POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN AND COLOMA RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY
FOR IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Complete development
i ,ir —
Height of dam. 190 feel
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54.000 k.v.a. P. F. =0.80
Auburn reservoir —
1 [eight of dam. 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598.000 acre-fi. i
Installed capacity of power plant,
000 k.v.a. P.F. =0 80
Coloma reservoir —
I leight of dam. 340 f.
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0 80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of Jam. 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
1".000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Webber Creek reservoir —
I I iu;ht of dam, 90
Installed capacity of power plant,
10.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,757,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights). Maximum deficiency in supply, 41 per cent in 1924
Seasonal
irrigation draft,
in acre-feet
(no deduction
fur downstream
prior rights)
Deficiency in supply
Power output from irrigation draft
delivered at tailraoc (ekraticn M0 feet)
of Folsom plant, in kilowatt hours
Year
In aore-fect
In per cent
of a perfect
seasonal supply
Load factor
=0.75
Load factor
=1.00
Load factor
=0.75,
January
to July,
Load factor
=1.00,
July to
January
1905
1,757,000
i, 757.000
1,757,000
1,757,000
1.757,000
1,757.000
1,757,000
1.757,000
1.034,800
1,757,000
1,757,000
1.757.000
1.757,000
1.757.000
1,767,000
1,700,100
1.757.000
1,757,000
1.757,000
1,031,100
1.757.000
1.757,000
1,757,000
122,200
50,900
725,900
7
3
41
438,000,000
527,300,000
616,700,000
536,200,000
715.000,000
662,300,000
615.100.000
418,200,000
100.000
620,900,000
i>0.000
900,000
142,700,000
435,800,000
374.300,000
551.200,000
480,300,000
568.500.000
215,400,000
480,900,000
394,100,000
200,000
555,"00.000
671 .500.000
7' '1. 900.000
(.77.100.000
9J5.400.000
866,200,000
roo.ooo
521,400.000
412.900.000
798.600,000
697.600.000
70 1,900.000
686,300,000
566,500.000
560.000,000
471.500.000
715.000.000
:il 1.600.000
726,200,000
201.200,000
607,500,000
508,300.000
•690,200,000
495,900,000
1906
590.100.000
1907
100.000
1908
.00.000
1909
1910
721,400,000
1911
1.70.700,000
1912
175.600,000
1913
39-1. 700.000
1914
OS2.500.000
1915
011.200,000
1916
-.00,000
1917
594,400,000
1918
1 '9.400,000
1919
■
1920
4 2::.ooo,000
1921
612,600,000
1922
542.000,000
1923
628,300,000
1924
221400,000
1925
540,300,000
1926
1927
•587,700.000
Average
1,717,900
39.100
2.2
511,900,000
656,400,000
569,200,000
•Partial year January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
79
TABLE 32. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM
PLANT WITH FOLSOM RESERVOIR OPERATED PRIMARILY
FOR IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
1905-1927
Height of dam, Load Factor =0.75 Capacity of reservoir,
190 feet 335,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 43,000 k. v. a. P. F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 664,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
28 per cent in 1924 143,700,000 kilowatt hours.
Month
State- wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of animal
total of
maximum
yeai
January. .
February.
March....
April
May
June
July
August. . .
September
October. . .
November.
December.
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8 2
18,000,000
16,200,000
18,000,000
17,400,000
18,000,000
17,400,000
18,000,000
18.000.000
10,300,000
3,400,000
17.400,000
18,000,000
100.0
190,100,000
9.5
8.5
9.5
9.1
9.5
9.1
9.5
9.5
5.4
1.8
9.1
9.5
100.0
7,800,000
16,000,000
15,300,000
17,400,000
14,500.000
1,500,000
800,000
1,700,000
75,000,000
10.4
21.3
20.4
23.2
19.3
2.0
1.1
2.3
100.0
4.1
8.4
8.1
9 2
7.6
0.8
0.4
0.9
39.5
80
I >1 VISION OF WATKK RKSO
TABLE 33. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT
WITH FOLSOM RESERVOIR OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
1905-1927
Height of dam, Load factor =1.00 Capacity of reservoir,
190 feet 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 43,000 k. v. a. P. F. =0.80.
Seasonal irrigation draft, 664,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
28 per cent in 1924 175,700,000 kilowatt hours
Month
State- wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output fromirrigation draft delivered ai tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
January. .
February.
March
April
May
June
July
August . . .
September
October. . .
November.
December .
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
24.000.000
21,600,000
24,000.000
23,200,000
24,000,000
23,200,000
21,300.000
18,600,000
10,300,000
3,400,000
20,200.000
21.000.000
100.0
237,800,000
10.1
9.1
10.1
9.8
10 1
9.8
8.9
7.8
4.3
1.4
8.5
10.1
7,800,000
16,000,000
15,300,000
ir/oo.ooo
11,700,000
1,500,000
800,000
1,700,000
100.0
75,400,000
10.3
.'1 J
20.3
23.3
19.5
2.0
1.1
2.3
ion o
3 3
6.7
6 5
7.4
6
0.3
0.7
31.7
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
81
TABLE 34. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT
WITH FOLSOM RESERVOIR OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
1905-1927
Load factor =0.75, January to July
Load factor = 1.00, July to January
Height of dam, Capacity of reservoir,
190 feet 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 43,000 k. v. a. P. F. =0.80.
Seasonal irrigation draft, 664,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
28 per cent in 1924 147,900,000 kilowatt hours
Month
State-wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January. . ,
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October. . .
November .
December .
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
18,000,000
16,200,000
18,000,000
17,400,000
18.000,000
17,400,000
21,300,000
18,600,000
10,300,000
3,400,000
20,200,000
24,000,000
100.0
202,800,000
8.9
8.0
8.9
8.6
8.9
8.6
10.5
9.1
5.1
1.7
9.9
11.8
100.0
7,800,000
16,000,000
15,300,000
17,400,000
14,700,000
1,500,000
800,000
1,700,000
75,200,000
10.4
21.3
20.3
23.1
19.5
2.0
1.1
2.3
100.0
3.9
7.9
7.5
8.6
7.3
0.7
0.4
0.8
37.1
6—72924
82
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 35. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN AND PILOT CREEK PLANTS WITH FOLSOM AND
AUBURN RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Coloma reservoir not constructed
1905-1927
Load factor =0.75
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir. 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54.000 k v.a. P.F. =0.80
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam. 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,250,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
40 per cent in 1924 416,000,000 kilowatt hours
Month
State- wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent
of annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January. .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August. . .
September.
October. . .
November .
December.
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
56,300,000
52,000,000
57,500,000
55,600,000
57,500,000
55,600,000
57,500,000
57,500,000
49,700,000
15,900,000
57,500,000
100.0
572,600,000
9.8
9.0
10.1
9.7
10.1
9.7
10.1
10.1
8.6
2.7
10.1
4,000,000
21,900,000
56,800,000
48,100,000
21,500,000
800,000
1,200,000
4,100,000
100.0
158,400,000
2.5
13.8
35.8
30.4
13.6
0.5
0.8
2.6
100.0
0.7
3.8
M
8.4
3 8
27.7
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
83
TABLE 36. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN AND PILOT CREEK PLANTS WITH FOLSOM AND
AUBURN RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Coloma reservoir not constructed
1905-1927
Load factor =1.00
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,250,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
40 per cent in 1924. 528,500,000 kilowatt hours
Month
State-wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent
of annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January. . ,
February . .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October. . .
November .
December .
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
75,100,000
69,300,000
76,700,000
74,100,000
76,700,000
74,100,000
76,700,000
76,700,000
50,300,000
15,900,000
71,200,000
10.2
9.4
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.4
6.8
2.2
9.6
4,000,000
21,900,000
69,000,000
64,100,000
21,700,000
800,000
1,200,000
4,100,000
2.2
11.7
37.0
34.3
11.6
0.4
0.6
2.2
0.5
3.0
0.2
0.6
100.0
736,800,000
100.0
186,800,000
100.0
25.4
84
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 37. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN AND PILOT CREEK PLANTS WITH FOLSOM AND
AUBURN RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Coloma reservoir not constructed
1905-1927
Load factor =0.75 January to July
Load factor = 1.00 July to January
Auburn- reservoir-
I [< ight of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir. 598,000 acr>
Installed capacity of power plant,
66.000 k.v.a. P.P. =0.80
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam. 190 feet
" Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,250,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
40 per cent in 1924 453,300,000 kilowatt hours
State-wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Month
Maximum
year, 1909
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
56,300,000
52,000,000
57,500,000
55,600.000
57,500,000
55,600,000
76,700,000
76,700,000
50.200.000
15,900,000
71,200,000
9.0
8.3
9.2
8.9
9.2
8.9
12.3
12.3
8.0
2.5
11.4
4,000.000
21,900,000
56,800.000
48,000,000
21.700.000
800,000
1,200,000
4,100,000
2.5
13.8
35.8
30.3
13.7
0.5
0.8
2.6
February
March
0.6
April
3.5
May
'U
June
7 7
July
3.5
August
0.1
mber
0.2
0.7
November
December
Totals
100.0
625,200,000
100.0
158,500,000
100.0
25.4
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
85
TABLE 38. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN, PILOT CREEK, COLOMA AND WEBBER CREEK
PLANTS, WITH FOLSOM, AUBURN AND COLOMA
RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Complete development — 1905-1927
Load factor = 0.75
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Coloma reservoir — ■
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 1 10 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
10,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,757,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
41 per cent in 1924 511,900,000 kilowatt hours
Month
January. . .
February . .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October. . .
November .
December.
Totals
State- wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
100.0
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
73,200,000
67,200,000
74,400,000
71,900,000
74,400,000
71,900,000
74,300,000
74,300,000
68,500,000
27,400,000
37,500,000
715,000,000
Per cent
of annual
total
10.2
9.4
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.4
9.6
3.8
5.2
100.0
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
6,300,000
33,300,000
73,700,000
60,800,000
31,200,000
2,000,000
2,600,000
5,500,000
215,400,000
Per cent
of annual
total
2.9
15.5
34.2
28.2
14.5
0.9
1.2
2.6
100.0
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
0.9
4.6
10.3
8.5
4.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
30.1
86
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 39. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN, PILOT CREEK, COLOMA AND WEBBER CREEK
PLANTS, WITH FOLSOM, AUBURN AND COLOMA
RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Complete development — 1905-1927
1.00
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre- feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Load factor
Folsom reservoir—
I [eight of dam, 190 feet
( Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.W
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F =0.80
Pilot Creek reservoir — Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 110 feet Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant, Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 10,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,757,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply,
41 per cent in 1924
Average annual power output,
656,400,000 kilowatt hours
■
State-wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output from irrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Month
Maximum
year, 1909
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
January
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
95,900,000
89,600,000
99,200,000
95,800,000
99,300,000
95,800,000
99,200,000
99,200,000
80,500,000
27,300,000
43,700,000
10.4
9.7
10.7
10.4
10.7
10.4
10.7
10.7
8.7
2.9
4.7
6,400,000
33,300,000
93,100,000
81,000,000
40.300,000
2,000,000
2,600,000
5,500,000
2.4
12.6
35.2
30.7
15.2
0.8
1.0
2.1
February
March
0.7
April
3.6
May
10.1
June
8.7
Julv
4.3
August
0.2
September
0.3
October
0.6
Totals
100.0
925,400,000
100.0
264,200,000
100.0
28.5
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
87
TABLE 40 CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM,
AUBURN PILOT CREEK, COLOMA AND WEBBER CREEK
PLANTS, WITH FOLSOM, AUBURN AND COLOMA
RESERVOIRS OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR
IRRIGATION WITH INCIDENTAL POWER
Complete development— 1905-1927
Load factor = 0.75 January to July
Load factor = 1.00 July to January
Auburn reservoir —
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam. 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir. 355.000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant.
54.000 k.v.a. P.F.=0.80
Coloma reservoir
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766.000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80
„., ^ , ,„•, Webber Creek reservoir —
In f9 a 000 KZW33F Plant> 10 a 000 ESW. ="0.80
Seasonal irrigation draft, 1,757,000 acre-feet (no deduction for downstream
prior rights)
Maximum deficiency in supply, Average annual power output,
41 per cent in 1924 569,200,000 kilowatt hours
Month
January . . .
February . .
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October. . .
November .
December.
State- wide
average
monthly
demand for
power in
per cent of
annual
total
Power output fromirrigation draft delivered at tailrace
(elevation 200 feet) of Folsom plant
Maximum year, 1909
Kilowatt
hours
Totals.
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
100.0
73,200,000
67,200,000
74,400,000
71,900,000
74,400,000
71,900,000
99,200,000
99,200,000
80,400,000
27,300,000
43,700,000
782,800,000
Per cent
of annual
total
9.3
8.6
9.5
9.2
9.5
9.2
12.7
12.7
10.2
3.5
5.6
Minimum year, 1924
100.0
Kilowatt
hours
6,300,000
33,300,000
73,700,000
60,700,000
40,300,000
2,000,000
2,600,000
5,500,000
Per cent
of annual
total
Per cent
of annual
total of
maximum
year
224,400,000
2.8
14.8
32.8
27.0
18.0
0.9
1.2
2.5
100.0
0.8
4.3
9.4
7.8
5.1
0.3
0.3
0.7
28.7
A considerable irrigation yield could be obtained fr o^ reservoirs of
the consolidated development if operated primarily for the .generation
of power The yield has been estimated under this condition for the
period 1905-1927 for the three stages of development. It ^ based on
the same average deficiency in supply for the period as when the reser-
voirs were operated primarily for irrigation purposes.
In Tables 41 and 42 are set forth, by years, from 190o to 1927
seasonal irrigation draft, deficiency in supply in acre-feet and in per
cent of perfect seasonal supply, for the three stages of development
In Table 41 is presented information for the method of water release
88
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
developing maximum primary power, and in Table 42, that for the
method of release proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company. With the first method of release, the seasonal draft ranges
from 297,000 acre-feet per season for the first stage of development
with Folsom reservoir alone, to 578,000 acre-feet for the complete
development. Corresponding values with the second method of water
release are 49,600 and 729,000 acre-feet. The average deficiency in
supply per year is about 2 per cent in each case ; however, the maximum
deficiency is as much as 46 per cent with the second method of water
release, whereas, with the first method it is 5 per cent, with a greater
number of years of deficiency.
TABLE 41. IRRIGATION YIELD OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR POWER
GENERATION WITH WATER RELEASE TO DEVELOP
MAXIMUM PRIMARY POWER
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
*43.000 k.v a. PP. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F =0 75
Folsom reservoir
Folsom and Auburn
reservoirs
Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Year
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
1905
285,100
297,000
297,000
284,800
297,000
285,800
297,000
284,400
285,300
297,000
297,000
297,000
297,000
286,900
286,800
285,700
294,400
294,400
294,200
285,900
290,100
282,400
294,400
11,900
12,200
11,200
12,000
11,700
10,100
10,200
11,300
2,600
2,600
2,800
11,100
6,900
14,600
2,600
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
1
1
1
4
2
5
1
415,800
430,000
430,000
415,600
430,000
416,500
430,000
415,100
415,800
430,000
430,000
430,000
430,000
416,700
414,100
415,800
414,400
423,300
426,500
425,700
415,300
411,400
415,100
14,200
14,400
13,500
14,900
14,200
13,300
15.900
14,200
15,600
6,700
3,500
4,300
14,700
18,600
14,900
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
1
1
3
4
3
562,500
578,000
578,000
562,500
578,000
563,600
578,000
562,200
562,500
578,000
568,000
578,000
562,200
553,900
555,600
562,500
562,500
561,600
560,700
578,000
562,500
556,200
562,500
15,500
15.500
15,500
15,800
15,500
10,000
15,800
24.100
22,400
15,500
15,500
16,400
17.300
15,500
21,800
15,500
3
1906
1907
1908
3
1909
1910
3
1911
1912
3
1913
3
1914
1915
2
1916
1917
3
1918
4
1919
4
1920
3
1921
3
1922
3
1923
3
1924...
1925...
3
1926...
4
1927
3
291,200
5,800
2.0
421,600
8,400
1.9
566,400
11.600
2.2
•Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
89
TABLE 42. IRRIGATION YIELD OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT OPERATED PRIMARILY FOR POWER GENERATION
WITH WATER RELEASE IN ACCORD WITH SCHEDULE PROPOSED
BY AMERICAN RIVER HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
*35,000 k.v.a. PP. =0.80 L.F. =1.00
45,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =1.00
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
82,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
37,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F =0.60
Folsom reservoir
Folsom and Auburn
reservoirs
Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Seasonal
irrigation
draft,
in
acre-feet
(no
deduction
for
down-
stream
prior
rights)
Deficiency
in supply
Year
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
1905
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
49,600
26,800
49,600
49,600
49,600
22,800
46
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
' 96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
96,000
41,800
96,000
96,000
96,000
44,200
46
722,300
729,000
729,000
722,300
722,300
722,300
729,000
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
722,300
523,000
722,300
722,300
722,300
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
206,000
6,700
6,700
6,700
1
1906
1907
1908
1
1909
1
1910
1
1911
1912
1
1913
1
1914
1
1915
1
1916
1
1917
1
1918
1
1919
1
1920
1
1921
1
1922
1
1923
1
1924
28
1925
1
1926
1
1927
1
Average
48,600
1,000
2.0
93,600
1,900
2.0
714,500
14,500
2.0
*Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed.
Area of irrigation service from consolidated development.
The area that could be irrigated from the reservoirs of the consoli-
dated development, including the areas now being irrigated from the
American River below Folsom dam, and assuming that the operation of
the Folsom City power plant would be subordinated to the use of the
reservoirs for irrigation, is set forth in Table 43. These figures are based
on the data presented in the previous tables in this chapter. In esti-
mating the area capable of irrigation under the various conditions, a
seasonal duty of 2.5 acre-feet per acre of net area has been assumed.
The deficiencies in supply are g.iven in the table both as an average
seasonal amount for the period of analysis and for the maximum year.
The average flow in August below the Folsom dam is also given for the
several conditions, assuming that the entire supply for irrigation would
be delivered below this dam. Values are set forth for the maximum and
minimum years and the average for the period 1905-1927.
00
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
u
■
3
1)
JB
«->
O
■w
•d
H
6
■u
Z
CO
C
•3
oJ
O
JD
J
3
"0
4)
>>
C
Q
3
CO
Q
o
£
w
•*H
o
H
fa
U
<
Q
CD
>
o
•**
fa
i— i
O
OS
c
tJ C
CD O
V)
o
W ts
8
u
«a.sp
u
s 1
s
<
u t^
,. r^
o
s
OS
fa
VIM
co o o
w
*0
Oh > 0->
u
• —
CD A)
>
a
4-> >
OS
CO
H-t
h
u
CO
fa
CD
a
I
E
s
1
■J18'S
sis
Igs
|W|8S
o _ ._> co
Q3CcJ
S »--" C u o C
-?.!= a' - 2 m °
•a
~ r - >-
o
a
§H
"I. °"2
fc ft c
« fr w
S?|.S
<
£41
s s
o o o
CO CD QO
■*r -<»•
> A—
<
J?b« cjmo3
■us *> 1« I- "c?
°a
S S S3
o o o
CO ■"» c-<
CO « «
o o o
I - _
-. O f-
CI -^ lO
o o o
»o C» l~
O oo ^r
S S 5
s
2 «
iX
s a 1 1 s
o o *" o^
s;
E E
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RTVER 91
Agricultural lands in Sacramento Valley capable of irrigation from American
River.
North and south of the American River and east of the Sacramento
and Feather rivers, there is a gross area of 350,000 acres of valley floor
and plains lands, whose natural and economic source of irrigation sup-
ply lies in the American River. This area is shown in yellow on Plate
II. Lands within the reclamation districts adjacent to the Sacramento
and Feather rivers and American River near its confluence with the
Sacramento River, aggregating 130,000 acres, although physically pos-
sible of being served by gravity from the American River, have not
been included because it is thought they could more easily and economi-
cally be supplied by pumping from the Feather and Sacramento
rivers. Areas within the confines of these districts are largely so sup-
plied at the present time.
The area north of the American River comprises both plains and
valley lands, a gross total of- 200,000 acres. About 65 per cent of this
area could be served by a diversion from the American River from the
tailrace of the Folsom plant with the tail-water maintained at elevation
200 feet. The remainder, 35 per cent, would require water to be diverted
above the Folsom reservoir, probably at the Pilot Creek dam. This
water would be lost for power generation at the Folsom plant. It is
estimated that the ultimate net irrigated area will be 140,000 acres.
Assuming a seasonal duty of 2.5 acre-feet per acre per season a total of
350,000 acre-feet per season would be required for the irrigation of
these lands.
On the south side of the American Rver there is a gross area of
150,000 acres lying north of the Cosumnes River between the foothills
on the east and the eastern boundaries of the reclamation districts on
the west, that are classified as agricultural. These lands or their
equivalent in area will probably be irrigated from the American at some
future date. All of these lands indicated on Plate II could be irrigated
with a diversion at elevation 200 feet. The Folsom Canal enlarged to
adequate capacity could be utilized for the upper part of the diversion
canal. The plans of the American River Hydro-electric Company call
for the construction of a power plant below the Folsom dam, one unit
of which would discharge iDto the American River below the Prison
dam at elevation 162 feet. If these plans were consummated, it would
be a difficult and costly undertaking to divert the tail-water of this unit
at any point upstream to the Folsom City plant because of topographic
and physical features of the canyon. It is believed that it would not
be practicable, under these conditions, to effect a diversion at a higher
elevation than 110 feet. This would reduce the area capable of being
served by 30 per cent. It appears that the most feasible solution would
require the Folsom plant to discharge the tail-water of the lower unit,
also, into the Folsom Canal, placing the water in a position to serve the
entire area considered. Many years may elapse before plans are per-
fected for the utilization of this water for irrigation. In the interim, it
could be used for the generation of power at the Folsom City plant, if
deemed advisable. It is estimated that about 120,000 acres of the total
of 150,000 would be ultimately irrigated. With a seasonal duty of 2.5
acre-feet per acre per season, the same as assumed for the area north of
the river, the irrigation requirement in one season would be 300,000
acre-feet.
92
DTVISTOX OF WATER RESOURCES
Therefore, the estimated total irrigation requirement for full develop-
ment of the 350,000 acres gross or 260,000 acres net outlined in yellow
on Plate II is 650,000 acre-feet per season. Referring to Table 43, it
may be noted thai 46 per cent of this area could be irrigated from the
Folsom reservoir, 66 per cent from Folsom and Auburn, and 89 per cent
with complete reservoir development with reservoirs operated primarily
for power generation to develop maximum primary power. If the
reservoirs were operated in accord with schedule of water release pro-
posed by the American River Hydro-electric Company, the correspond-
ing figures would be 8, 15 and 112 per cent. These figures are based on
the assumption that the water would be diverted by gravity at the
proper elevations to serve the areas under consideration and include
areas now being served from the American River, downstream from the
Folsom dam.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 93
CHAPTER VI
UTILIZATION OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOP-
MENT FOR CONTROL OF FLOODS ON AMERICAN RIVER
Necessity for flood control on American River.
The need for flood control to protect areas subject to overflow along
the lower American River has long been recognized, as witnessed by acts
of the national and state legislative bodies. The United States Congress
in 1917 and the State Legislature in 1911 adopted a general plan of
flood control for the Sacramento Valley. In this plan provision was
included for the flood control on the lower American River. The State
Legislature, in 1927, at the urgent request of interested parties, created
the American River Flood Control District, which comprises the cities
of Sacramento and North Sacramento as well as contiguous unincor-
porated territory in Sacramento County, containing an area of approxi-
mately 23,000 acres. This district is now actively engaged in an
investigation of the flood situation in an effort to formulate a plan that,
when consummated, will adequately protect it from the flood menace.
Concrete evidence of the necessity of flood protection was furnished
during the past year when a flood of large proportions passed down the
river on March 25, 1928, overflowing its banks and inundating 13,000
acres of inhabited area. The city of North Sacramento was within the
flooded area. Large damages were suffered by private and public
interests. Highway communication on the Pacific Highway was
severed for several days with great inconvenience to the public.
Plans for flood control.
Several plans for the protection of this densely populated area from
disastrous floods have been proposed in the past. They can be divided
naturally into two general systems of control, with and without supple-
mentary control by reservoirs that could be constructed upstream from
the affected area. Each system would require the creation of a definite
channel of adequate capacity for the confinement of the flood waters
that must pass the overflow area. The flood channel would be formed
by levees on either side of the main channel of the river. The spacing
of the levees would be conditioned upon the system of control con-
sidered. With supplementary reservoir control, floods could be reduced
to a size that would be confined in a flood channel with levees spaced
about one-half the distance required without reservoir control, and
afford the same degree of protection.
The adopted plan of the Sacramento Flood Control Project for the
American River contemplates a flood channel, 2400 feet wide, without
upstream reservoir control. However, the California Debris Commis-
sion, in its report* of 1925, states: "However, various other plans have
been suggested, especially with a view to benefitting certain local
interests, and the commission recommends that no objection be made to
such modifications when proposed in the future, should it be possible
to reduce the cost of the project to the government by acceding to
such changes."
* Senate document No. 23, 69th Congress, 1st session "Flood Control in the Sacra-
mento and San Joaquin River Systems."
94 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Supplementary reservoir control would permil of a modification of
the adopted flood control plan since flood flows would be reduced in
size by this system of control.
This report presents the possibilities of flood reduction by the
utilization of space for flood control in the reservoirs of the consolidated
development.
Data used and methods employed in analysis of flood flows.
In analyzing the flood flow of the American River tor the purpose of
estimating the utility of the reservoirs of the consolidated development
in controlling floods on the lower American River, measurements and
records of the United States Geological Survey for the Fairoaks gaging
station were used as published in the water supply papers and in
preparation for publication. Estimates of flood discharge based on high
water marks established from memory of old inhabitants are believed
to be too unreliable and have not been included in the data used in the
preparation of this report. The only authentic records that are avail-
able are those of the United States Geological Survey.
The methods employed in analyzing these flood data as set forth in
this report are fully described in Bulletin No. 14, "The Control of
Floods by Reservoirs," recently published by the Division of Engineer-
ing and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. Therefore, the
analyses in this report are presented without detailed discussion and
explanation.
Floods of record.
Measurements have been made on the American River at the Fairoaks
gaging station by the United States Geological Survey from October,
1904 to date. The area above this station includes practically the entire
drainage area of the river. The records show that the largest flood
during this period occurred on March 25, 1928, with a crest discharge
of 184,000 second-feet, the mean for the day being 120,000 second-
feet. The second largest flood occurred on March 19, 1907, when
119,000 second-feet crest flow passed the gaging station, with the mean
for the day of 105.000 second-feet. Table 44 sets forth, in order of
decreasing magnitude, data on the 'twenty largest floods during the
period of stream measurement. Values of maximum mean daily flow
vary from a maximum of 120,000 to a minimum of 34,000 second-feet.
These figures are the mean for the day extending from midnight to
midnight in each instance.
Measurements are also available from which may be determined the
maximum twenty-four-hour flow for the 1928 and 1927 floods. In the
1928 flood, the maximum twenty-four-hour period was from 10 a.m. on
March 25 to 10 a.m. on March 26, with a mean flow of 148,000 second-
feet, which is 23.3 per cent larger than the maximum mean daily flow.
In the 1927 flood, the period of maximum twenty-four-hour flow was
from 9 a.m. February 21 to 9 a.m. February 22, with a mean flow of
58,000 second-feet, which is 20.3 per cent larger than the maximum
mean daily flow of 48,200 second-feet.
The crest flow for any flood is considerably larger than maximum
mean daily flow or for the maximum tweuty-four-hour flow. Values are
available only for three large floods on the American River. The crest
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 95
flow for the 1928 flood was 184,000 second-feet, 53 per cent larger than
the maximum mean daily flow and 21 per cent larger than the maximum
twenty-four-hour flow. For the 1927 flood, the crest flow was 68,000
second-feet, 41 per cent larger than the maximum mean daily flow and
17 per cent larger than the maximum twenty-four-hour flow of 58,000
second-feet. The crest flow of the 1907 flood was estimated at 119,000
second-feet, 13 per cent greater than the maximum mean daily flow.
Data are not available for estimating the maximum twenty-four-hour
flow.
In addition to the larger floods listed in Table 44, data are also avail-
able for calculating the maximum twenty-four-hour and crest flows of
the minor flood of April 6, 1926. In this flood, the crest flow was 31,000
second-feet, 37 per cent larger than the maximum mean daily flow of
22,700 second-feet and 24 per cent larger than the maximum twenty-
hour flow of 25,000 second-feet. The maximum twenty-four-hour flow
was 10.1 per cent larger than the maximum mean daily flow.
It is seen, therefore, from the data available that the crest flow is
from 13 to 53 per cent larger than the maximum mean daily flow and
from 17 to 24 per cent larger than the maximum twenty-four-hour flow.
The maximum twenty-four-hour flow ranges from 10.1 to 23.3 per cent
larger than the maximum mean daily flow.
It may be noted that seventeen of the twenty floods occurred in the
months of January, February and March, with greater number in
January and February and only one each in November, December and
May. The flood in May, however, was one of the lesser floods and
occurred with a relatively low precipitation. It resulted principally
from the rapid melting of snow in the high altitudes, rather than high
intensity of rainfall because relatively high flows continued for a
month following the day of peak discharge accompanied by small
amount of precipitation on the watershed. It would appear, therefore,
that the months in which large floods would be more liable to occur
would be from December to May.
The degree of normalcy of the season in precipitation at the time
the floods occurred is given in the table, expressed in per cent of normal
precipitation to same date. The minimum figure is 77 and the maxi-
mum 194. If the occurrences during the past 24 years are a criterion
of what might be expected in the future, it is seen that, during the
flood season, floods would not be expected to occur except when a sub-
stantial part of the normal rainfall to any date, has taken place.
L_
96
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 44. TWENTY LARGEST FLOODS ON AMERICAN RIVER
Measured by United States Geological Survey at Fairoaks Gaging Station
Number
Date of flood
Maximum mean daily flow
Seasonal precipitation at
United States Weather
Bureau station at
Folsom City, up to day
before the flood
Second-feet
Inches depth
on watcrshnl
in 24 hours
Inches
Per cent
of normal
to same date
1
March
March
January
February
January
February
January
January
January
February
December
February
January
February
May
Novcmbei
March
February
January
March
25, 1928
120,000
105,000
98,000
NO. Slid
69,100
68,200
62.500
57,700
52,600
48,200
47,000
45,000
44,500
42,600
41,800
40.800
39,800
37,600
36,500
34,000
2.33
2.03
1.90
1.57
1.34
1.32
1.21
1.12
1.02
.93
.91
.87
.86
.83
.81
.79
.77
.73
.71
.66
15.68
31.26
10.66
21.12
25.37
14.19
16.18
9.99
20.74
21.75
5.20
13.37
11.24
24.54
29.02
3.28
33.54
16.49
17.91
23.88
77
2
19, 1907
159
3
14, 1909
102
4
2, 1907
156
5
31, 1911
1M
6
8, [925
101
7
21, 1909
139
8
1, 1914
119
9
26, 1914
167
10
21, 1927
134
11
2, 1909
124
12
13
19, 1906
90
99
14
21, 1914
151
15
12. 1915
123
16
21, 1909
106
17
7. PHI
184
18
25. 1917
98
19
22, 1911
152
20
21, 1906
118
Frequency of flood occurrence.
Although Table 44 sets forth the largest floods that have occurred
during the past twenty-four years, no adequate conception is gained
of the size and frequency of floods which might be expected to occur
in the future. In order that this may be had, Plate IV, "Probable
Frequency of Flood Discharge on American River at Fairoaks," lias
been prepared similarly to Plate II, "Probable Frequency of Flood Dis-
charge," in Bulletin No. 14. In the preparation of this plate, mean
daily flows for each day whose mean exceeded 5000 second-feet were
included in the data. Values were arranged and numbered in order of
decreasing magnitude. The figure assigned to any particular flow indi-
cated the lmiiiher of days thai size of flow was exceeded during the
period of stream measurement. These figures were then expanded to
values had the period of recoi-d been 100 years. Each figure repre-
sented the number of days in 100 years or frequency, which flows of a
given size would be expected to be exceeded. The values of flood dis-
charge were then plotted with their respective frequencies on a loga-
rithmic scale. A smooth curve was drawn through the plotted points
and extended beyond the data to a frequency of 0.1 day in 100 years or
1 day in 1000 years, in a manner that, it is believed, best interprets the
plotted data. Il is an empirical interpretation and the only assumption
made is that whatever relation exists between size and frequency of
occurrence of floods is contained in the period of stream measurement.
It may be noted that, if the curve were extended beyond the limits of the
graph, still larger values of flood discharge would be obtained but with
less average frequencies. Therefore, while the curve indicates that a
flood may occur which would be much larger than any of record, the
probability of its occurrence is correspondingly less.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 97
PLATE IV
■o
•a
l_
(0
10
o
c
o
w
L
O
o
-o
.1
10
100
_2 1,000
e
3
10,000
— --i .: — -- I '. : :
• /
1 1 r
, « _]j
* f
— < 1 1 — __
I i T
~i±=E:::;=5? = 4 = :::: =EEE±|= :=::
: =====T== = = :=^=F========= ==—======= = = = :
*-M- ,
•/
I 10 100
Mean daily flow in thousands of second -feet
1,000
PROBABLE FREQUENCY OF FLOOD DISCHARGE
ON AMERICAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS
Values of maximum mean daily flood flow for several average fre-
quencies with which values are exceeded were taken from the curve and
listed in Table 45. They are expressed both in second-feet and inches
7—72924
r
!»S
DIVISION OF WATKi; IM.SOURCES
depth of run-off in ill hours Erom the drainage basin. The maximum
mean daily flows vary from ">6,000 second Eeet, which may be expected
to be exceeded with an average frequency of 100 days in 100 years or
1 day every year, to 230,000 second-feet, which may be expected i<> be
exceeded with an average frequency of one day in 1000 years.
It may be noted thai ;i flow thai may be expected to be exceeded with
an average frequency of one day in 100 years is almost tbree times
larger than one t hat may lie expected to be exceeded one day every year,
and one that may be expected to lie exceeded on the average of 1 day in
1000 years is four times larger.
TABLE 45. ESTIMATED FLOOD FLOW OF AMERICAN RIVER
At Fairoaks Gaging Station
(Values taken from Plate IV.)
/
Maximum
mean daily flow
Average frequency with which values are exceeded, days in 100 years
Second-feet
Inches depth in
24 hours on
drainage basin
(Aria of
drainage basin
1919 square
miles)
100
.000
104,000
126,000
144,000
162,000
230,000
1.1
10
2.0
4
2.4
2
2.8
3.1
4.5
Reservoir space required to control floods.
Reservoir space required to control floods on the American River
was estimated by tbe same method of analysis as that described in
Chapter IV, Bulletin No. 14. Space that would have to be held in
reserve on each day to absorb the volume of run-off of the days follow-
ing in excess of several specified maximum controlled flows was cal-
culated for all mean daily flows in excess of 25,000 second-feet measured
at the Fairoaks gaging station of the United States Geological Survey.
The maximum cm: trolled flows used in this analysis are 25,000, 50,000,
75,000 and 100,000 second-feet. These calculated values were used in
the preparation of Plate V, "Reservoir Space Required to Control
Floods on American River." They were listed in order of decreasing
magnitude and numbered consecutively for each maximum controlled
flow. Each number represented the number of days during the period
of stream measurement that reservoir space in excess of the particular
value was required to control floods to a specified maximum controlled
flow. These numbers were expanded to represent the number of days,
or frequency, had the period of si ream measurement been 100 years
in length. The values of reservoir space Were plotted in accord with
their respective frequencies on a logarithmic scale. Smooth curves
were drawn through the points and extended to a frequency of 0.1 day
in 100 years or 1 day in L000 years for each maximum controlled flow,
delineating the trend of the data. The curves for the larger controlled
flows were shaped by the plotted data and also by comparison with
those of the smaller controlled flows.
A PKOPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
99
A value of reservoir space taken from a curve of a particular maxi-
mum controlled flow for a selected frequency is the space that would
absorb the volume of run-off in excess of the specified maximum con-
trolled flow except on the number of days in 100 years representing the
selected frequency.
plate v
-o
V
V
O
X
0)
Q.
o
>
e
JZ
o
$
c
o
e
u
>^
O
o
■o
100
1,000
.o
e
3
10,000
-
w
T
I
i±L_T.
i
T
.._.
/ ■ ■ 1
^-
_i__ -.
1
/' 'I 1
,
■J— 1— -!* -I--
5 I -
I t -
I |
/. . t
!
1
T T
r
i
1
1
i
i
iij
i
:
i
t
E J 'I
f
_
,
^|| 1
' /
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
101
were the same as those of the March, 1928, flood, the largest of record.
The flow characteristics of this flood from March 23-30 are delineated
on Plate VI, "Hydrograph of Flood of 1928 on American River."
Table 47 sets forth, for amounts of reservoir space ranging from
100,000 to 500,000 acre-feet, the crest discharge of floods with flow
characteristics of March, 1928, flood, which are controllable to various
maximum controlled flows ranging from 50,000 to 125,000 second-feet.
Values of crest discharge are given both in second-feet and in per cent
of crest discharge of 1928 flood.
TABLE 47. SIZE OF FLOODS ON AMERICAN RIVER CONTROLLABLE
WITH SPECIFIED AMOUNTS OF RESERVOIR SPACE ;
Characteristics of flow same as those of March, 1928 flood
Maximum controlled flow,
in second-feet
Crest discharge of flood controllable
Reservoir space, in
aore-fcet
In second-feet
In per cent of crest
discbarge of
March, 1928 flood
100,000
50,000
75.000
100,000
125,000
115.000
150,000
184,000
225,000
62
82
100
122
200,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
155,000
195,000
235,000
275,000
84
106
128
149
300,000
50,000
75.000
100,000
125,000
190,000
230,000
275.000
315,000
103
125
149
171
400,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
220,000
265,000
310,000
350,000
120
144
168
190
500,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
250,000
300,000
340,000
380,000
136
163
185
206
Maximum storage reservation for flood control in reservoirs of consolidated
development.
It is manifest that space available in any particular reservoir for
flood control use is limited by its total capacity. If the reservoir is
operated purely for flood control purposes, this total capacity deter-
mines the degree of flood control that can be obtained. The degree of
flood control attained would vary with amount of reservoir capacity,
contingent, however, upon its being located at strategic points for
control of run-off of the watershed.
If the reservoir is to be operated for conservation purposes, coordi-
nated with flood control, then only a part of the total capacity could be
used for flood control without interference with its conservation values,
and therefore a lesser degree of protection would be procured than if
the total capacity were used entirely for flood control purposes. In
this study, only a part of the total space in each of the major reser-
voirs has been assigned to flood control use. which would impair its
conservation value to the smallest extent and still obtain a considerable
degree of flood control. The maximum reservation for flood control,
102
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
in acre Eee1 and in per cen1 of the total capacity, assigned to each of
three major reservoirs- -Folsom, Auburn and Coloma- -together with the
maximum draw-down Tor Hood control in eacli reservoir, in Eeel and in
per cent of maximum available power head, are given in Table 4s. The
maximum space assigned for flood control with the complete develop-
ment is odd. 000 acre-feet, 2i).l per cent of the total capacity of the
reservoirs. The maximum draw down for flood control in the reser-
voirs ranges from 18.4 per cent of the maximum power head at the
Folsom reservoir to 6.1 per cent at the Coloma reservoir.
The size of floods controllable by the maximum storage reservation
in the reservoirs for the three stages of development has been estimated
for various maximum controlled flows, assuming that the flood would
have the same flow characteristics as those of the flood of March, 1928.
The data are given in Tabic 49. With 175.000 acre-feet in the Folsom
reservoir reserved for flood control, a flood with a crest discharge of
225,000 second-feet could be controlled to 100.000 second-feet maximum
flow: with a total maximum reservation of 375,000 acre-feet (175,000
acre-feet in Folsom and 200,000 acre-feet in Auburn reservoir), a flood
with a crest discharge of 300,000 second-feet could be controlled to the
same maximum flow: and with a total maximum reservation of 500,000
acre-feet (175,000 acre-feet in Folsom, 200,000 acre-feet in Auburn
and 125,000 acre-feel in Coloma reservoir), a flood with a crest dis-
charge of 340,000 second-feet could be controlled to the same maximum
flow.
TABLE 48. MAXIMUM STORAGE RESERVATION FOR FLOOD
CONTROL IN RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Total
capacity,
in awe-feel
Maximum r serration
for flood control
Maximum draw-down in
reaervou for flood control
Reservoir
In aore-fei 1
In per cent
of total
capacity
In feet
In per cent
of maximum
power head
Folsom
355.000
\000
76tj,000
i ;:>.ooo
200.000
125,000
19 3
33.4
35
54
20
18.4
Auburn
14.0
Coloma
6.1
Totals
1,710,000
500,000
29.1
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
103
TABLE 49. SIZE OF FLOODS CONTROLLABLE BY MAXIMUM STORAGE
RESERVATION FOR FLOOD CONTROL ASSIGNED TO
RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Characteristics of flood flow same as those of March, 1928 flood
Maximum storage reservation:
Folsom reservoir 1 75,000 acre-feet
Auburn reservoir 200,000 acre-feet
Coloma reservoir 125,000 acre-feet
Total
500,000 acre-feet
Maximum
space reserved
for flood
control, in
acre-feet
Maximum
controlled
flow, in
second-feet
Crest discharge of flood
controllable
Stage of development
In second-feet
In per cent
of crest
discharge of
March, 1928
flood
Folsom reservoir
175,000
375,000
500,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
184,000
225,000
265,000
260,000
300,000
340,000
250,000
300,000
340,000
380,000
100
Folsom and Auburn reservoirs
122
144
141
Folsom, Auburn and Coloma reservoirs
163
185
136
163
185
206
Proposed method for operating reservoirs of consolidated development for flood
control coordinately with conservation.
In evolving a rule for the operation of the reservoirs of the consoli-
dated development for flood control coordinately with conservation uses,
consideration has been given not only to the amount of reservoir space
to be held in reserve but also to its needs as related to the time of year
and the progressive rainfall index (ratio of actual precipitation up to
any date in a season to the normal amount up to same date). The
utility of various amounts of reservoir space for flood control has been
set forth in the previous pages. The principles underlying the rela-
tions of time of year and of progressive rainfall index to need of reser-
voir space are discussed fully in Chapter IV, Bulletin No. 14. Analyses
similar to those in that bulletin have been made to estimate the limiting
dates in the season for the need of reservoir space and the values of
progressive rainfall index with which no reservoir space is needed for
various maximum controlled flows. Details of the analyses are omitted
in this report. The results have been incorporated in the proposed
rules for operating the reservoirs of the consolidated development.
The rule for operating the Folsom reservoir, constructed as a first
unit of the consolidated plan of development for flood control coordi-
nately with conservation uses, proposes that a maximum space of 175,-
000 acre-feet be held in reserve at times for the control of floods to
100,000 second-feet maximum flow measured at the Fairoaks gaging
station. The rule is as follows :
Some space would be held in reserve for flood control from Deecmber 1 to
May 1 in each flood season whenever the total precipitation up to any date
in the season is more than 50 per cent of the precipitation to the same date
in a normal season. The flood control reserve would be increased at a uni-
104 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
form rate from aero on December 1, the beginning of the flood season to the
maximum of 175,000 acre-feel on January 1. Tins maximum spine would
be held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at a uniform
rate to zero on May 1. This spare would be maintained as nearly as possible
without exceeding the maximum controlled flow of 100,000 second-feet
measured at the Fairoaks gaging station of United States Geological Survey.
Precipitation to be measured at the cooperative rainfall station of the Unite,!
Slates Weather Bureau at Folsom.
To control the floods in accordance with this rule, flood control works
would be provided in the dam. These would consist of outlets through
the dam, with control gates, placed at a depth below the crest which
would insure a maximum controlled flow of 100.000 second-feet with
the maximum storage reservation of 175.000 acre-feet. In addition to
the flood control outlets, an overflow spillway with crest gates would
also be provided Eor supplementary control.
With this provision in the Folsom reservoir for flood control, floods
considerably larger than that of 1928, with the same flow characteristics,
could be controlled, dependent, however, on dates of occurrences. A
flood with a crest flow of 22 per cent greater than that of 1928 and with
a volume in excess of the controlled flow of 100.000 second-feet 86 per
cent greater than that of 1928, could be controlled during the period
of maximum storage reservation for flood control, without exceeding the
specified maximum controlled flow and without encroaching on the
5-foot freeboard of the dam.
If the water level in the reservoir were allowed to rise to the crest
of the dam and the overflow spillway gates kept closed and the flood
control outlets allowed to discharge 100,000 second-feet, a still larger
flood could be controlled. In this instance, one with a crest flow 36 per
cent larger than that of 1928 and with a volume in excess of the con-
trolled flow of 100,000 second-feet 147 per cent greater than that of
1928 could be controlled with a maximum discharge for a short time
14 per cent above the specified controlled flow. This size of flood could
reoccur at intervals of four days during the period of maximum reser-
vation without failure in control.
If Auburn reservoir were constructed as a second unit to Folsom
in the progressive development, space in it also could be reserved for
flood control purposes in addition to that assigned to flood control in the
Folsom reservoir. This additional space could be used for flood control,
either in maintaining the same maximum controlled flow for larger
floods, or to reduce flood flows to smaller controlled flows. In the first
instance, the rule for operation would be identical to that given for the
Folsom reservoir alone excepl thai the amount of reservoir space would
be increased. In this report, it is proposed that 200.000 acre-feet be
the maximum space to be held in reserve for flood control in the Auburn
reservoir in addition 1o the 175,000 acre feet in the Folsom reservoir.
It is estimated that this total amount of reservoir space could control
a Hood with a crest How 63 per cent larger than that of 1928, and with a
volume in excess of the controlled flow of 100.000 second-feet 286 per cent
greater than thai of L928, during the period of maximum storage reser-
vation for flood control, assuming that the flood had the same flow char-
acteristics as that of 1928. If the water level in the reservoirs were
allowed to rise to the crest of ihe dams ami Ihe overflow spillway gates
were kept closed and the flood control outlets at Folsom were allowed
to discharge 100.000 second-feet, a flood with a crest flow 77 per cent
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RrVER 105
larger than that of 1928 and with a volume in excess of the controlled
flow of 100,000 second-feet 363 per cent greater than that of 1928 could
be controlled with a maximum discharge for a short time about 23 per
cent greater than the specified maximum controlled flow of 100,000
second-feet, In the second instance, if the flood flows were to he reduced
to a maximum controlled flow of 75,000 second-feet, utilizing the same
amounts of reservoir space for flood control as in the first instance, the
rule for operation would be changed slightly. The date of starting to
prepare the reservoir for flood control would be November 1 instead of
December 1. The space for flood control would be increased at a uni-
form rate from zero on November 1 to the maximum of 375,000 acre-
feet on December 1, this amount being held in reserve until April 1,
when it would be reduced at a uniform rate to zero on May 1. As in
the first instance, space Avould be held in reserve for flood control during
the flood season only when the precipitation up to any date in the
season was more than 50 per cent of the precipitaton to the same date
in a normal season. Operated in this manner, a flood with a crest flow
41 per cent larger than that of 1 928 and with a volume in excess of the
controlled flow of 75,000 second-feet 122 per cent larger than that of
1928 could be controlled without encroaching on the freeboard of the
dams, assuming that the flood would have the same flow characteristics
as those of the 1928 flood.
If the Coloma reservoir were constructed as the third major unit in
the progressive development, space could also be reserved in it for flood
control purposes in addition to the space assigned to the Folsom and
Auburn reservoirs. This additional space could be used either to con-
trol larger floods to the maximum controlled flows (100,000 and 75,000
second-feet) as discussed previously for the Folsom and Auburn reser-
voirs or to reduce flood flows to a still smaller controlled flow. How-
ever, since the Coloma reservoir would probably be constructed as the
last unit in the development and the flood channel in the lower Ameri-
can River would have already been constructed to a capacity of the
larger controlled flows, it is not probable that the additional space for
flood control in the Coloma reservoir would be used to reduce floods to
a smaller controlled flow but rather to reduce larger floods to the maxi-
mum controlled flow, for which the flood channel was built. It is pro-
posed herein that 125,000 acre-feet of space be assigned for flood control
in the Coloma reservoir, which, with the 175,000 acre-feet in the Folsom
reservoir and 200,000 acre-feet in the Auburn reservoir, makes a total
of 500,000 acre-feet of maximum storage reservation for flood control.
If this total space w r ere to be utilized to control floods to 100,000 second-
feet maximum flow, measured at the Fairoaks gaging station, the rule
for operation would be identical to that for the Folsom reservoir alone,
except that the reservoir space would be increased from 175.000 acre-
feet to 500,000 acre-feet. It is estimated that this total amount of reser-
voir space could control a flood with a crest flow 85 per cent larger
than that of March, 1928, and with a volume in excess of 100.000 second-
feet, 407 per cent greater than that of 1928, during the period of maxi-
mum storage reservation, assuming that the flood had the same flow
characteristics as that of 1928.
If it were desirable to reduce floods to 75,000 second-feet, using the
total reservation of 500,000 acre-feet for flood control in the three major
reservoirs, the rule for operation would be the same as for the Folsom
106 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ami Auburn reservoirs together operated for the control of floods to
75,000 second-feet, except thai the value of reservoir space would be
increased Erom 375,000 acre-feel to 500,000 acre-feet. It is estimated
that this total amount of reservoir space could control a flood with a
eresi flow 63 per cent Larger than thai of .March, 192S, and with a vol-
ume in excess of the maximum controlled flow of 75,000 second-feet,
192 per cent greater than that of 1928, during the period of maximum
reservation for flood control, if the flood had the same characteristics
as that of 1928.
Degree of protection afforded by supplementary reservoir control.
It has been pointed out previously in lids chapter the size of floods
on the American River that could be controlled to several maximum
controlled flows utilizing certain assigned amounts of space in the reser-
voirs of the consolidated development. It is of interest to compare the
degree of protection obtainable by reservoir control employed in con-
junction with a leveed channel of adequate capacity with that provided
by other plans that have been proposed for the control of floods on the
lower American River.
The plan recommended by the California Debris Commission and
adopted by the State Legislature provides for a leveed channel without
upstream reservoir control. The channel would be formed by levees
spaced 2400 feet apart, and would he capable of passing a flood flow of
128,000 second-feet with a clearance of three Eee1 on the levees.
Another plan which has been given consideration is a modification
of the above, in that higher levees, spaced 2400 feet, would be provided
to pass a flood flow of 180,000 second-feet with a clearance of 3 feet
on the levees.
With supplementary reservoir control, the plans set forth above
would be modified to the extent that the width of the flood channel
would be materially reduced, because of the lesser flood flow. If
175,000 acre-feet of space in the Folsom reservoir were utilized for
flood control purposes, a flood with a crest flow of 225.000 second-feet
and flow characteristics of the March, 1928, flood, could be controlled
to 100,000 second-feet, maximum flow, without encroaching on the fr
board of the dam or levees, which could be confined to a flood channel
formed by levees spaced at about one-half the distance proposed in the
plans without supplementary reservoir control. If the level of the
reservoir were allowed to rise to the crest of the dam, utilizing 34,000
acre-feet of additional space, a flood with a crest flow of 240,000
second-feet and with characteristics of the March. 1928, flood, could be
controlled to 100,000 second feet and one with a crest of 250,000 second-
feet and with the same characteristics could be controlled to 115,000
second-feet.
It is apparent, therefore, by reserving 175.000 acre-feel of space for
flood control in the Folsom reservoir and providing adequate flood
control works in the dam to insure a discharge of 100,000 second-feet
and a leveed channel id' adequate capacity on the lower American
River, greater protection would he afforded the overflow area than
with either of the plans without reservoir control outlined above. If
space were reserved for flood control in the Auburn and Coloma reser-
voirs, in addition to the 17."). 000 acre -feet in the Folsom reservoir and
adequate flood control works provided in the dams, a still greater degree
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 107
of protection would be obtained utilizing the same flood channel as with
Folsom alone ; either a flood with a greater crest flow than 225,000
second-feet (flow characteristics of March, 1928, flood) could be reduced
to a maximum controlled flow of 100,000 second-feet or a flood with a
crest flow of 225,000 second-feet (flow characteristics of March 1928,
flood) could be reduced to a maximum controlled flow less than 100,000
second-feet. Furthermore, by reducing the flood flow in the American
River, the safety of the levee system of the Sacramento River, down-
stream from the mouth of the American River, would be materially
increased.
Interference of flood control with conservation values of reservoirs of con-
solidated development.
The effect of the inclusion of flood control in the operation of the
reservoirs of the consolidated development on their yield in power and
water has been estimated for the three stages of development for the
period, 1905-1927. The estimates were based on controlling floods to
100,000 second-feet maximum flow measured at the Fairoaks gaging
station of the United States Geological Survey and employing the
assigned amounts of maximum space for flood control in the reser-
voirs set forth in Table 48, which are as follows : Folsom, 175,000 acre-
feet ; Auburn, 200,000 acre-feet ; and Coloma, 125,000 acre-feet, a total
of 500,000 acre-feet. The reservoirs were operated in accord with the
rule for the Folsom reservoir set forth previously in this chapter,
except that the value of the maximum reservation for flood control
would be increased from 175,000 acre-feet for the initial development
with Folsom reservoir alone ; to 375,000 acre-feet for the second stage
of development with Folsom and Auburn reservoirs ; to 500,000 acre-
feet for the third stage or complete development with Folsom, Auburn
and Coloma reservoirs operated for flood control. Space was held in
reserve for flood control from December 1 to May 1 in each flood season
when the precipitation on any date was more than 50 per cent of the
normal precipitation to the same date, calculated from rainfall records
at the cooperative rainfall station of United States Weather Bureau at
Folsom City. The space held in reserve for flood control was increased
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to the maximum reservation
on January 1 and the maximum held from January 1 to April 1 from
which date it was decreased at a uniform rate to zero on May 1.
In estimating the effect of flood control on the power output of the
plants for various methods of water release and stages of development,
the same generating equipment was assumed for both with and without
flood control. Estimates were made to determine the interference, if
any, of the various combinations but only one detailed study was made.
This was on the Folsom reservoir constructed as a first unit and
operated primarily for power generation with water release in accord
w^jth the schedule proposed by the American River Hydro-electric
Company. The plant layout was taken as that proposed by the
American River Hydro-electric Company, consisting of two units, one
unit discharging into the Folsom Canal at tailrace elevation 207.0 feet
and the second unit discharging into the American River below the
present Folsom Prison dam at elevation 162 feet. The computations
were carried out on a daily basis, using the measured daily flows of the
108 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
American River at the Fairoaks gaging station of the United States
Geological Survey for the period 1905-1927. The installed capacity
of the power planl was 35,000 k.v.a. P.P.— 0.80, operated on a 100 per
eenl load factor. The results of the computations are summarized in
Tables 50 and 51. Table 50 sets forth, by years; the measured run-off
at Fairoaks. stage of the reservoir at the beginning of the year, power
draft through the turbines for each unit, evaporation on the reservoir
surface, waste over the spillway, and average power head and power
output for each unit and the total output with the reservoir operated
without flood control and similar data with the reservoir operated
coordinately with flood control in accord with the rule given above for
the Folsom reservoir. Estimating on a daily basis, the same power out-
put was maintained on each day throughout the period 1905-1927 with
and without flood control. This was accomplished by passing addi-
tional water through the turbines to compensate for the reduction of
power head with flood control. This would necessitate increasing the
size of the penstocks and the water capacity of the turbines which lias
been done in preparing the cost estimates given in Chapter IX. The
table shows the average annual power output for the period 1905-1927
with flood control was slightly greater (900.000 kilowatt hours) than
without flood control. Without flood control, an average of 1,684,600
acre-feet would have wasted over the spillway annually, whereas with
flood control this would have been 715,800 acre-feet, the difference
being accounted for by 917,000 acre-feet being released through the
flood control outlets, 52,500 acre-feet additional being passed through
the turbines to compensate for the reduced power head and 700 acre-
feet less evaporation from the reservoir surface. Table 51 sets forth
the monthly data for the period 1905-1927, summarized in Table 50,
by years.
Other estimates of the interference on the power output of the
inclusion of the flood control features for the other stages of develop-
ment have been made, based, however, on monthly averages of run-off
used in the power studies summarized in Chapter IV, because values
of daily run-off at the Coloma and Auburn dam sites were not available.
These estimates are necessarily only approximate. However, they are
probably as accurate as the 1 estimates of water and power yield without
flood control, based on average monthly quantities. The results are
summarized in Tables 52 and .">:{, for the three stages of development.
Table 52 uives the average annual power output with and without flood
control and the loss in total power output due to the inclusion of flood
control with the method of water release from the reservoirs t<> develop
maximum primary power. Table 53 gives similar information with the
schedule of water release proposed by the American River Hydro-
electric Company. It may be noted that the greatest loss in power
output is 1.2 per eenl for the complete development with water released
from the reservoirs in accord with schedule proposed by the American
River Hydro-electric Company.
The effect of flood control on the yield of the reservoirs in irrigation
supply for the three stages "\' development has also been estimated.
employing the same rules as those used with the reservoirs operated
primarily for power generation, hi this instance, however, no study
was made on a daily basis, only average estimated monthly values of
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 109
run-off being used. It was assumed in the estimates that the operation
of the existing Folsom City plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Com-
pany would be subordinated to that of the consolidated development,
and that no water would be released especially to meet the requirements
of this plant. Data are given in Table 54 showing the effect of the
inclusion of the flood control feature in the reservoirs on the yield in
irrigation draft. The seasonal irrigation yield is the same for each of
the three stages of development both with and without flood control.
However, the deficiencies in supply are different with flood control in
the second and third stages of development. In the second stage, a
deficiency of 1.0 per cent occurs in 1908, in addition to those in 1924
and 1926, which remain the same, 40.0 and 7.7 per cent, respectively,
of a perfect seasonal supply with and without flood control. In the
third stage, or complete development, additional deficiencies occur in
four other years with an average seasonal deficiency in supply of 3.2
per cent of a perfect seasonal supply for the period 1905-1927 with
flood control, compared to 2.2 per cent without flood control. However,
the deficiency in 1924, the year of largest deficiency, remains the same,
41.3 per cent with and without flood control.
(
110
CONTROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F. = 1.00
With Flood Control
Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet.
w^s&ss^ss&ss^ssssssss^e
•s
I
HI
HI
HI
II)
HI
Kl
HI
m
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
15,900
19,300
19,900
16,000
18,000
15,200
18,100
13,400
14,300
17,700
17,600
17,700
17,500
14,900
14,500
15,300
17,100
17,300
17,500
3,100
16,900
13,400
16,200
370,100
1,526,000
2,786,800
7,500
2,737,700
1,347,900
2,284,300
1,682,100
576,000
1,690,600
518,900
195.000
517,000
82,800
1,017,400
625,600
490,000
790,200
211.400
1,404,500
314,600
1,896,000
1,376,700
149,300
833,900
401,400
1.783,100
190,200
278,000
886,900
1,199,400
775,600
928,300
206,000
483,600
365,600
653,100
1,455,400
653,500
613,300
75,000
765,600
131.5
149.0
158.5
131.0
152.5
133.5
141.5
110.5
112.0
142.5
135.0
142.0
130.0
118.0
121.5
124.0
140.5
140.5
142.0
72.0
132.5
126 5
162.0
186. 5
199.0
203.5
186.0
200.5
194.5
198.5
168.5
172.5
201.5
194.0
192.5
189.0
185.5
194.0
189.0
192.0
191.5
200.5
123.5
190.0
189.5
207.0
67,700,000
84,900,000
93,400,000
68,600,000
90,100,000
75.500,000
79,100,000
55,100,000
56,400,000
81,700,000
75,100,000
82,700,000
69,700,000
61,100,000
60,500,000
65,000,000
81,000,000
80,300,000
81,000,000
22,400,000
73,000,000
65,100.000
72,600,000
86.200,000
108,500,000
118,600,000
86,400,000
112,700,000
92,300,000
97,200,000
67,400.000
67,100,000
99,500,000
91,700,000
104,100,000
85,800,000
69,800,000
72,900,000
77,200,000
101,100,000
101,400,000
99,200,000
18.900,000
91,100,000
81.700,000
91,500,000
153,900,000
193.400,000
212,000,000
155,000,000
202,800,000
167,800,000
176,300,000
122,500,000
123,500,000
181,200,000
166,800,000
186,800.000
155,500,000
130,900,000
133,400,000
142,200,000
182,100,000
181,700,000
180,200,000
41,300,000
164,100,000
146,800.000
164,100,000
366,800
20,861,800
917,000
16,284,500
715,800
1,642,000,000
72,200,000
2,022,300,000
88,900,000
3,664,300,000
161,100,000
16,100 |
1'
110
TABLE 50. POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Yearly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding monthly summary, see Table 51)
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States
Geological Survey used in computations
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P. F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
With Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 1 00,000 second-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to a-iy date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
rate to zero on May 1
Year
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of year
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of year
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1,881,400
5,020,000
5,620,400
1,339,500
5,240,700
2,916.700
5.398,100
1,331,400
1,464,500
3,861,500
3,093,300
3,929,500
2,684.500
1.519,800
2,061,800
1,789,000
2,971,100
3.630,800
2,355,700
604,700
2,700,600
1,592,700
3,293.100
25,000
25,000
173,900
78.300
25,000
351,200
25,000
25,000
25.000
100.700
25.000
25,000
29,100
25,000
25,000
25,000
241,600
61,000
314,300
25,000
43,400
25,000
158,800
577,700
682,400
724,000
619,900
716,500
644,100
643.700
618,000
608,400
662,400
659,000
701.200
623,200
615,100
535,700
640,700
680,800
699,500
659,700
386.200
649.600
582,300
541,500
557,800
676,100
724,000
578,300
693.600
577.900
595,200
509,800
488,100
602,700
588,300
668,400
560,000
471.500
461,600
524,700
636,300
662.000
604,800
197,000
593,200
535,500
541.500
16,800
20,200
20.800
16,300
18,900
16.100
19,000
13,400
14,300
18.600
18.500
18.600
18.400
15.300
15,300
15,300
18,000
18,200
18,400
3,100
17,800
13,800
17,100
729,100
3,492,400
4,247,200
178,300
3.485,500
2,004,800
4,140,200
190,200
278,000
2,653,500
1,827,500
2,537,200
1,487,000
417,900
1,049,200
391,700
1,816,600
1,997,800
1,362,100
1,458,400
327,300
2.251,800
135.0
157.0
166.0
131.5
162.5
143.5
150.5
110.5
112.0
152.5
140 5
150.0
135.5
119.5
126.0
124.0
150.0
145.5
152.0
72
139.0
128.0
172.5
191.0
207.5
211.0
186,5
210.5
207.11
207.5
168.5
172.5
213.0
201
201.0
194.5
187.5
201.0
189.5
202.5
197.0
212.5
123 5
197.0
192.0
217.5
66,800,000
84,800,000
92,200,000
67,500,000
90,000,000
75,500,000
78,800,000
55,100.000
56,400,000
81,600,000
74,800,000
82,300,000
69,600,000
60,800,000
59,900,000
64,700,000
80,800,000
79,800,000
81,000,000
22,400.000
72,800,000
63,300,000
71,400,000
85,200.000
108,400.000
117.500,000
85,400,000
112,700,000
92,300,000
'.16,900,000
ii7.tO0.000
67,100,000
99,300,000
91,400,000
103,800,000
85,600,000
69,600,000
72.300,000
76,900,000
100/100.000
100.800.000
99.200.000
18,900.000
90.900.000
79,800.000
90.400.000
152,000.000
193,200,000
209.700.
152,900.000
202,700,000
167,800,000
175.700,000
122.500,000
123.500,000
180,900,000
166,200,000
186,100.000
155,200.000
130,400,000
132,200,000
141,600,000
181.700.000
180.000,000
180,200.000
41,300,000
163,700,000
143,100,0(10
161,800,000
25,000
25.000
173.900
78,300
25.000
180.000
25,000
25,000
25.000
100.700
25,000
25,000
29,100
25,000
25,000
25.000
1SII.001I
61,000
180,000
25,000
43,400
25.000
158.800
603.300
723,000
772,300
632,300
705,500
692,700
685,800
618,000
608,400
711,200
689.300
742,200
646,400
624,900
563.800
643,400
729,400
729,000
708,200
386,200
681,400
605,700
588,700
577,500
706,800
760.300
587,700
730,600
614.501)
026,800
509,800
488,11,0
039,300
611,000
699,300
577,500
479,000
482,900
526.900
673,100
684,500
641.500
197,000
617.2IJ0
.553.4 10
576,9 (0
15.900
19,300
19,900
10,000
18,000
15,200
18,100
13,400
14,300
17.700
17,600
17,700
17,500
14,900
14,500
15.300
17,100
17.300
17.500
3.100
16,900
13,400
16,200
370,100
1,526,000
2.786,800
7,500
2,737,700
1,347,900
2,284,300
1,682,100
576.000
1.690,600
518,900
195.000
517.000
82.800
1,017.400
625,600
490,000
790,200
211.400
1,404,500
314,600
1,896,000
1,376.700
149.300
833,900
401,400
1.783,100
190,200
278,000
886,900
1,199,400
775,600
928,300
206,000
483,600
365,600
653,100
1.455,400
653,500
613,300
75,000
765,600
131.5
149.0
158.5
131.0
152.5
133.5
141.5
110.5
112.0
142.5
135.0
142.0
130.0
118.0
121.5
124.0
140.5
140.5
142.0
72.0
132.5
126 5
162.0
180.5
199.0
20.1,5
ISO
200.5
194.5
198.5
168.5
172,5
201.5
194.0
192.5
189.0
185.5
194.0
189.0
192.0
191.5
200.5
123.5
190.0
189.5
207.0
67.700,000
84,900,000
93.400,000
68,600,000
90.100.000
75.500,000
79,100,000
55,100.000
56,400,000
81,700,000
75,100,000
82,700,000
69,700,000
61,100.000
60.500,000
65.000,000
81,000,000
80,300,000
81.000.000
22.400.000
73,000,000
65,100,000
72.600,000
86.200.000
108.500,000
118,600,000
86,400.000
112,700.000
92,300,000
97.200,000
67,400,000
67,100.000
99,500.000
91,700,000
104,100,000
85,800.000
69,800.000
72,900,000
77.200,000
101,100.000
101.400,000
99.200.000
18.900.000
91.100.000
81.700,000
91,500,000
1906
193 400.000
1907
212.000.000
155 000.000
1909 -
202,800,000
1910
167,800,000
1911
176,300,000
1912
122.500,000
1913
123,500.000
1914
181,200.000
1915
166,800,000
1916
186,800.000
1917
155,500.000
1918
130,900,000
1919
133,400,000
1920
142,200,000
1921
182,100.000
1922
181.700.000
1923-
180,200.000
1924
41,300,000
1925
164,100,000
1926
146.S00.O0O
1927
164.100.000
Total for 1905-27
66,300,800
2,914,300
14,471,600
636,100
13,048,300
573,600
382,200
16,800
38,323,700
1,684,600
1,632,300,000
71,700,000
2,012,700.000
88,500,000
3,645,000,000
160,200,000
15,151,100
666,000
13,561,6 i
596.L 1
366,800
16,100
20,861,800
917,000
16,284,500
715,800
1,642.000,000
72,200,000
2,022,300.000
88,900,000
3,664.300,000
161,100,000
72924
Ill
ROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P. F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
With Flood Control
wnd-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
> any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
loration
re-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
Upr.er unit,
tailrace
elevation
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
Total
207 feet
162 feet
207 feet
162 feet
1
96.5
141.5
4,500,000
6,700,000
11.200,000
37.700
143.0
188.0
6,700,000
8,600,000
15,300,000
229.200
148.0
193.0
8.600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
103.200
166.5
211.5
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
250,300
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800.000
191400.000
3,400
64,300
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800'00O
3.900
174.5
219.5
8,200,000
10,400,000
18,600,000
2,800
153.5
198.5
7,300,000
9,400,000
16,700,000
1,300
112.5
157.5
5.100,000
7,200,000
12,300,000
400
79.0
124.0
500,000
1,200,000
1,700,000
200
69.0
115.5
600,000
300,000
900,000
68.0
800,000
800,000
15,900
370,100
314,600
67,700,000
86,200,000
153,900,000
11,100,000
196,000
109.0
180.0
5,100,000
6,000,000
194.700
147.5
192.5
7,800,000
9,700,000
17,500.000
721,200
148.0
, 193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
414,100
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10.400,000
18,800.000
2.800
801,400
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
832,100
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4.000
262.500
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,800
178.0
223.0
8,400,000
10,600,000
19,000,000
2,400
162.5
207.5
7,400,000
9,500,000
16,900,000
1,300
133.0
178.0
6,300,000
8,400,000
14,700,000
500
94 5
140.5
3,100,000
5,900.000
9,000,000
99.0
155.0
4,200,000
5,200,000
9,400,000
19,300
1,526,000
1,896,000
•
84,900,000
108,500,000
193,400,000
101,200
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,700,000
19,300,000
690,000
148.0
193.0
7,800,000
9,700.000
17,500,000
1,370,500
148.0
193.0
8,690,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
625,100
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
623,900
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19.400,000
3,400
538,500
183.0
228.0
8.400,000
10.400,000
18,800,000
4,000
211,400
183.0
228.0
8.600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,800
2.900
181.0
226.0
8,500,000
10.700,000
19,200,000
2,600
170.0
215.0
7,800,000
9,800,000
17,600,000
1,500
153.0
198.0
7,200,000
9,400,000
16,600,000
700
129.5
174.5
5,900,000
8,000.000
13,900.000
106.0
151.0
5,000,000
7,100,000
12.100,000
19,900
2,786.800
1,376,700
93,400,000
5,500,000
118.600,000
212,000,000
117.5
162.5
7,700,000
13,200,000
125.5
170.5
5,600,000
7,500,000
13,100,000
7,500
136.5
181.5
6,800,000
8,900,000
15.700,000
1.100
159.0
204.0
8,400,000
10.400,000
18,800,000
2,500
111,900
182.0
227.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
37,400
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400.000
18.800,000
3,900
176.0
221.0
8 300,000
10,500,000
18.800.000
3,000
156.5
201.5
7,400,000
9,500,000
16.900,000
1,500
117.0
162.0
5,400,000
7.400.000
12,800.000
400
80.5
126.0
1,300,000
2,300,000
3,600,000
200
68.5
114.0
1,300,000
400,000
1,700,000
68.0
113.0
1,600,000
600.000
2,200,000
16,000
7,500
149,300
68,600,000
86,400,000
155,000,000
TABLE 51. POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
111
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, see Table 50)
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States
Geological Survey used in computations
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F.
1. 00
Year and Month
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
With Flood Control
Maximum coiit-olled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve inceased
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
rate to zero on May 1
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit.
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Uprer unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
cailrace
elevation
162 feet
1905—
.lanuary
February .
March
April
May.
June
July..
August
September
October.
November
December
Totals
1906—
January
February
March. .
April. . . .
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December. . .
Totals
1907 —
January
February .
March
April
May
June
July
August . . .
September
October
November
December
Totals
1908 —
January-
February .
March
April
May
June...
July..
August
Septemoer
October
November
December
Totals
200.800
234,700
378,000
400,000
376,100
179,100
42,700
16,600
8,200
6,100
11,500
15.600
25,000
102,800
226,500
355,000
355,000
355,000
347,400
263.200
154,000
41,900
29,000
25,000
61,500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
9,100
11,500
15.600
III. 51 il I
55.500
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
511.500
12,500
3,800
2,000
2,800
3,400
3,900
2,800
1,300
400
200
126,500
288,000
250,300
64,3(10
96 5
145 5
173.0
183
183.0
183.0
174 5
153.5
112.5
79.0
69.0
68,0
141.5
190.5
218.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
219.5
198.5
157.5
124.0
115.5
4,500,000
6,200,000
8,200,000
8,400.000
8.000,000
8,400,
8,200,000
7,300,000
5,100,000
500,000
600,000
800,000
6.700.000
8,100,000
10,300,000
10.400,000
10,800.000
10,400.000
10,400,000
9,400,000
7.200,000
1,200,000
300,000
11,200,000
14,300,000
18,500,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18.800,000
18.600,000
16,700.000
12,300.000
1,700,000
900,000
800.000
25,000
102,800
180.000
180,000
355,000
355,000
::i:.iii(i
263,200
154.000
41,900
29,000
25,000
61.500
60,400
76.200
65,500
61.500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
9,100
11,500
15,600
61,500
59,400
72.600
64,200
61,500
59,500
01,500
61,500
59.500
12,500
3,800
n
1,100
2,800
3,400
3.900
2,800
1.300
400
200
37,700
229 200
103,200
II
II
I)
250.300
114.3(10
96.5
143.0
148.0
1 1,6 5
183.0
183.0
174.5
153.5
112.5
79 II
69.0
68.0
111 5
188.0
193.0
211 5
228 il
228 H
_■ 1 ■ > 5
198.5
1.57.5
124
115.5
(i,7iiil,llllll
S 1,(111.111111
8,400,1
8.600.000
8.4110.000
8,200,000
7,300,000
5,100,000
500,000
600,000
SOII.IIIIlj
6,700,000
8.600,000
lll.80ll.00tl
III inn, nun
10.800,000
in. nil n
10.400.000
9,400,000
7.200,000
1.200,000
300,000
72924
1,881,400
446,200
329,400
870,000
719,500
927,200
954,500
389,500
62,800
24,900
18.400
33,500
244.100
5,020,000
255,300
824,400
1,519,300
930,600
749,700
660,900
338,400
92,000
48,400
42,600
49.000
109,800
5,620,400
159,900
112,700
202,500
267,000
282,400
154,900
53,500
12,300
7.300
23.600
26,200
37,200
1,339,500
25,000
355.000
355.000
355.000
::55.ijiui
355,000
355,000
355,000
291,000
194,500
88,600
25,000
577,700
46,000
55,500
6I..-1IIII
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
42,000
52.900
557.800
37.700
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
50,51111
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
54,600
42,300
16,800
2.000
2,800
3.400
4,000
3,800
2,400
1,300
500
729,100
32,500
218,400
747,000
598,500
801.400
832,100
262,500
123.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183
183.0
178.0
162.5
133.0
94 5
99.0
203
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
223.0
207.5
178.0
140.5
155.0
66,800,000
.•,,0011,110(1
7,800.000
8.600.000
8,400,000
8,600.000
8,41.10.(100
8,600,000
8,400,000
7,400,000
6,300,000
3,100.000
4,200.000
85.200,000
5,900,000
9,700,000
10.800.000
10,400,000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10,600,000
9,500,000
8,400,000
5,900,000
5,200,000
152.1100,0(10
10,900,000
17,500,000
19,400.000
18,800,000
19,400.000
18,800000
19,400,000
19.000.
16,900,000
14,700,000
9,000,000
9,400,000
25,000
179,800
180.000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
291,000
194,500
88,600
25,000
603.300
52,800
68,800
76,200
65,300
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59.500
61,500
42.000
52,900
577,500
42,600
65,700
72,600
64,000
61.500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
54,000
42.300
15.900
(I
I)
1,100
2,800
3,400
4.000
3,800
2,400
1,300
500
370,100
196.000
194.700
721,200
414,100
314,600
801,400
832.100
262,500
109,0
147 5
148.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
178,0
162,5
133.0
94 5
99.0
180.0
192 5
193.0
212.0
228,0
228.0
228.0
223.0
207.6
178.0
140 .5
155
67.700,000
5,100,000
7,8110,1
8.600,000
8,400,000
8,61111,1100
8,400,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
7,4(10,000
6,300,000
3,100.000
4.200,000
86,200.000
0.01 10.000
9,700,000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10.400.000
10,800,000
10,600,000
9,500.000
8.400.000
.-,,61111.1.1011
5.200.000
173,900
306,200
:«.-,.nii(i
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
317,300
241,1110
162,200
91,500
682,400
61,500
55,500
61.500
59,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
676,100
61,500
55,500
61,500
59.500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59.500
61.500
59,500
61.500
20,200
2,000
2,800
3,400
4,000
3,800
2,600
1.5(10
700
3,492,400
664,600
1,396,300
809,600
623.900
538,500
211,400
2,900
157.0
182.5
183
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
181.0
170.0
153.0
129.5
106.0
202.0
227.5
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228
226.0
215.0
198
174.5
151,0
84,800,000
7,400.000
7,800.000
8,600,000
8,400.000
8,6(10,111111
8,400,000
8,600.111 III
8,51111,01111
7,800.0110
7,200.000
5 '00.
5,000,000
108,400,000
9,600,000
9.700,000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,700,000
9.800,000
9.400,000
8,000,000
7,100,000
193,200,000
17,000,000
17,500.000
19.400,000
18,800,000
19.400,000
18,800,000
m. 100,000
19,200,000
i; nun. i
16,600,000
13,900,000
12.100,000
173,900
180,000
180,000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
317,300
244.100
162,200
91,500
723,000
75.800
68,900
70,200
65,400
61.500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
706,800
72,200
65,500
72,600
64,000
61,500
59.500
61.500
61.50(1
59,500
61,500
59.500
61,500
19,300
1.100
2,800
3.400
4,000
3,800
2,6011
1,500
700
1,526.000
101,200
690,000
1,370.500
625,100
1,896,000
623.900
558,50(1
211,400
2 got i
o
o
o
o
148.0
148.0
148.0
167.0
183.0
183,0
183.0
181.0
170.0
153.0
129 5
106.0
193.0
193.0
193.0
212.0
228 II
228.0
228.0
226.0
218.0
198.0
174.5
151.0
81,' ,11110
8.6110,1100
7 811(1, I
8,00110011
8. 100, (Kill
,8.0011.1101)
8. ion, 1
8 6,06, 1
8,500.000
7,800.000
7.2O0.OOO
5,900,000
5.000.000
108,500.000
10,700,000
9,700.000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10.400.000
10.800,000
10,700,000
9,800,000
9,400,000
8,000 000
7,100,000
78,300
115,200
112,900
192,400
839,200
355,000
350,100
276,700
163.000
10,800
28,400
25,000
724.111111
61.500
57.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59.500
61.500
61,500
59,500
21,200
24,400
30,800
721.0(10
61,500
57,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
23,400
5.000
6,400
20,800
II
1,200
2,700
3.400
3,900
.j.000
1,500
400
200
4,247.200
140,900
37,400
117 5
125 5
138.0
166.0
183.0
183.0
176.0
156.5
117.0
80.5
68 5
68.0
162.5
170.5
183.0
211.0
228.0
228
221.0
201.5
162.0
126.0
114.0
113.0
92,200,1100
5.500,000
5,600,000
6,500.000
7,600.000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,300.000
7,400,000
5,400,000
1,300.000
1,300,000
1.600,000
117,500,000
7,700,000
7,500,000
8,700,000
9,600,000
10.800,000
10.400.000
10,500.000
9.500,000
7.400,000
2,300,000
400,000
600,000
2(19,700.000
13,200,000
13,100,000
15,2011,0110
17,200,000
19,400,000
18.800.000
18.8
10.900.000
12,800,000
3,600,000
1,700.000
2,200.000
115,200
112,900
180,000
310.400
355.000
350.100
276.700
163,000
49,800
28,400
25,000
772,300
61,500
57,500
64,300
68,800
61,800
59,500
61,500
61,500
59.500
21,200
24.400
on.snn
711(1,300
61,500
57,500
63,600
66,700
61,600
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
23.400
5.000
6,400
19,900
1,100
2,500
3,400
3,900
3,000
1,500
400
200
2,786,800
7,500
111,900
37.40(1
II
117.5
125 5
136 5
159.0
182.0
183.0
176.0
156.5
117
80 5
68.5
68.0
162.5
170.5
181.5
204.0
227.0
228.0
221 (I
201.5
162 n
I2ii.ll
114.0
113
93,400.000
5.500.000
5.,,l!0.600
68110.000
8,400.000
8 601 ',
8,400,000
8 300,000
7.400.11(10
5 lonno
1.300.000
I 'no onn
I. no,, ooo
11S.600.000
7.7OO.OO0
7,500,000
10.400,000
10 81,0 000
10,400.000
IO.50O.I1III1
7,400.000
2 100
600.0011
619,900
578,300
16,300
178,300
67,500.000
85,400,000
152,900,000
(1.12,300
587.700
16,000
7,50(1
149,300
6S.6O0.0OO
86.400,000
155.000.000
I
113
) CONTROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant. 35,000 k.v.a. P. F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
With Flood Control
econd-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
to any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
'5,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Average pow
;r head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
poration
icre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
Lower unit,
tailrace
Upper unit,
tailrace
Lower unit,
tailrace
Total
elevation
elevation
elevation
elevation
207 feet
162 feet
207 feet
162 feet
76.0
127.5
3,100,000
3.300.000
6,400,000
70.0
115.0
3,000.000
2.400,000
5,400.000
69.0
114.0
3.200.000
3,600,000
6,800,000
300
129.0
174.0
5.900,000
8,000,000
13,900,000
2,200
234,300
180.5
225.5
8,500,000
10.700.009
19,200,000
3,400
43,700
182.5
227.5
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
3,900
173.0
218.0
8.200.000
10,300,000
18,500.000
2,800
150.5
195.5
7,100,000
9.300.000
16,400,000
1,200
106.0
151.0
4,900,000
6,900,000
11,800,000
300
69.0
116.5
500,000
600,000
1,100,000
200
68.0
113.0
1,500,000
1,500,000
70.0
119.5
2,100,000
1,600,000
3,700,000
14,300
278,000
56,400,000
67,100,000
123,500,000
823,600
147.5
192.5
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
255,200
148.0
193.0
7,800,000
9,700,000
17,500,000
348,300
118.0
• 193.0
8.600.000
10.800.000
19 100,000
1,100
255,000
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
1S,S00,000
2,800
591,000
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
269,900
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10.400.000
18,800,000
4,000
26,000
182.5
227.5
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
170.0
215.0
8,000,000
10,290,000
18,200,000
2,000
145.5
190. 5
6.700,000
8,700,000
15,400,000
800
102.0
148.0
4,700,000
6,700,000
11,400,000
200
68.0
1,200,000
1,200,000
68.0
113.0
2,100,000
200,000
2,300,000
17,700
1,682,100
886,900
81,700,000
99,500,000
181,200,000
70.5
117.0
3,000,000
2,800,000
5.800,000
o
238,100
142.0
187.0
7.100,000
9,100,000
16,200,000
137,000
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
200,900
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
828,400
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400.000
3,400
355,400
183.0
228.0
8,400.000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4,000
15,600
182.0
227.0
8,600.000
10,700,000
19,300,000
3,500
168.0
213.0
7,(00,000
10,100,000
18,000,000
1.800
141.5
186.5
6,500,000
8,500,000
15.000,000
800
94.0
146.5
3.900,000
5,300,000
9.200.000
200
68.0
1,200,000
1,200,000
72.5
121.5
2,900,000
2,800,000
5,700,000
17,600
576,000
1. 199.40(1
75,100,000
!H,700,000
166.800,000
192,300
131.0
188.0
6,900,000
8.700,000
15,600,0011
445,100
148.0
19.3.0
8,100.000
10.100,000
18,200,000
668.400
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
1!'. 100,000
1,100
394,800
167.0
212.0
8.400,000
10,100.000
18,800,000
2,800
481,200
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
276,600
183.0
228.0
8,400.000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4.000
17.800
182.5
227.5
8.600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3.500
169.0
214.0
8,000,000
10,100,000
18,100.000
1.900
143.0
188.0
6,500,000
8,600,000
15,100,000
800
102.0
147.0
4.800,000
7,000,000
11,800,000
200
69.0
116.0
2,000.000
800,000
2,800,000
80.5
126.0
3,800.000
5,600.000
9,400,000
17,700
1,690.600
775,600
82,700,000
104,100,000
186,800,000
■
\
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
TABLE 51.
11°
(Continued). POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, sec Tabic 50) Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States h V American River Hydro-electric Company
Geological Survey used in computations Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P. F. = 0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Year and Month
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet.
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any date
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre-
rate to zero on May 1
With Flood Control
Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
in a season IB more than 50 per cent of the uormi! precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrnoe
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1909—
1.493.200
862.600
397,200
475,600
584,500
455,200
142,300
37.300
17,100
31,400
273.100
471,200
25,000
355.000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
327.900
238,700
134.800
42,300
222,200
57,600
55.500
01,5011
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
55,900
61,500
53.600
55,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
37,000
61,500
2,000
2,800
3,400
4,000
3,500
2,000
900
300
1.052,000
751.600
274,200
354.600
458,700
332,800
42,400
219,200
148.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
182.0
170.5
148,0
109.5
94.5
181.5
202.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
227.0
215.5
193.0
154.5
150.5
226.5
6.800,000
7,800,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,600.000
8.100,000
6,800,000
5,200,000
4,100,000
8,600,000
8,500,000
9,700,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10,700,000
10,200,000
8,800,000
7,300.000
4,400,000
10,700,000
15,300,000
17,500,01 1(1
19,400,000
18,800,000
19,400(11111
18,800,1100
19,300.000
18.300,0(10
15,600.000
12,500,000
8,500,000
19,300,000
25,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
327,
238,700
134,800
42,300
222,200
66,600
68.800
76,200
65.400
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
55,900
67,600
60,400
65,500
72,500
64,000
61,500
59.500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
37,000
66,200
1,100
2.800
3,100
1.000
3.500
2,000
900
300
1,211,200
728,300
248,500
170,100
379,600
458,700
332,800
42.400
128
148.0
148.0
167,0
183
183
182
170 5
118
109.5
94.5
166.0
179.5
193.0
193
212
228
_'js
_'L'7
215 5
193.0
154.5
150.5
211.0
O (19
7.800.000
8,600,000
8.400,000
8,600,000
8.400,000
8.600.000
8.100.000
6,800,000
5,200,000
4.100,000
8,600,000
8,500.000
9.700,000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10,71111,01111
10.200.000
8.800.000
7,300.000
4,400,000
111.70(1,000
15,400,000
17 5110,11110
1" 100,01111
April
is 800,000
19,400.000
is son,
July
19.300.000
!S (00.000
15 0(10,01 III
12.500,000
8,500,000
19.300,000
5,240,700
524,000
291,200
645,700
624,300
488,800
134,700
31,700
13,100
12.000
21,000
32,000
98,200
716,500
61,500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
53,600
21,000
32,000
55,500
693,600
61,500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
53,200
42,700
18,900
2,000
2,800
3,400
3,700
2,600
1,100
300
200
3,485,500
397,200
180,200
522,700
503,300
363.000
38,400
90,000,000
8,600.000
7.800,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,600,000
8,300,000
8,000,000
6,800,000
4,300,000
1,100,000
1.700,000
3,300,000
112,700,000
10,800,000
9,700,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10,200,000
9,000,000
6,100,000
4.100,000
202,700,000
19,400,000
17,500,000
19.400,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18.700,000
18,200,000
15,800,000
10,400,000
1,100,000
1,700,000
7,400,000
765,500
76.200
68.800
76,300
65,300
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
53,600
21,000
32,000
55,500
730,600
72,600
65,500
72,500
64,000
61,500
59,500
61,500
01,500
53,200
42,700
18,000
1,100
2.800
3,400
3,700
2,600
1,100
300
200
2,737,700
375.200
156.900
496,900
318,900
833,900
363.000
38.400
90,100,000
8,000,000
7,800,000
8.600,000
8,400.000
8.600.000
8.300,000
8.000.000
6.800.000
4,300,000
1,100.000
1.700,000
3.300.000
112,700.000
10.800,000
9,700,000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10,800.000
111,100, III III
10.200.000
9.000.000
6.100.000
4,100,000
202.800,000
1910—
351,200
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
328,900
233,900
121,400
25,500
25,200
25,000
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
182.0
170.0
145.0
100.0
68.5
68.0
76.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228
228.0
227.0
215.0
190.0
148.5
124
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
355.000
355.000
328,900
233,900
121,400
25,500
25,200
25.000
148
148.0
148.0
167
183.0
182
170
115 ll
100
68.5
68.0
76.0
193.0
193.0
193.0
212.0
228.0
227.0
215
190.0
148.5
1 . .loinioo
February... .
17,500,000
i" mo ooii
IS Silll 9119
19 100,000
IS 7011000
July
IS 200,1109
15,800.000
1II40O.IKIII
1.100.000
1.700.000
124
7,100,1100
Totals
2.916,700
852,500
588,400
797,900
897,900
891.400
1,055,400
196,600
28,200
18,100
21,500
25,600
24,600
641,100
52,000
55.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
25,600
24,600
577,900
43,600
55.500
61,500
59.500
61.500
59.500
61.500
61.500
59,500
61,500
10,100
16,100
2,000
2.800
3.400
4,000
3,600
2,000
1,000
200
2,004,800
426,900
477,400
674,900
776,900
765.600
933,000
85,500
75,500,000
5,700,000
7,800,0110
8,600,000
8,400,000
8.600.000
8,400.000
8.600,000
8,100,000
6,800.000
5,100,000
1,400.000
1,300,000
92,300,000
0, 700,000
9, 700,111 III
10,800,000
10,400,000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,300,000
8,900,000
7,200,000
900,000
167,800,000
12.100,000
1 7.500,000
19,100.000
18.800,000
19,400.(111(1
18,800,000
19.190,1100
18,400,000
15,700,000
12,300,000
2,300,000
1.300,000
002.700
60,100
68,000
76,200
65,400
61,500
59.500
61,500
61.500
59,500
61.500
25,600
24.600
614,500
49,700
65.500
72.500
64.000
61,500
59.500
1,1 500
61,500
59.500
61,500
10,100
15,200
1,100
2.800
3.400
4.000
3,600
2,000
1,000
200
1,347,900
587,700
454,000
049,200
592,400
401,400
765,600
933.000
85.500
75.500,000
6,000,000
7.800,000
S, 000000
8,400,000
8.600,000
8,400.000
8,600.000
8.100.000
6,800,000
5 100,000
1.400,000
1,300.000
92.300.000
7.01 10.000
9,7011,
Ill, SOU, III in
10.400.000
10,800,000
10.400.000
10.800.000
10.300.000
8.900.000
7.200,000
900,000
I07.SOII.000
1911—
January , .
25,000
358,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
355,000
339,100
240,700
137,800
35.300
25,000
130.5
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
182.5
172.0
149.0
107.5
72.0
68.0
201.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
227.5
217.0
194.0
152,5
119.0
25,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
355.000
355.000
355.000
339,100
240,700
137,800
35,300
25,000
117.0
148.0
118.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
182 5
172.0
149.0
107.5
72.0
08.0
IS2
193
193 II
212
J 28
228.0
227 5
217
194.0
152 5
119.0
13,1 600
February
March
;7 500,000
18 100,000
18,800.000
19,100,000
18.800,000
July
August
19,400,000
18,409,000
15 700,000
October
12.300,000
November
2.300,000
December
1,300.000
Totals
5,398,100
69,600
46,000
118,200
170.600
420,700
283,600
51,000
12,800
19,700
15,000
87,400
36,800
643,700
50,600
44,600
60,800
59.500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
15,000
49,300
34,700
595,200
19,000
1,400
51,800
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
34,400
38,100
2,100
19,000
300
800
3,400
3,900
2,900
1,400
500
200
4,140.200
23.800
166,400
78,800,000
2,700,000
2,300,000
3,500,000
4,100,000
7.200.000
Si 1(10.000
8.300,000
7,300,000
5,500,000
900,000
3,100,000
1,800,000
96,900,000
1,700,000
100,000
4,900,000
6,100,000
9,400,000
10,400.000
10,400,000
9,500.000
7,500,000
3,400,000
3,800,000
200,000
175,700,000
4,400,000
2,400,000
8,400,000
10,200.000
16,600.000
18.800,000
18,700,000
16.800,000
13.000,000
4,300,000
6.900,000
2,000,000
685,800
50,600
44,600
60,800
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
15,000
49,300
34.700
626,800
19,000
1,400
51,800
59,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
31,400
38.100
2,100
18,100
300
800
3,400
3.900
2,900
1.400
500
200
2,284,300
II
1.783.100
23.800
166.400
79,100.000
2,700,000
2,300,000
3.500.000
4,100,000
7.200,000
8.400,000
8.300,000
7,300.000
5,500,000
900.11911
3.100.000
l.soa.ooo
97,200.000
1.700.000
100.000
4. 900.000
li. 100,000
9.400.000
10.400.000
10.100.000
9.500.000
7.5OO.0OO
3.400,000
3,800,000
200,000
170,300,000
\ta-
25,000
25,000
25,000
30,600
81,900
355,000
349,800
273,900
160,800
60,100
25,200
25,000
68.5
68.0
75.5
89.0
153.5
183.0
175.5
155.5
120.0
80.0
78.5
68.0
114.0
113.0
121.5
134.0
198.5
228.0
220.5
200.5
165.0
129.5
129.0
113.0
25.000
25,000
25,000
30,600
81.900
;;:,:,, iiim
349,800
273,900
160.800
60.100
25,200
25.000
08 5
68.0
75 5
89.0
153.5
183.0
175.5
155,5
120.0
80.0
78.5
C8.0
114.0
113.0
121,5
134.0
198 5
228
220 5
200.5
165.0
129 5
129.0
113.0
4,400,000
Februarv
2 100,000
March ... .
8.400.000
1112110,0011
May . .
1 (',,600.000
June. .
18,800,000
July
18.700,000
1 6 800.000
13,000.000
October
4.300.000
November
6.900.000
2,000,000
Totals
1,331,400
618,000
509,800
13,400
190.200
55,100.000
67,400,000
122.500,000
618,000
509.800
13,400
190.200
55.100,000
67,400.000
122.500.000
72924
1 14
CONTROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F.=
= 1.00
With Flood Control
econd-feel
. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood
control from
to any dal
e in a season is more than 50 per
cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
'5,000 acr<
:-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre
-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
poration
icre-feet
Upper unit,
tiilrace
Lower unit,
tailrace
Upper unit,
tailrace
Lower unit,
tailrace
Total
elevation
elevation
elevation
elevation
207 feet
162 feet
207 feet
162 feet
72.0
117.5
3,400,000
3,600,000
7,000,000
149,400
88.0
133.0
4,000.000
5,000,000
9,000,000
126,000
148.0
193.0
8.600.000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
243,500
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
507,400
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
408.100
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10.400,000
18,8011.000
4,000
12,800
181.5
226.5
8,600.000
10,700,000
19,300.000
3,400
167.0
212.0
7,900,000
10,000,000
17,900,000
1,800
139.5
184.5
6,400.000
8,400,000
14,800,000
800
93.5
145.0
3,200,000
5.500.000
8,700,000
200
68.0
600,000
600,000
68.0
113.0
1,600,000
200,000
1,800,000
17,500
518,900
928,300
69,700,000
900,000
85,800,000
155,500,000
900,000
8,200,000
68.0
89.5
139.5
3,400,000
4,800,000
60,400
124.0
169.0
6,300,000
8,400,000
14,700,000
1,100
134.600
167.0
212.0
8.400.000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
181,600
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
24.400
182.0
227.0
8,300,000
10,400,000
18,700,000
3.700
167.5
212.5
8,000,000
10,000,000
18.000,000
2,400
137.5
182.5
6,500.000
8,600,000
15,100,000
1,000
89.0
140.0
3,500,000
4,900,000
8,400,000
300
68.0
113.0
2,400,000
1,100.000
3.500,000
200
68
113.0
2,400,000
200,000
2,600,000
68.0
113.0
2,400,000
200,000
2,600,000
14,900
195,000
206,000
61,100,000
1,900,000
69,800,000
500,000
130,900,000
2,400,000
68.0
113.0
95,200
119.5
175.5
5,900,000
6,800,000
12,700,000
165,600
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,200
256,200
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
467,900
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800.000
19,400.000
3,400
1.".. 71 III
181.0
226.0
8.300.000
10.300,000
18,600,000
3,500
165.0
210.0
7,800,000
9,900,000
17,700,000
2,200
133.5
178.5
6,300,000
8.400.000
14,700,000
900
87.5
139.0
1.700,000
4.600,000
6,300,000
300
68 5
500,000
500.000
o
500 000
200
68.0
500|000
68.0
113.0
2.000,000 400,000
2.400,000
14,500
517,000
483,600
60,500,000 "2 nnn nnn
133,400,000
2,100,000
68.0
113.0
2,000,000
100.000
68.0
113.0
1,900.000
100,000
2,000,000
105.0
150.0
5,000,000
7,100,000
12,100,000
900
24,800
159.5
204.5
7,400,000
9.500.000
16.900,000
2,800
313,100
183.0
228.0
8.600,000
10,800.000
19,400,000
3,400
52,500
182.5
227.5
8,400,000
10,400,000
18.800.000
3,800
172.5
217.5
8,200,000
10,300,000
18.500,000
2,700
148.5
193.5
7,000,000 9,200,000
Hi. 200,000
1,200
106.5
151.5
4,800,000
6,900,000
11,700,000
300
68.0
113.0
1,800.000
1,800,00
200
o
83.5
137.5
3,200,000
4,000.000
7,200,000
58,000
136.5
181.5
6,700,000
8,800,000
15,500,000
15,300
82,800
365,600
65,000,000
77,200,000
142,200,000
\
-
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
TABLE 51.
113
(Continued). POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, sec Table 50) Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States h ? American River Hydro-electric Company
Geological Survey used in computations Installed capacity of power plant. 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Yfar and Month
MeaBured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet.
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any datt
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre
rate to zero ou May 1
With Flood Control
Maximum reservoir space required 175.000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
feet on January 1; 175.000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power bead in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hoars
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of mouth
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1913—
January
06,800
71.500
107.400
359.100
443.500
151.400
37,700
17,400
9.200
9.500
28.900
132.100
25.000
35,800
25,000
31.200
271,000
355.000
340,300
251.100
142,700
31.700
25.200
25.0D0
52,300
55.500
60.600
59.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59.500
9,500
28,600
38,900
33,700
26,800
40,600
59,500
61,500
59.500
61.500
01,500
59,500
6,200
300
17,500
300
2,200
3,400
3.900
2,800
1,200
300
200
234,300
43,700
76
70.0
69.0
129.0
180.5
182.5
173.0
150.5
106.0
69.0
68.0
70.0
127,5
115
114
171
225.5
227.5
218.0
195.5
151.0
116.5
113
119.5
3,100.000
3.000.000
3,200,000
5.900,000
8.500,000
8.400,000
8,200,000
7.100,000
4.900,000
500.000
1,500.000
2.100.000
3.300,000
2,400,000
3.600,000
8.000,000
10,700,000
10,400,000
111.2110.
9,300.000
6,900,000
600,000
1.600.000
6.400,000
5,400,000
6.800,000
13,900.000
19.200,000
18.800.000
18.500,000
16,400,000
11.800,000
1,100,000
1.500.000
3,700,000
25,000
35,800
25.000
31,200
271,000
355.000
340,300
251,100
142,700
31,700
25.200
25.000
52.300
55,500
60,600
59,500
01,500
59,500
61.500
61.500
59.500
9,500
28.600
38,900
33.700
26,800
40,600
59,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59.500
6.200
300
17,500
300
2,200
3,400
3,900
2,800
1,200
300
200
234.300
43.700
76.0
70.0
69.0
129.0
180.5
182.5
173
150.5
106.0
69.0
68.0
70.0
127 5
116
114
174.0
225 5
227.5
318
195 5
151.0
116.5
113.0
119.5
3.100,000
3.000.000
3.200.000
5.900.000
8,500.000
8.400.000
B.200,
7.100,000
4"! 10,0011
500,000
1.500.000
2,100,000
3.300.000
2,400,000
3.600.000
8,000.0011
1070 :i
10,4
10,300.000
9.8 on
6.900,000
600.000
1,600,000
6,400.000
5.400.000
6,800.000
April
13.900.000
June
July
August .
September
October
November
19.200.000
18,800,000
18,500.000
16.400.000
11,800.000
1.100,000
1.500,000
3,700.006
1,464.500
1,052,000
389,500
497,000
560.400
716.800
392.300
129.900
27.700
11,300
20.400
22,300
41.900
608,400
61.500
55.500
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
01.500
59.500
59.200
22.300
39,4011
488,100
61.500
55.500
61,500
59,500
01.500
59.500
61,500
61,500
59,500
58,700
2.500
14.300
2,000
2,800
3,400
4.000
3400
2.000
800
200
278.000
674,700
278,500
374,000
439,400
591.000
269,900
20,000
56.400,000
8.500,000
7.800.000
8,600.000
8,400,000
8,600.000
8,400.000
8,600,000
8,000.000
6,700.000
4.700,000
1,200,000
2,100.000
67.100,000
10,600.000
9,700,000
10,800.000
10.400.000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10,200.000
8,700,000
6.700,000
200.000
123,500,000
19,100.000
17,500.000
19.400,000
18.800,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19.400,000
18.200,000
15.400,000
11.400,000
1.200.000
2.300.000
608,400
76,500
68.800
76.200
65,300
01,500
59,500
61.500
61.500
59,500
59,200
22,300
39.400
488.100
72,000
65.500
72,500
64,000
61,500
59,500
61.500
61.500
59.500
58,700
2.500
14,300
1,100
2,800
3.400
4,000
3,400
2,000
800
200
823,600
255.200
348,300
255,000
278,000
591,000
269,900
26,000
56,400,000
8.600,000
7,800,1
8,800,000
8.400,000
8.600,000
8,400.000
8,000,
8.000,000
6.700.000
4,700.000
1 200
2.100.000
67,100,000
10,800,000
9.700,000
10.800,000
Hi 100,000
III Mill. Illlll
10.-100 1100
10,800,000
10290,000
8,7011,009
6.70C.OOO
200.000
123,500,000
1914—
100,700
355,000
355,000
355.000
355,000
355,000
355,000
331,900
233.200
123.500
25,200
25,000
179.5
183.0
183,0
183.0
183.0
183
182.5
170
145.5
102.0
68.0
68.0
224.5
228.0
228.0
228.0
228
228
227 5
215 ii
190 5
148.0
113.0
100,700
180,000
180,000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
331.900
233.200
123.500
25,200
25,000
117 5
148 o
118
167 II
183
183.0
182 5
1700
145 5
102 ii
680
68.0
192 5
193
193
212
228
228
227 5
215
190 5
148
113
19,400.000
17,500.000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19 100,1100
18,800,000
July
19 4110,000
18.200.000
15,400.000
11,400,000
1.200,000
2,300,000
3,861.500
95,000
511.600
285,800
506,400
954.200
477,800
108.600
24.100
13,400
13.300
22.500
80.600
662,400
55.100
55.500
61.500
59.500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
50,900
22,500
50,500
602,700
30,600
55.500
61,500
59.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59.500
47,600
30.100
18.600
2.000
2.800
3.400
4,000
3,500
1.800
800
200
2,653,500
79.900
162,800
385,400
828,400
355,400
15.600
81.600,000
3.000,000
6,800,000
8,600.000
8.400,000
8,600,000
8.400,000
8.600,000
7.900.000
6,500.000
3,900,000
1,200.000
2,900,000
99,300,000
2,800,000
8,800.000
10,800.000
10,400.000
10.800,000
10,400.000
10,700.000
10.100.000
8.500,000
5.300,000
2,800.000
180,900.000
5.800,000
15.000.000
19,400,000
18,800.000
10.4110,1100
18.800.000
19.300,000
18,000.000
15.000.000
9.200,000
1.200,000
5,700,000
711,200
55.100
65.100
76,300
65.100
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59,500
50,900
22,500
50.500
639,300
30,600
62,700
72.500
64.000
61.500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59.500
47,600
30,100
17.700
1.100
2,800
3.400
4.000
3.500
1.800
800
200
1,682,100
238.100
137,000
200.900
886,900
828,400
355400
15.600
70 5
142.0
148.0
167.0
183.0
183
182
168
141 5
94.0
68.0
72 5
117.0
187.0
193.0
212 II
SI 700,000
3,000,000
7.100,000
8,800,000
8.400,000
99.500,000
2,800,000
9 109,000
10.800,000
10.400,000
lo siio onii
10. 4110.01 in
10. Too ooil
10.100.000
8,500.000
5.300,000
2.800,000
181.200,000
1915—
25.000
34.300
355.000
355.000
355,000
355,000
355,000
321.000
218,600
111,200
25.200
25,000
70.5
160.5
183.0
183.0
183,0
183.0
182.0
168.0
141.5
94.0
68,0
72.5
117
205 5
228.0
228.0
228,0
228.0
227.0
213
186 5
146 5
25,000
34,300
180.000
180.000
355,000
355,000
355,000
321.000
218,600
111.200
25.200
25.200
,-,8110 000
16,200,000
19.400.000
18,800.000
19.400,000
18,800,000
July
227.0
213.0
ISO 5
146 5
8,600.000
7.' 00.
6,500.000
3.900,000
1.21 10.01 III
2,900,000
19.300.000
18.000,000
15.000.000
9,200,000
November
December
Totals
1.200,000
121,5
121 5
.•,,700,11110
3,093,3011
476,000
584,300
807,100
700,200
607.000
399.000
121.200
20,900
13,100
38,500
38,700
123,500
659,000
69,500
57.500
61.500
59.500
61.500
59.500
61.500
61.500
59.500
61.500
37,000
61,200
588,300
57.500
57.500
61.500
59.500
61,500
59.500
01,500
61.500
69.500
01.500
9.200
58,200
18,500
2,000
2,800
3.400
4.000
3,500
1,900
800
200
1.827,500
29,000
469,300
684,100
579.200
481,200
276.600
17.800
1400
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
182.5
169.0
143.0
102
69.0
80.5
190,0
228.0
228.0
228
228.0
228.0
227 5
214.0
188
147
116
126.0
74,800,000
6.500,000
8.100.000
8,000.000
8.400.000
8.600.000
8.400.000
8,600,000
8.000,000
6,500.000
4,800.000
2,000.000
3,800,000
91,400,000
8,400,000
10,100,000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10.400,000
10,800,000
10.100,000
8.600,000
7,000.000
800.000
5,600.000
166,200,000
14,900.000
18,200,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18,100.000
15,100,000
11.800,000
2,800,000
9,400.000
25.000
180,000
180.000
180,000
355,000
355.000
355.000
331,400
225.800
118.000
32.700
26.000
689,300
66.200
71,300
76.200
65.300
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
37,000
61,200
611,000
02.500
67.900
72.500
64.000
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59.500
61.500
9,200
58,20.0
17,600
1.100
2.800
3,400
4,000
3.500
1.900
800
200
576,000
192,300
445.100
068.400
394.800
1.199,400
481,200
2711,600
17.800
131.0
148
148
167.0
183.0
183.0
182.5
109.0
143
102.0
69.0
80.5
188.0
193.0
193.0
212
22S
228.0
227 5
214.0
188.0
147.0
110.0
128.0
75.100.000
6,900,000
8,100,000
8,600.0011
8.400.000
8.600,000
8.400 000
S.I'.OII.IIOO
8.000.000
6.500,000
4,800,000
2,000.000
3.800.000
91.700.000
8,700. 000
10.100,000
10.800,000
10.100,000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,100,000
8,600.000
7,000,000
800.000
5,600.000
166,800.000
[BJ.6—
25.000
355.000
355.000
355.000
355.000
355.000
355.000
331.400
225,800
118,000
32,700
25,000
April
19.400.000
19.400,000
18,800,000
19.400,000
18.100,000
15.100.000
11.800,000
2,800.000
9.400.000
July. .
September
October
Totals
3.929,500
701.200
668,400
18,600
2,537,200
82,300,000
103,800,000
180,100,000
742.200
699,300
17.700
1,090.600
775,600
82,700,000
104,100,000
1S6.800.000
72924
^
■
a
k
id)
dm
l
11JJ
CONTROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F.=0.80 L.F. = 1.00
With Flood Control
ond-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Release
>ration
■e-feet
through
Waste over
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
spillway
in acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
Total
207 feet
162 feet
207 feet
162 feet
324,600
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19.400,000
181,300
148.0
193.0
7.800.000
9,700,000
17,500,000
385,500
148.0
193.0
8.600.000
10,800,000
19.400,000
1,100
126,000
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
400,900
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
249,100
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4,000
3,100
180.0
225.0
8,500,000
10,700,000
19,200,000
3,200
163.0
208.0
7,700,000
9,800,000
17,500,000
1,700
133.5
178.5
6,100,000
8,200,000
14,300,000
700
89.0
139.0
2,700,000
5,200,000
7.900,000
200
68.0
113.0
2,100,000
600,000
2,700,000
74.5
120.0
3,500,000
3,700,000
7,200,000
17,100
1,017,400
653,100
81,000,000
101,100,000
7,200,000
182,100,000
107.5
152.5
5,100,000
12,300,000
127,500
123.5
168.5
5,800,000
7,800,000
13.600,000
189,200
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1,100
181,800
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800.000
2,800
891,700
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
548,000
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4,000
15,700
181.0
226.0
8,600,000
10,700,000
19,300,000
3,300
165.5
210.5
7,800,000
10,000,000
17,800,000
1,800
137.5
182.5
6,300.000
8,400,000
14,700,000
700
92.5
142.0
4,100,000
5,500,000
9,600,000
200
70.0
118.5
2,400,000
1,700.000
4,100,000
127,100
125.5
179.0
6,200,000
7,700,000
13,900,000
17,300
625,000
1,455,400
80,300,000
8,600,000
101,400,000
10,800,000
181,700,000
19,400,000
119,400
148.0
193.0
41,000
148.0
193.0
7,800,000
9,700,000
17,500,000
69,200
148.0
193.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
1.100
260,400
167.0
212.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
2,800
486,600
183.0
228.0
8,600,000
10,800,000
19,400,000
3,400
155,900
183.0
228.0
8,400,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
4,000
11,000
181.5
226.5
8,600,000
10,700,000
19,300,000
3,400
166.0
211.0
7,800,000
10,000,000
17,800,000
1 1,800
140.0
185.0
6.400.000
8,500,000
14,900,000
800
103.0
148.0
4,900,000
7,000,000
11,900,000
200
68.0
114.0
1,500.000
100,000
1,600,000
68.0
1,400,000
1,400,000
17,500
490,000
653,500
81,000,000
99,200,000
180,200,000
G8.0
113.0
1,900,000
200,000
2,100,000
87.0
135.0
3,800,000
4,800.000
8,600,000
69.5
119.0
2,800,000
1,400,000
4. 200,000
300
76.0
122.5
3,500,000
4,500.000
8,000,000
500
77.5
125.5
3.400,000
4,300,000
7,700,000
400
70.0
700,000
700,000
500
69.5
100,000
100,000
500
68.5
100,000
100,000
400
68.0
100,000
100,000
300
68.0
113.0
600,000
200,000
800,000
200
70.0
119.0
2,300.000
1,400,000
3,700,000
70.0
116.0
3,100,000
2,100,000
5,200,000
3,100
22,400,000
18,900,000
41,300,000
\
TABLE 51. (Continued). POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloina reservoirs not constructed
114
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, sec Table 50)
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States
Geological Survey used in computations
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
117,500
407.200
274.800
549.2110
633.200
530,500
103,31111
22.800
11,800
11.400
. 10,800
32.11011
17.400
124.000
3 12.1100
440,400
3117,400
115.300
19.900
4,30(1
24.700
57,800
47,(100
47,800
1,519,800
41.600
360.800
3U.400
501.700
.5(13.700
(15,50(1
16,600
8.500
8.000
(1.800
0,000
12,300
-'(in! Mill
38,000
37. Hid
238,0110
361.0(10
188,000
161,000
33.600
10,900
'1. 3110
34,700
152.400
272,000
1.789,000
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in aere-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
29.100
26,500
333.700
.■;:..-, nun
355.000
355. OHO
355,000
318,500
214,900
10.5,900
25,200
25,000
25,000
25,000
57.100
247.000
355,000
355,000
323,500
216,700
95.600
25.400
25,200
25,000
25,000
25,000
288,5110
355,000
355,000
355,000
312.400
202,400
85,700
25,500
25,200
25,000
25.000
25,000
25,000
140,000
355,(10(1
355,000
342.000
248.800
134,000
25.500
25,200
92.600
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
61,300
55,500
61,500
59,500
61.500
59.500
61.500
61.500
59,500
41,700
10,800
29,400
623.200
17.400
48,100
lil. 500
59,500
61,500
59.5011
(II 500
61,500
48,300
44.700
45.600
46,000
615.100
30,200
53,600
61,500
59,500
61,500
59.500
61,500
lil. 500
23.700
9,800
9.000
38.400
535.700
38,200
36,200
61,500
511,500
61.500
59,500
61,500
61,5110
57.700
34,5(111
47,600
61,500
640,700
38,800
44.500
61 600
59.500
61,500
59,500
61.500
61.500
59.500
49.600
2.600
Evaporation
in acre-feet
560,000
43.800
61.500
59.500
61,500
59.500
61.500
61.500
45,600
13,000
2,300
1,800
471.500
5.400
43.700
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
43,600
3,900
700
1.200
01,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
01,500
61.500
58.900
200
37.200
61,500
524,700
2.000
2,800
3,400
4.000
3,400
1,800
800
200
18,400
1,500
2.800
3.400
3.700
2.400
1.000
300
200
15,300
2.000
2.800
3,400
3,500
2.200
900
300
200
15,3011
II
900
2,800
3,400
3,800
2,700
1.200
300
200
1 5,3
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
130.500
428.200
507,400
408,100
12,800
Average power head in feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
1,487,000
211.900
181.000
21,400
124,900
140,700
467.900
15,700
26,100
313.100
52,500
72
91,0
183.0
183 II
183
183.0
181 5
167.0
139.5
93.5
68.0
68
68.0
89 .5
130 5
179
183 II
182
167.5
137.5
89.0
68.0
68.0
08,0
68.0
126.0
181 5
183.0
183
181
165
1.3.3 5
87 5
1,8 6
68.0
68
68
68
105 II
160.0
183.0
182 5
172,5
148 5
100.5
68
83 5
137 5
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
117 5
136.0
228
228 II
228.0
228.0
226 5
212.0
184.5
145.0
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
113.0
139 5
I 75 5
224 II
228
227,0
212.5
182.5
140.0
113.0
113.0
113.0
113.0
184.0
226,5
228
228.0
226
210
178.5
1.39 II
113,0
113
150
205
228.0
227,5
217 .6
193 5
151 5
113.0
137 5
182.5
3,400.000
3,900,000
8,600,000
8.400.000
8.600.000
8.400.000
8,600.000
7,900,000
6,400.000
3,200.000
600,000
1,600,000
69,600,000
900.01111
3,400.000
6,200.000
8.200.000
8,600,000
8.300,000
8.000,000
6.500,000
3.500,000
2.400,000
2.400.000
2.400,000
60,800,000
1 ,900,000
5.300,000
8,600.000
8.400.000
8.600,000
8.300,000
7,800,000
6.300,000
1.700.000
500.0011
500,000
2,000.000
;,'i 900,000
.'noil iiiiii
1,000.000
5,000.000
7.300,000
8.600,000
8.400.000
8,200.11011
7,000.000
4.800.000
1.800.000
3,200.000
6.500,000
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
3.600.000
4.8OO.000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10.800.000
10.400,000
10.700,000
10.000.000
8,400.000
5.500,000
200,000
85.600.000
1.800,000
8,300,000
10,300,000
10.800,000
10.400,000
10,000,000
8.6(111,000
4.900.000
1,100,000
200,000
200,000
69,600,000
500,000
6.300,000
In. 7110 iiiiii
10.400.000
in si in iimi
10,300,000
0, J.linn
8.11111.111)11
1,600,000
100.000
.' '."Jill.
100,000
100.000
7 mm
9,100.000
10,800,000
10,100,000
10.300,000
9,200,000
0,900,(11111
4.000.000
8.600,000
64,700.000 70,900,000
7,000.000
8,700.000
19. loo, iiiiii
18.800,000
19,400,000
18.800.000
19,300,000
17.900.000
14,800.000
8,700,000
600.000
1, 800.000
155,200.000
900.000
8.200,000
14,500,000
18,500,000
19,400,000
18,700,000
18,000 000
15,100,000
8,400,000
3,500,000
2,1 ,000
2,600,000
130.400,000
2,400,000
11,600,000
19,300,000
18,800,000
19. Kill, 11(10
18,600,000
17,700,000
14,700,000
6,300.000
500.000
500.000
2.100.000
132. 20(1. Ill 111
2,100,000
-'.nun.
12,10(1.000
Hi, 7011, III to
19,400,000
18,800,000
18,500,000
16,200,000
11,700,000
1,800.000
7,200,000
15,100,000
141,600,000
With Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
rate to zero on May I
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
29,100
26,500
180.000
!8ii mm
355,000
355.000
355,000
.118.500
214.900
105,900
25,200
25,000
25.000
25.000
57,100
180,000
355.001!
355,0011
323,5011
216,700
95.600
25,400
25,200
25.000
25,000
25,000
180,000
180.000
355,000
355,0110
312,400
202.4011
85.700
25.500
25,200
25,000
25,000
20,000
25,000
140,000
355.000
355,000
312.000
248,80(1
134.000
25,500
25.200
92,000
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
61,300
58,000
76,200
65,500
61,5110
59.500
61.500
61,500
59,500
41,700
10,800
29,400
616,400
1 7.400
48,100
65,300
65,500
01,500
59.500
61,500
61,500
48,300
44.700
45.600
46.000
621,900
36,200
61,200
76,200
65,300
61.500
59,500
6 1 ,5011
61,500
23.700
9.800
9,000
38,400
38,200
36.200
01.500
60,200
01,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
57,700
34,500
47.600
03,500
613,100
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
38,800
16,300
72,600
64,100
01.500
59.500
61,500
61.500
59.500
49,600
2,600
577.500
43,800
64,300
04,200
61.500
59.500
61,500
61,500
45 600
13,000
2,300
1.800
479.0110
5,400
40.400
72.600
64.000
61.500
59,500
61,500
61,500
4.3,600
3,900
730
1,200
61.500
60.100
01,500
59.500
61,500
61.500
58,900
200
37,200
63.100
526,900
Evaporation
in acre-feet
1.100
2.800
3.400
4.000
3.400
1.800
800
200
1.100
2.800
3.400
3.700
2.400
1.000
300
200
14,000
1,200
7 8lli
3.400
3.500
2.200
900
300
200
14.500
II
900
2.800
3.400
3.800
2,700
1.200
300
200
15,300
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
149,400
126,000
243,500
60.400
134,600
95,200
165,600
256.200
24,800
58,000
Waste over
spillway
507.400
408.100
12,800
(128,300
(I
II
o
181.600
24.400
206,0110
(I
467,91111
15,700
II
483.600
o
313,100
52,500
Average power head in feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
72
88
148
167
183.0
183.0
181.5
167,0
139.5
93.5
68
68.0
68.0
89.5
124
167.0
183.0
182.0
167 5
137.5
89 II
68.0
68
68.0
68.
110.5
148
167 II
183.0
181.0
165
133.5
87.5
68 5
68.0
68.0
68.0
68.0
105
159.5
183.0
182.5
172 5
148,5
106.5
68.0
83.5
136.5
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
117 5
133.0
193
212 .0
228.0
228
226.5
212.0
184.5
145,0
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
113.0
139 5
169
212.0
228.0
227,0
212.5
182.5
140.0
113.0
113,0
113.0
113,0
175.5
193.0
212.0
228,0
226.0
210
178.5
139,0
113
113.0
150.0
204,5
228.0
227.5
217.5
193,5
151.5
113.0
137.5
181.5
3,4011,0110
I.
8.600.000
v motion
8,600,000
8.400.000
8.600,000
7' mil
6,400.000
3,200,000
600,0011
1,600,000
i,'i.7illilinil
Mill'
3,11111,
6,300,11011
8.400.000
8, Ml III III
8.300,000
8,000.000
...7,1111111111
3,500,000
...41111.01 III
2,400,000
2,400.000
61,100,000
1,900,0110
5,900.000
8,600,000
8.400.0110
8,600,000
8,300.000
7.800,000
i,3iin.niin
1,71111,111111
500,000
500.000
2.000.000
131 500.0011
.',( .(inn
1,900,000
5,000,000
7,. inn. II! in
8.600,000
8,1011.11110
.8 200,000
7 111,
4,800.000
I.8IIII.I
3.200.000
6.700.000
65,000,000
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
3.600,000
5.000.000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10,700.000
10.000.000
8.400,000
5.500,000
200,000
85,800,000
4.800.000
8.400,000
10.400.000
10.800,000
10,400.000
10.000.000
8,1,011,
4.900.000
1.100.000
200.000
200.000
6(1,800,1100
500,000
6,800,000
If 81 IIIIII III
1114011,111111
111.800
10.300.000
9.900.000
8.400.000
4.600,000
400.000
100.000
inil.iinn
7,100,000
9.500.000
10,800.000
10.400.1100
10.300.000
9.200.000
6.900,000
4,000,000
8,800.000
77.200.000
116
> CONTROL
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F. = 1.00
With Flood Control
second-feet. Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
to any date in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Hood control reserve increased
75,000 acre-feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
nporation
acre-feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1,100
2,800
3,400
4,000
3,100
1,700
600
200
319,800
169,900
300,500
477,200
135,600
500
78.0
134.0
148.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
179.5
161.5
131.0
60.5
68.0
68.5
123.5
179.0
193.0
212.0
228.0
228.0
224.5
206.5
176.0
137.5
3,700,000
7.000,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8.500,000
7,600,000
6,000,000
2,100,000
1,700,000
2,400,000
4,800,000
8,900,000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,600,000
9,800,000
8,000,000
5,800.000
800,000
8,500.000
15,900,000
19,400,000
18.800.000
19,400,000
18,800.000
19,100.000
17,400,000
14,000.000
7,900,000
1,700,000
115.5
3,200,000
16,900
1,100
2,800
3,300
3,200
1,900
600
300
200
790,200
42,700
168,700
613,300
75,000
73,000,000
1,700,000
5,700,000
8,600,000
8,400.000
8.600,000
8,100,000
7,400,000
5,600.000
700.000
1,200,000
2,200,000
6,900,000
91,100,000
600,000
7,700,000
10,800,000
10.400,000
10,800,000
10,100,000
9,600.000
7,700,000
2,500,000
2,400,000
9,100,000
164.100,000
68.5
127.5
148.0
166.5
183.0
176.0
157.0
118.5
77.5
68.5
78.0
146.5
119.5
172.5
193.0
211.5
228.0
221.0
202.0
163.5
126.5
140.5
191.5
2,300,000
13,400,000
19,400.000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18,200,000
17,000,000
13,300,000
3,200,000
1,200,000
4,t,00,000
16,000,000
13,400
1,100
2,800
3,400
4,000
3,200
1,700
211,400
55,100
035,800
292,300
421,300
75,000
475.000
290,000
65,100,000
8,500,000
7,800,000
8.000.000
8. 100,000
8.600,000
8,400,000
8,400,000
7,700,000
6,200,000
81,700.000
10,600,000
9,700,000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,000.000
' '.'.'00,000
8,300,000
146,800,000
147.5
148.0
148.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
179.0
164.0
136.5
192.5
193.0
193.0
212.0
228.0
228.0
224.0
209.0
181.5
19,100,000
17,500,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
1 9,400,000
18,800.000
19,000.000
17,600,000
1 1,500,000
16,200
300,800
16,100
1,404,500
20,861,800
917,000
765,600
16,284,500
715,800
72,600,000
1,642,000,000
72,200,000
91,500,000
2,022,300,000
88,900,000
164,100 000
3,664,300,000
161,100,000
li
TABLE 51. (Continued).
POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
115
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, see Table 50)
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States
Geological Survey used in computations
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
in acre-feet
Without Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet.
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any date
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre
rate to zero on May 1
With Flood Control
Maximum reservoir apace required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir space held in reserve for flood control from
in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to same date. Flood control reserve increased
feet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from January 1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Year and Month
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1921—
473.400
315.600
534,300
431.600
526,700
371.500
76,300
20.300
14.600
24,500
46,700
135.600
241.600
355.000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
301,200
195,300
89,200
25.200
25.000
61,500
55,500
61,500
59.5011
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59.500
38,800
40,000
60,500
01,500
55,500
61,500
59,500
i,l 5U0
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
49.000
6.700
39.100
2.000
2.800
3,400
4.000
3.200
1,700
700
200
237,000
204,600
411,300
310,600
400,900
249.100
3,100
178.0
183,0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
180
163.0
133.5
89.0
68.0
74.5
223.0
228
228.0
228.0
228
228.0
225.0
208.0
178.5
139.0
113,0
120.0
8.4OO.OO0
7,800,000
8.600,000
8,400,000
8,600.000
8,400.000
8,500,000
7,700,000
6,100.000
2,700,000
2,100,000
3,500,000
10,600,000
9,700,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10,700,000
9,800,000
8,200,000
5,200,000
600,000
3.700,000
19,000,000
17,500.000
19.400,000
18,800,000
19,400.000
18,800,000
19.200,000
17,500.000
14,300,000
7,900,000
2,700,000
7,200,000
180,090
180,000
180.000
180.000
355.000
c55.000
355.000
301.200
195.300
89,200
25,200
25,000
76,200
68,800
76,200
65,400
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59,500
38.800
40.000
60,500
72.600
65.500
72,600
64,100
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
49.000
6.700
39.100
1,100
2,800
3.400
4,000
3,200
1,700
700
200
324.600
181.300
385.500
126,000
400,900
249,100
3,100
148.0
148.0
148.0
167.0
183.0
183
180.0
163.0
133 5
89.0
68.0
74 5
193.0
193.0
193.0
212.0
228.0
228 "
225
208
178.5
139.0
113.0
120
8.600,000
7.800.000
8.600.000
8.400.000
8,600.000
8.400,000
8.500.000
7.7O0.O00
6,100,000
2,700,000
2.100,000
3,500.000
10.800,000
9.700,000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10.800.000
10.400,000
10.700,000
9.800.O00
8,200.000
5.200,000
600.000
3.700,000
19.400.000
17,500.000
19.400.000
18.800,000
July.
2.971.100
117.700
371,30(1
338.000
487.400
1,017,500
670.400
98.100
22,000
15,700
30.600
63.300
398.800
680.800
61.500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59.500
61,500
61,500
59.500
55,900
44,500
57,600
636,300
61.500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59.500
49.800
18.800
51,900
18,000
2,000
2,800
3,400
4,000
3,300
1,800
700
200
1.816,600
176,000
366,400
891.700
548,000
15,700
80.800,000
5.100,000
5,500,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8.600,000
8,400,000
8,600,000
7,800.000
6,300,000
4.100.000
2.400.000
6,000,000
100.900,000
7,200,000
7,500,000
10,800.000
10,400,000
10,800.000
10.400.000
10,700.000
10.000.000
8.400.000
5,500,000
1,700,000
7,400,000
181,700,000
12,300,000
13,000.000
19.400,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
IS, Si Ill
19,300,000
17,800.000
14,700,000
9,600,000
4,100,000
13,400,000
61,000
55.700
180.000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
310.400
206.100
101.000
25.200
25,000
729,400
61,500
60,300
76,200
65,400
61,500
59,500
61.500
61,500
59,500
55,900
44,500
01.700
673,100
61.500
59,200
72,600
64,100
61,500
59.500
61,500
61,500
59,500
49,800
1S.800
55.000
17,100
1,100
2,800
3.400
4.000
3,300
1,800
700
200
1.017.400
127,500
189,200
181.800
127.100
653,100
891.700
548.000
15.700
107.5
123.5
148.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
181.0
165.5
137 5
92 5
70.0
125.5
152 5
IBS 5
193.0
212.0
228.0
228 II
221, II
210 5
182.5
142.0
118 5
179.0
81,000.000
5.100.000
5.8OO.0O0
•s. m in,
8.400.000
8,600.000
8,400.000
8.600.000
7,800.000
6.300.000
4.100,000
2,400.000
6,200.000
101,100,000
7,200,000
7,800,000
10.800.000
10,400.000
10.800,000
10.400.000
10,700.000
10,000.000
8.400.000
5.500.000
1. 700.000
7.700.000
1922-
61.000
55,700
316,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
355.000
310,400
206.100
101,000
25,200
25,000
107.5
130.0
182.5
183.0
183.0
183.0
181.0
165.5
137.5
92.5
70.0
130.0
152.5
175.0
227.5
228.0
228.0
228.0
226.0
210.5
182 5
142.0
118 5
184.5
12.300,000
13.600.000
19,400.000
18.800.000
18,400,000
18.800,000
19.300.000
17,800,000
14.7111 1
May
July . . .
Totals
3,630.800
2C8.200
175.300
218.000
565,800
612,400
278,300
97,200
21,600
22,500
39,700
27,800
28,900
314.300
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
314,200
209,400
111,100
27,000
25,000
699,500
61,500
55,500
61,500
5'J,500
61.500
59.500
61.500
61.500
59.500
61,500
27,800
28,900
662.000
61,500
55,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
1,800
18,200
2,000
2,800
3,400
4.000
3,400
1.800
800
200
1,997,800
104,500
64,300
95,000
444,800
486,600
155,900
11,000
79,800,000
8.600.000
7,800.000
8,600.000
8,400.000
8.600,000
8,400.000
8,600,000
7,800,000
6,400,000
4.900.000
1.500,000
1,400,000
100,800,000
10,800.000
9,700.000
10,800,000
10,400.000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10,700,000
10,000,000
8,500,000
7,000,000
100,000
180,600,000
19,400,000
17,500.000
19,400.000
18,800.000
19,400,000
18.800,000
19,300,000
17,800,000
14.900,000
11.900.000
1,600,000
1,400,000
729,000
76,200
68,800
76,200
65.300
61.500
59,500
61.500
61.500
59.500
61.500
27.800
28.900
6J4.500
72,600
65,500
72,600
64,000
61,500
69.500
61.500
61.500
59,500
61,500
1,800
17,300
1.100
2,800
3,400
4,000
3.400
1.800
800
200
625,600
119,400
41.000
69,200
260.400
1,455.400
486.600
155,900
11,000
80,300.000
8.600.000
7.800.000
8.600.000
8.400.000
8.600.000
8.400.000
8.600,000
7.800,000
6.400,000
4.900.000
1.500.000
1.400.000
101.400.000
10.800.000
9.700.000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10.800,000
10,400,000
10,700,000
10,000,000
8,500.000
7.000.000
100,000
181,700,000
19.400,000
17,500,000
19.400.000
18.800.000
19,100.000
18,800.000
19.300.000
17.800.000
14.900.000
11,900.000
1.600.000
1.400.000
1923-
182.5
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
181.5
166.0
140.0
103,0
68.0
68.0
227.5
228.0
228.0
228.0
228.0
228
226.5
211.0
185
148.0
114.0
180.000
180.000
180.000
180,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
314,200
209,400
111,100
27,000
25,000
148.0
148
148.0
167.0
183.0
183.0
181.5
106.0
140.0
103.0
68. C
68.0
193.0
193
193.0
212
228.0
228,0
226 5
211.0
185
148.0
114
July
Totals
2,355,700
38,100
115,300
54.000
118.900
91.500
12.300
1.600
1,000
1,400
14,400
57,400
98,800
659,700
35,500
56.600
52.400
59,000
.55,800
12,300
1.600
1,000
1,400
12,200
41,500
56,900
601,800
2,600
46,800
14,500
48.100
44,900
1.900
15.700
23,500
18,400
300
500
400
500
500
400
300
200
1,362,100
68.0
87.0
09.5
76.0
77.5
70.0
69.5
08.5
68.0
68.0
70.0
70.0
113.0
135,0
119.0
122,5
125.5
81,000,000
1.900,000
3,800,000
2,800,000
3.500,000
3,400,000
700,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
600,000
2,300,000
3,100,000
99,200,000
200,000
4.800,000
1,400,000
4,500,000
4,300,000
200,000
1.400,000
2,100.000
180,200,000
2.100,000
8.600,000
4,200,000
8,000,000
7,700,000
700,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
800,000
3,700.000
5.200,000
25,000
25,000
37,900
25,000
36.500
26.800
26.400
25.900
25,400
25.000
25,000
25,000
708.200
35,o00
56,000
52,400
59,000
55,800
12,300
1,600
1,000
1,400
12,200
41,500
56,900
641,500
2,000
45,800
14.500
48,100
44.900
1.900
15,700
23.500
17.500
300
500
400
500
500
400
300
200
490,000
653,500
68.0
87.0
69.5
76.0
77.5
70.0
69 5
68.5
68.0
68.0
70.0
70.0
113.0
135,0
119.0
122 5
125 5
81,000.000
1,900,000
3,800,000
2.800,000
:i r.u.mi
3 400.000
700,000
100,000
100.000
100.000
600.000
2.300.000
3,100,000
99,200,000
200.000
4.80O.00O
1,400,000
4.500,000
4.300.000
200,000
1.400.000
2.100.000
180,200.000
1924—
25,000
25,000
37,900
25,000
36,500
26,800
26,400
25,900
25.400
25.000
25,000
25,000
March
April
May
4,200.000
8,000.000
7,700.000
100,000
100.000
113.0
119.0
116.0
113,0
119.0
116.0
100.000
TotaU
004,700
386,200
197,000
3,100
22,400,000
18,900,000
41,300,000
386.200
197,000
3,100
22.106,000
18,900.000
41.300.000
TABLE 51. (Continued). POWER OUTPUT OF FOLSOM PLANT WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
Folsom reservoir operated primarily for power generation
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed
ur.
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Monthly Summary of Computations Carried out on a Daily Basis
(For corresponding yearly summary, sec 1 able 50)
Measured daily flows at Fairoaks gaging station of United States
Geological Survey used in computations
Water release for power generation in accord with schedule proposed
by American River Hydro-electric Company
Installed capacity of power plant, 35,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Measured
run-off at
Fairoaks
ID acre-feet
Without Flood Control
Maximum controlled flow at Fairoaks 100,000 second-feet.
December 1 to May 1 when total precipitation up to any date
at a uniform rate from zero on December 1 to 175,000 acre-
rate to zero on May 1
With Flood Control
Maximum reservoir space required 175,000 acre-feet. Reservoir
in a season is more than 50 per cent of the normal precipitation to
eet on January 1; 175,000 acre-feet held in reserve from Januarj
space held in reserve for flood control from
same date, rlood control reserve increased
1 to April 1 and then decreased at uniform
Year and Month
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power bead in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Stage of
reservoir
at beginning
of month
in acre-feet
Power draft through turbines
in acre-feet
Evaporation
in acre-feet
Release
through
flood control
outlets
in acre-feet
Waste over
spillway
in acre-feet
Average power head in feet
Power yield in kilowatt hours
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit.
t ulrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit,
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Upper unit.
tailrace
elevation
207 feet
Lower unit,
tailrace
elevation
162 feet
Total
1925—
94,000
004,000
318.600
005.900
603,000
258.000
06.500
19.900
16.700
26.9011
32.200
54.900
43,400
26.500
355,000
355,000
355,000
355.000
355.000
294,000
187,800
83,800
25.2110
25,000
61,300
55.500
61.500
59,500
01,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,509
30,700
32.200
45,400
49,600
55.400
61.500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59.500
54.296
9,500
2.000
2,800
3.400
4,000
3.100
1,700
600
200
164,600
195.600
484,900
477.200
135,600
500
78.0
159.5
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
179.5
161.5
131.0
90.5
68.0
68.5
123.5
204.5
228.0
228
228.0
228.0
224.5
206.5
176.0
137 5
115 5
3,700,000
6,800,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8.600,000
8.400.000
8,500,000
7,600.000
6,000.000
2,100,000
1,700.000
2,400.000
4,800,000
8,700.000
10.800.000
10.400.000
10.800,000
10.400,000
10,600.000
9,800,000
8,000,000
5.800,000
800,000
8.500.000
15,500,000
10,400,000
18,800,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19,100,000
17,400,000
14,000,000
7,900,000
1.700,000
3,200,000
43,400
26,500
180,000
180,000
355.000
355.000
355,000
294,000
187.800
83.800
25.200
25,000
61,300
06,800
76.200
65.300
61.500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59.500
30,700
32,200
45,400
49.600
63,900
72,500
64.000
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
59,500
54,200
9,500
1.100
2,800
3,400
4,000
3.100
1.700
600
200
319,800
169.900
300,500
477,200
135,600
500
78.0
134
148.0
167.0
183.0
183
179.5
161 5
131.0
90 5
68.0
68 5
123.5
179
193.0
212.0
228.0
228.0
224 5
206.5
176.0
137 5
115 5
3,700,000
7.000,000
8,600.000
8.400.000
8,000.000
8,400.000
8.500,0110
7,606.096
0,000.0061
2,100.000
1.769.666
2,400,000
4,800,000
8.900,000
10.800.000
10,400,000
10,800.000
16.166 1
16,6116.696
9,800,000
8.000.000
5,800.000
800.000
B.500,000
19,400.000
18.800 000
Mav
June
18.800,000
17,400,000
11.000.000
7.900.000
1,700.000
3.200,000
2,700,600
48.700
258,500
193,600
474,700
197,200
48,300
15,200
10.400
12,300
21,700
173,900
138,200
649,600
32,800
55.500
61.500
59,500
01,500
59.500
61.500
61,500
12,300
21.700
33,500
61,500
593,200
5,900
55,500
01,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
25.800
21,800
61,500
17,800
1,500
2,800
3,300
3,200
1,900
600
300
200
1,458,400
252,300
75,000
72,800,000
1,700,000
5,300,000
7,400,000
8,200,000
8,600.000
8,100.000
7,400,000
5,600.000
700.000
1,200,000
2,200,000
6,900,000
90,900,000
600,000
7,200,000
9,500,000
10.300,000
10,800,000
10,100,000
9,000,000
7.700,000
2,500,000
2,400,000
9,100,000
163,700,000
2,300,000
12,500,000
16.900,000
18,500.000
19,400,000
18,200.000
17.000.000
13.300.000
3.200,000
1.200,000
1,6.66. J
16,000,000
25,000
35,000
177,800
180,000
355.000
351,400
277,400
160,400
51,900
25,500
25.200
143.600
681,400
32,800
58,000
76,200
65.766
61,500
59,500
61,500
61.500
12.300
21,700
33,500
61,500
617,200
5,900
57.700
72,500
04,200
61,500
59.500
01.500
61.500
25,800
21,800
61,500
16,900
1,100
2,800
3,300
3,200
1,900
600
300
200
790,200
42.700
168.700
613.300
75.000
73.000,000
1. 700.000
5,700.000
8.600.000
8,100,000
8,600,000
8.100,000
7.400,000
5,600.000
700,000
1.266,669
2.200.000
0,900,000
91,100,000
600,000
7.700,000
161,869.066
10.4
10.81
10.100,000
9.600.000
7.796,669
2 900 000
2.166 696
9.100.000
1926—
25.000
35,000
182,500
253,100
355,000
351,400
277,400
166,400
51,900
25,500
25,200
143,600
68 5
127.5
156 5
180.0
1830
170.0
157,0
118 5
77 5
08.5
78.0
140.5
119.5
172.5
201.5
225
228
221
202.0
163.5
126 5
140,5
191.5
68.5
127.5
148.0
166.5
183.0
176.0
157
118 5
77.5
08.5
78.0
146.5
119.5
172.5
193.0
211.5
228
221.0
202.0
163.5
126.5
Mil 5
191.5
18.800,000
19,400,000
18,200,000
Mav
June
July.
3.200.000
4,669,666
1,592,700
222,500
770,200
441,000
726.700
601,400
412,100
76,200
23,400
19,000
582,300
61,500
55.500
61,500
59,500
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
535,500
61,500
55,500
01,500
59.500
61,500
59.500
61,500
61,500
59,500
13.800
2.000
2.800
3,400
4,000
3,200
1.700
327,300
562,500
318.000
605.700
475.600
290,000
63,300,000
7,400,000
7.7116,699
8,000,000
8,400,000
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,400,000
7,700,000
6.200,000
79,800,000
9,600,000
9,600,000
10,800,000
10,400,000
16, SOU. 666
10.400,000
10,600.000
0,900,000
8,300.000
143,100,000
17,000,000
17.300,000
19,400,000
18,800,000
19 41111,009
18,800,000
19,666,6611
17 669,669
14.500.000
158,800
180.000
180.000
180,000
355,000
355,000
354,700
303,900
201,100
100,000
605.700
74.800
08.900
76.2011
65.300
61,500
59.500
01,500
61.500
59,500
553,400
71,400
65,500
72,oOO
64,000
61,500
59,500
61,500
61,500
59,500
13,400
1.100
2,800
3.400
4.000
3.200
1,700
211.400
55.100
035.800
292,300
421,300
75.000
475,000
."'6 669
65,100.000
8,500,000
7,800,000
8,000,000
8,100, I
S, 61111, 61 16
8,400,000
8,400,000
7,700,000
6.200.000
81.766.666
10.600.000
9.700.000
10,800,000
10.400.000
10,800,000
10,400,000
10.600.000
9.909,0110
8,300.000
1097—
158,800
258,300
355,000
355,000
355,000
355,000
354,700
303,900
201,100
100,000
157 5
180.5
183.0
183.0
183.0
183.0
179.0
164.0
136 5
202.5
225.5
228.0
228.0
228
228.0
224.0
209.0
181.5
147.5
148.0
148.0
167,0
183
183.0
179 II
164.0
136.5
192 5
193.0
103 ii
212
228.
228.0
224.0
209.0
131.5
19,100,000
17,590,600
19,400,000
19,400,000
18,800.1
19,000.000
June
July
1 1,500,000
October
TotaU
3,293,100
66,300,800
2,914,300
541,500
14,471,600
636,100
541,500
13,018,300
573,600
17,100
382,200
16,800
2,251,800
38,323,700
1.684,600
71,400,000
1.632,300,000
71,700,000
90,400,000
2.012.700,000
88,500,000
161,800,000
3,645,000,000
160,200,000
588,700
15,151,100
668,000
576,900
13,561,600
596,100
16,200
366.800
16.100
1,404,500
20.861,800
917,000
765,600
16,284,500
715,800
72.600.000
1.642.000.000
72.200,000
91,500,000
2,022,300.000
88.900,000
164,100,000
Totals for 1905-27....
3,664,300,000
Average for 1905-27.
101,100,000
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
117
rABLE 52. EFFECT OF FLOOD CONTROL ON POWER OUTPUT FROM
CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Reservoirs operated primarily for power generation with water release to
develop maximum primary power
1905-1927
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
*43,000 k.v.a. PP. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Tailrace elevation, 200 feet
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 1 10 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant.
10,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Average annual power output in kilowatt hours
Loss in total power
output due to inclusion
Without
flood
control
With flood control
Maximum controlled flow 100,000
second-feet measured at Fairoaks gag-
ing station. Maximum reservation
for flood control: Folsom reservoir
175,000 acre-feet, Auburn reservoir
200,000 acr,e-feet, Coloma reservoir
125,000 acre-feet; total 500,000 acre-
feet. Reservoir space held in reserve
for flood control December 1 to May 1
when total precipitation up to any date
in a season is more than 50 per cent of
the normal precipitation to same date.
Flood control reserve increased at a
uniform rate from zero on December
1 to maximum reservation for flood
control on January 1 ; maximum reser-
vation held in reserve from January 1
to April 1 and then decreased at a uni-
form rate to zero on May 1.
of flood control
Stage of development
In kilowatt
hours
In per cent
of average
total annual
output
nilial development! —
Folsom reservoir and power plant
econd stage of development! — ■
Folsom, Auburn and Pilot Creek
reservoirs and power plants
lomplete development! —
Folsom, Auburn, Pilot Creek,
Coloma and Webber Creek
reservoirs and power plants
153,700,000
481,100,000
689,500,000
153,700,000
481,100,000
§689,500,000
•Initial development only.
!Estimates based on average mi
§Reduction in annual primary r
mthly run-off
>ower output 2
used in preparing estimates of power outr.
3,600,000 kilowatt hours.
ut set forth in
Chapter IV.
118
I >l VISION OK WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 53. EFFECT OF FLOOD CONTROL ON POWER OUTPUT FROM
CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Reservoirs operated primarily for power generation with water release in
accord with schedule proposed by American River Hydro-electric
Company
1905-1927
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 3 55.000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
*3 5.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0 W) LI- =1.00
45,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. = 1.00
Tailrace elevations, 162 and 207 feet
Auburn reservoir —
1 [eight of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
82,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam. 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
37,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 1 10 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
23,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Webber Creek reservoir —
1 [eight of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
13,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0 60
Stage of development
Average annual power output in kilowatt hours
Without
flood
conlrol
With flood control
Maximum controlled flow 100.000
sccond-fect measured at Fairoaks gag-
ing station. Maximum reservation
for flood control: Folsom reservoir
175,000 acre-feet, Auburn reservoir
200,000 acre-feet, Coloma reservoir
125,000 aere-feet; total 500,000 acre-
feet. Reservoir space held in reserve
for flood control December 1 to Mav 1
when total precipitation up to any date
in a season is more than 50 per cent of
the normal precipitation to same date.
Flood control reserve increased at a
uniform rate from zero on December
1 to maximum reservation fur flood
control on January 1 ; maximum reser-
vation held in reserve from January 1
to \pril 1 and then decreased at a uni-
form rate to zero on May 1.
Loss in total power
output due to inclusion
of flood control
In kilowatt
hours
In per cent
of average
total annual
output
Initial development § —
Folsom reservoir and power plant
Second stage of development! —
Folsom, Auburn ami Pilot Creek
reservoirs and power plants. . .
Complete development —
Folsom, Auburn, Pilot Creek,
Coloma and Webber Creek
reservoirs and power plants
100,200,000
560,200,000
773,100,000
161,100,000
567,000,000
764,200,000
£100,000
2,200,000
8,900,000
JO. 6
0.4
1.2
•Initial development only.
t Estimates based on average monthly run-off used in preparing estimates of power output set forth in Chapter IV.
(Estimates based on measured daily flow at Fairoaks gaging station of United States Geological Survey.
JGain.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
119
TABLE 54. EFFECT OF FLOOD CONTROL ON IRRIGATION YIELD OF
RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT OPERATED
PRIMARILY FOR IRRIGATION
1905-1927
Operation of Folsom City power plant of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. sub-
ordinated to the use of reservoirs for irrigation. Allowance for irrigation
expansion in near future of foothill agricultural areas
Folsom reservoir — Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet Height of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
I
Stage of development
Without flood control
With flood control
Maximum controlled flow, 100,000 second-
feet measured at Fairoaks gaging station.
Maximum reservation for flood control:
Folsom reservoir 175.000 acre-feet
Auburn reservoir 200,000 acre-feet
Total 500,000 acre-feet
Reservoir space held in reserve for flood
control from December 1 to May 1 when
total precipitation up to any datein a season
is more than 50 per cent of the normal
precipitation to same date. Flood control
reserve increased at a uniform rate from zero
on December 1 to maximum reservation for
flood control on January 1 ; maximum reser-
vation held in reserve from January 1 to
April 1 and then decreased at a uniform
rate to zero on May 1.
Seasonal
irrigation
yield
without
deduction
for down-
stream
prior
rights, in
acre-feet
Deficiency in irrigation supply
Seasonal
irrigation
yield
without
deduction
for down-
stream
prior
rights, in
acre-feet
Deficiency in irrigation supply
Year
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
Year
In
acre-feet
In
per cent
of a
perfect
seasonal
supply
Initial development —
Folsom reservoir
alone
Totals
664,000
1919
1924
1926
38,900
183,700
107,800
5.9
27.7
16.2
664,000
1919
1924
1926
38,900
183,700
107,800
5.9
27.7
16.2
330,400
14,400
49.8
2.2
330,400
14,400
13,100
500,500
('6.400
49.8
Average
2.2
Second stage of
development —
Folsom and Auburn
reservoirs
1,250,000
1,250,000
1908
1924
1926
1.0
1924
1926
500,500
96,400
40.0
7.7
40.0
7.7
596,900
25,900
47.7
2.1
610,000
26,500
97,800
54,300
191,600
29,800
73,200
725,900
136,000
48.7
2.1
Complete develop-
ment —
Folsom, Auburn and
Coloma reservoirs . . .
Totals
1,757,000
1,757,000
1908
1912
1913
1918
1920
1924
1926
5.6
3.1
1913
•122,200
7.0
10.9
1.7
1920
1924
50.900
725,900
2.9
41.3
4.2
41.3
7.7
899,000
39,100
51.2
2.2
1,308,600
56,900
74 5
3.2
8—72924
120 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER VII
UTILIZATION OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOP-
MENT FOR CONTROL OF SALINITY IN DELTA OF SACRA-
MENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS
Need for salinity control.
During the past several years the need for the prevention of the
incursion of salinity into the channels of the delta of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers has been apparent. In months of low water
flow of these years, due to the decreased flow of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers, and for other reasons. Baity water from Suisun
Bay has been carried by the tides into the many channels of the delta
and mixed with the fresh water from which the irrigated lands of the
reclaimed islands obtain their water supply. The location and extent
of the lands whose water supply contained in excess of 100 parts of
chlorine per 100.000 parts of water for a period in 1924, the driest year
of record, are shown on Plate II. During this year salty water pene-
trated the channels of the delta over 20 miles above the mouths of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, rendering the water undesirable
for irrigation of a large area for a part of the irrigation season.
Although this was the worst condition experienced in the period of
record, salinity has encroached beyond Antioch, located near the lower
end of the delta area, in every year since 1920.
Methods of salinity control.
Two methods have been proposed for the solution of the salinity
problem. One method, comprehending the construction at a strategic
point of a physical barrier below the affected area, has been the subject
of an intensive study by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in
cooperation with the State of California. The results of this study are
contained in a report* which sets forth analyses of a barrier at several
sites between Suisun and San Francisco bays. A barrier at any one of
the sites studied would prevent the incursion of salt water into th< i area
above it, contingent, however, upon some supplemental mountain stor-
age being provided for its operation. The second method comprehends
the creation of a natural barrier by the storage of flood waters in moun-
tain reservoirs and their subsequent release at the proper time and in
sufficient volume which would be larger than the requirement for the
physical barrier, to supplement the low water flow as needed to prevent
the encroachment of the salt water.
With the first method salinity would be controlled to the point of
location of the barrier, while with the second method, control would
appear practicable at Leasl to the lower end of the delta area of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Salinity control by the first
method is not within the scope of this report and, therefore, is not dis-
missed herein. An opportunity would be afforded, however, of utilizing
the reservoirs of the consolidated development for salinity control by the
second method, if so desired.
* Bulletin No. 22. Division of Water Resources, "Report on Salt Water Barrier,"
by Walker R. Young, Engineer U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.
PLATE VTI
120 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER VII
UTILIZATION OF RESERVOIRS OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOP-
MENT FOR CONTROL OF SALINITY IN DELTA OF SACRA-
MENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS
Need for salinity control.
During the past several years the need for the prevention of the
incursion of salinity into the channels of the delta of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers has been apparent. In months of low water
flow of these years, due to the decreased flow of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers, and for other reasons, salty water from Suisun
Bay has been carried by the tides into the many channels of the delta
and mixed with the fresh water from which the irrigated binds of the
reclaimed islands obtain their water supply. The location and extent
of the lands whose water supply contained in excess of 100 parts of
chlorine per 100,000 parts of water for a period in 1924, the driest year
of record, are shown on Plate II. During this year salty water pene-
trated the channels of the delta over 20 miles above the mouths of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, rendering the water undesirable
for irrigation of a large area for a part of the irrigation season.
Although this was the worst condition experienced in the period of
record, salinity has encroached beyond Antioch, located near the lower
end of the delta area, in every year since 1920.
Methods of salinity control.
Two methods have been proposed for the solution of the salinity
problem. One method, comprehending the construction at a strategic
point of a physical barrier below the affected area, has been the subject
of an intensive study by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in
cooperation with the State of California. The results of this study are
contained in a report* which sets forth analyses of a barrier at several
sites between Suisun and San Francisco bays. A barrier at any one of
the sites studied would prevent the incursion of salt water into the- area
above it, contingent, however, upon some supplemental mountain stor-
age being provided for its operation. The second method comprehends
the creation of a natural barrier by the storage of flood waters in moun-
tain reservoirs and their subsequent release at the proper time and in
sufficient volume which would be larger than the requirement for the
physical barrier, t<> supplement Hie low water How as needed to prevent
the encroachment of the salt water.
With the first met hod salinity would be controlled to the point of
location of the barrier, while with the second method, control would
appear practicable at Leasl to the lower end of the delta area of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Salinity control by the first
method is not within the scope of this report and. therefore, is not dis-
cussed herein. All opportunity would be afforded, however, of utilizing
the reservoirs of the consolidated development for salinity control by the
second method, if so desired.
* Bulletin No. 22. Division of Water Resources. "Report on Salt Water Barrier,'*
by Walker R. Young, Engineer U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.
PLATE VII
72924 — Opp. page 120
6
o JJAiwi r;
a
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
121
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22,
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33,
34.
35.
36,
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42,
43.
44.
i per-
s and
it ions
30ver-
ae its
at 32
uring
ian 50
ations
)eriod
)ccurs
Since
;ained
ons at
period
shown
ilinity
would
imples
i from
found
3urred
1 at a
nt into
i data
iculty,
water
as, the
asured
ad the
3ity of
ice the
these
a each
as the
itimate
at the
ints of
existed
elta of
obtain-
he rate
in River
: Water
/,
TABLE 55. LIST OF SALINITY OBSERVATION STATIONS MAINTAINED BY DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
Period of observation
1010
1020
1921
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
San Pablo and Suisun Bays
Feb. 10 to Dec. 31
Feb. 6 to Dec. 31
Feb. 2 to Dec. 31
Feb. 2 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
June 2 to Dec. 2
June 16 to Nov. 19
June 2 to Nov. 25
June 4 to Oct. 6
June 2 to Oct. 31
July 23 to Oct. 9
Aug. 14 to Sept. 28
July
July
July
Aug.
Aug.
1 to Dec. 30
1 to Dec. 31
1 to Dec. 7
6 to Sept. 13
7 to Oct. 27
Sept, 6 to Dec. 14
Sept. 8 to Dec. 14
Aug. 26 to Nov. 30
Sept. 20 to Nov. 16
Sept. 22 to Oct. 16
June 24 to Nov. 30
June 24 to Nov. 30
June 24 to Nov. 28
June 24 to Oct. 6
July 2 to Oct. 30
Aug. 22 to Nov. 16
May 24 to Dec. 30
May 12 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Sacramento River Delia
6. 0. and A. bridge acroBS
Sept. 13 to Sept. 19
Sept. 14 to Sept. 19
May 28 to Dec. 30
June 14 to Dec. 18
June 14 to Dec. 6
June 16 to Nov. 20
July 2 to Nov. 20
Aug. 4 to Nov. 14
Julv 30 to Oct. 26
July 26 to Oct. 30
Aug. 10 to Oct. 2
July 18 to Oct. 24
Aug. 6 to Oct. 30
May 10 to Dec. 31
July 10 to Nov. 28
July 24 to Dec. 26
July 28 to Oct. 24
Aug. 4 to Nov. 6
Aug. 22 to Dec. 6
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
June 18 to Dec. 14
June 10 to Dec. 22
June 10 to Nov. 22
June 30 to Oct. 18
July 10 to Nov. 10
July 22 to Oct. 22
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Aug. 1 to Sept. 10
Aug. 1 to Nov. 26
Aug. 1 to Nov. 18
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
8. Emmaton
June 18 to Dec. 30
June 18 to Dec. 30
Sept. 13 to Sept. 1"
Aug. 26 to Oct. 26
Aug. 14 to Nov. 1
Aug. 19 to Nov. 26
Aug. 18 to Nov. 18
Aug. 10 to Oct. 28
Aug. 16 to Oct. 6
Mokelumne River Delta
July 14 to Dec. 2
July 14 to Dec. 2
July 22 to Oct. 22
July 14 to Dec. 2
July 14 to Dec. 2
Julv 14 to Nov. 22
July 30 to Nov. 22
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
June 10 to Dec. 22
Julv 10 to Dec. 10
June 10 to Dec. 22
July 10 to Dec. 10
Sept. 22 to Nov. 26
July 26 to Dec. 22
July 2 to Dec. 14
Aug. 6 to Dec. 22
June 30 to Dec. 26
July 22 to Dec. 28
Aug. 18 to Oct. 10
Aug. 18 to Nov, 18
July 22 to Dec. 16
July 30 to Oct. 14
July 22 to Dec. 16
Au«. 14 to Oct. 30
Sept. 18 to Nov. 19
July 30 to Dec. 16
Aug. 26 to Nov. 19
June 3 to Nov. 22
June 2 to Sept. 30
June 2 to Dec. 14
July 22 to Nov. 11
July 23 to Dec. 13
San Joaquin River Delta
28. Antioch
Sept. 14 to Sept. 19
July
Aug.
Aug.
5 to Nov. 28
6 to Oct. 31
6 to Oct. 31
Aug. 26 to Nov. 28
Sept. 16 to Nov. 10
Sept. 2 to Nov. 16
June 28 to Nov. 16
June 28 to Nov. 20
June 28 to Aug. 22
May 24 to Dec. 30
May 22 to Nov. 14
June 22 to Dec. 22
July 16 to Nov. 18
May 2 to Dec. 31
July 10 to Dec. 28
Aug. 6 to Nov. 14
July 20 to Dee. 30
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
30. Jersey.
Sept. 13 to Sept. 18
Sept. 13 to Sept. 16
Aug. 2 to Nov. 22
Aug. 6 to Nov. 26
June 18 to Dec. 30
July 18 to Nov. 20
Aug. 12 to Dec. 26
Aug. 8 to Dec. 30
July 26 to Dec. 26
Aug. 4 to Nov. 6
Aug 12 to Dec. 28
Aug. 6 to Dec. 28
Aug. 12 to Nov. 30
Aug. 12 to Dec. 28
38. Palm Tract
Aug. 8 to Dec. 31
Aug. 18 to Dec. 22
Aug. 6 to Dec. 10
Aug. 20 to Nov. 14
Aug. 20 to Oct. 20
Sept. 8 to Dec. 2
July 18 to Oct. 30
Aug. 7
IS Williams Bridge
72924 — p. 120
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 121
Data available on salinity conditions.
The Division of Water Rights lias collected and compiled data per-
taining to salinity conditions in the delta area for the past ten years and
in Suisun and San Pablo bays for the past three years. Its operations
commenced in 1919 with observations at six stations in the delta cover-
ing a period of only a few days in September. Since that time its
activities have increased. In 1924 observations were obtained at 32
stations, in 1926 at 38 stations and in 1928 at 25 stations; and during
the period of ten years, observations have been obtained at more than 50
stations. Beginning with the year 1926, data were obtained at 5 stations
on Suisun and San Pablo bays. For the most of the stations the period
of observation includes only the months during which salinity occurs
and, in general, extends over a period of two to six months. Since
1926, however, records at 7 representative stations have been obtained
for the entire year. In Table 55 are set forth the principal stations at
which observations have been taken since 1919, together with the period
of observation in each season. The locations of these stations are shown
on Plate VII, ' ' Salinity Observation Stations. ' '
In the determination of the salinity content at the several salinity
observation stations, effort was made to obtain samples which would
be representative of salinity conditions throughout the delta. Samples
were taken at the same predetermined dates at all the stations from
one and one-half to two hours following high tide, it having been found
after a series of tests that the maximum salinity condition occurred
at about this stage of the tidal cycle. Samples were obtained at a
depth of about one foot below the surface of the water and well out into
the stream channel.
The Division of Water Rights has also collected and compiled data
on the fresh water inflow into the delta area. Due to the difficulty,
because of tidal action, in obtaining measurements of the fresh water
flow of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers near their mouths, the
Division has estimated * for the four years prior to 1924, and measured
since 1924, the flow of the Sacramento River at Sacramento and the
San Joaquin at Vernalis, located about 20 miles south of the city of
Stockton, during the summer and fall months of each year. Since the
contributions to fresh water inflow from other sources below these
points are negligible in total during the period of salinity in each
season, the combined discharges at these points have been used as the
inflow into the delta area in the salinity control studies.
This information has furnished the basis for making an estimate
of the supplemental flow that would be required to prevent the
encroachment of salinity upstream past certain designated points of
control, based on irrigation and channel conditions that have existed
in the delta area during the past nine years.
Rate of fresh water inflow into delta required for salinity control.
A study of the relationship of fresh water inflow into the delta of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and the salinity content obtain-
ing at the several stations for the past nine years shows that the rate
* See Bulletin No. 4, "Proceedings of the Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Problems Conference and Water Supervisors Report," 1924, Division of Water
Rights.
122 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
of fresh water inflow that would be required for salinity control would
vary with the point and the degree of control. To maintain the salinity
content to low values would require greater inflows than for higher
salinity values with control to the same point. Also, it would require
greater inflows to be maintained to control to downstream points in the
delta than for higher points for the same degree of control. A study
of the data also shows that if salinity were controlled to a particular
degree at a specified point, the salinity content at points upstream from
the point of control would be less than at the point of control, decreas-
ing progressively upstream.
In the salinity studies contained herein the fresh water inflow into
the delta has been maintained at 5000 * second-feet by releasing water
from the reservoirs at the proper time and in sufficient volume to meet
this demand. The preliminary analysis of the data indicates that this
rate of sustained fresh water inflow would control the encroachment
of salinity at Antioch to a mean daily salinity of about 100 parts of
chlorine per 100,000 parts of water, based on the existing irrigation and
channel conditions in the delta area. A wide divergence of opinion is
prevalent relative to the degree of salinity control desirable for irriga-
tion. However, with control to "1(H) parts of chlorine per 100,000 parts
of water at Antioch, situated near the lower end of the delta region, the
studies show that the salinity content, due to the configuration of the
delta area, would decrease upstream to the extent that more than nine-
tenths of the delta area above Antioch would have a water supply with
a salinity content less than one-third of the content at Antioch.
Supplemental flow required for salinity control.
The total volume of flow that would "be required to supplement the
natural flow so as to maintain the fresh water inflow into the delta at
5000 second-feet would vary with the season. It has been estimated for
the seasons, 1920-1928 inclusive, using combined daily flows of the
Sacramento River at Sacramento and the San Joaquin River at Vern-
alis. During the summer and fall months, contributions to the water
supply from other sources are negligible. The volumes of water, so
estimated, that w r ould have been required in addition to the natural
flow to maintain the combined discharge of the two streams at 5000
second-feet are given in Table 56 for each season of the nine-year period
1920-1928, together with the seasonal run-off from the drainage basins
tributary to the delta, expressed in per cent of normal run-off.
* The rate of inflow of 5000 second feet may be considered as tentative only and
may be modified as a result of an Intensive Investigation of salinity which is
now in progress for the 1929 Beason. This investigation comprehends in addition to
the regular salinity observations, that have been mad.' daring the past several years.
special salinity surveys, stream flow measurements in the delta channels, tidal
surveys and detailed analytical studies of the data thus procured from which it is
anticipated thai definite conclusions as to tin' behavior of salinity and tin- relation of
salinity to fresh water Inflow and to tidal action may be obtained. However, the
preliminary estimates of rate and volume of supplementary fresh water inflow as
used in this report are believed to be sufficiently accurate for the purpose of estimat-
ing reservoir capacities and releases required tor salinity control. Since the i
sumptlve use <>f water in the delta varies from month to month, increasing during
the irrigation Beason, the fresh water Inflow necessary to control salinity to any point
ami degree would have ■■> monthlj variation. F\>r the purposes of the study con-
tained herein, a uniform rate of 5000 cond feet lias been assumed.
l
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
123
TABLE 56. SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW REQUIRED FOR SALINITY
CONTROL
Year
Seasonal run-off
from drainage
basin tributary
to delta of
Sacramento
and San Joaquin
rivers,
in per cent
of normal
Supplemental
flow required
to maintain
inflow of
5,000 second-feet
into delta of
Sacramento
and San Joaquin
rivers,
in acre-feet
1920
48
108
97
70
27
78
55
108
75
*4 65,000
1921
*45,000
1922
*30,000
1923
*13,000
1924
766,000
1925
89,000
1926
328,000
1927
4,000
1928
92,000
*Based on estimated stream flow of Sacramento River at Sacramento.
From a study of the data in the foregoing table, it is apparent that
in seasons of subnormal run-off:, a considerably larger amount of sup-
plemental flow is required than in normal or greater-than-normal years.
There are two reasons for this condition. One is that the period of
salinity is longer in years of subnormal run-off because the salt water
is not forced as far down into Suisun Bay and Carquinez Straits during
the months of normally heavy run-off, resulting in a less volume of
fresh water to be replaced and, therefore, the salinity arrives at a par-
ticular upstream station at an earlier date than for years of normal
and greater-than-normal run-off. The other reason is the inflow into
the delta in the summer and fall months of years of subnormal run-off
is relatively smaller than for corresponding months of years of normal
and greater-than-normal run-off, requiring, therefore, a larger supple-
mental flow during these months.
Salinity control with reservoirs of consolidated development not coordinated
with other uses.
In order to furnish the supplemental flow required for salinity con-
trol, water must be stored in a reservoir or reservoirs above the delta
area and released as needed to meet the requirements for salinity con-
trol. In these studies, it is assumed that the inflow into the delta would
be maintained at 5000 second-feet, which is estimated would control
salinity to about 100 parts of chlorine per 100,000 parts of water at
Antioch and meet the present irrigation demands in the delta.
If a reservoir were constructed and operated entirely for salinity
control purposes, then the capacity should be equal to the volume of the
supplemental flow required in the season of maximum salinity control
requirements, increased by the amount of the net annual evaporation
from the surface of the reservoir. The reservoir would be kept filled
at all times except as water would be released from it to meet the salinity
control demands.
If the reservoir of the consolidated development were operated pri-
marily for salinity control purposes in this manner, control could be
effected to varying degrees, depending on the stage of development.
With the initial development, Folsom reservoir alone, the fresh water
124 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
inflow into the delta could have been maintained at 5000 second-feet
throughout all the years of the period, except 1920 and 1924. In 1920,
the inflow would have fallen to 4800 and 2500 second-feet in August,
and September, respectively, and in L924 it would have been 2700, 1800
and 3100 second feel in duly, August and September, respectively. It
is apparent, therefore, thai salinity control can not be obtained from
Folsoni reservoir alone even if operated primarily for that purpose.
predicated on the maintaining an inflow of 5000 second-feet into the
delta. With the second stage of development, Folsom and Auburn reser-
voirs, and the third stage, Folsoni, Auburn and Coloma reservoirs, how-
ever, the 5000 second-feet of inflow could have been maintained through-
out all of the years of salinity record.
Salinity control with reservoirs of consolidated development coordinated with
other uses.
It is apparent that if the reservoirs of the consolidated development
were operated entirely for salinity control purposes and were kept filled
at all times except as water would be released for salinity control, no
reliable flood control and irrigation values would be obtained from the.
reservoirs. The average power output of the power plants, with such a
method of reservoir operation, would be less in total and less valuable
per kilowatt hour of output, on account of its poor characteristics, than
with the reservoirs operated primarily for power.
In order to set forth the possibilities of coordinating the operation of
the reservoirs of the consolidated development for the inclusion of
salinity control and to determine its effects on other values, studies
have been made for several modes of operation. These studies have
been confined to an analysis of the reservoirs of the complete develop-
ment, Three studies have been made for the period 1905-1927. In
each study, the fresh water inflow into the delta was maintained at 5000
second-feet for the seasons during which stream flow records of the
Sacramento River at Sacramento were available. For other seasons,
the total seasonal supplemental flow required for salinity control was
estimated from the data of seasons of record, assuming that the supple-
mental flow required in a season bears a relation to its normality in
run-off from the drainage basin tributary to the delta area. The studies
are as follows:
1. Reservoirs operated for power generation to develop maximum pri-
mary power consistent with salinity control requirements.
2. Reservoirs operated for power generation in accord with schedule
of water release proposed by American River Hydro-electric Company,
modified to meet salinity control requirements.
3. Reservoirs operated for maximum irrigation yield consistent with
salinity control requirements.
Tn all of the studies, a reserve was held in the reservoirs to meet the
salinity control requirements of a year like 1024. and was maintained
excepl as it was needed to be released for salinity control.
Tn the first study the drawdown in the reservoirs was limited to the
levels obtaining in the critical period of July, 102:1, to February, 1924,
the period which determined the maximum primary power that could
be developed and control salinity in 1024, except as water was needed
to maintain primary power and for salinity control.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RrVER 125
In the second study a total reserve of 797,000 acre-feet was held for
salinity control in the reservoirs, the requirement for 1924 with an addi-
tional amount for net evaporation losses from the reservoir surfaces.
It was distributed among the reservoirs as follows: Folsom reservoir,
135,000 acre-feet; Auburn reservoir, 242,000 acre-feet; and Coloma
reservoir, 420,000 acre-feet ; and in each case was above the minimum
stage allowed for power generation. These reserves were maintained
except as they were needed to meet salinity control demands.
In the third study, an irrigation yield was determined which would
maintain the required reserve (797,000 acre-feet) for salinity control
and not produce a greater average deficiency in the irrigation supply
than was obtaind with the reservoirs operated primarily for irrigation.
The results of these studies are compared with similar ones without
salinity control in the following seven tables. In Tables 57 and 58, the
>ower output and characteristics of the first study are compared with
similar information for the complete consolidated development operated
to develop maximum primary power. In Tables 59 and 60, similar
comparisons are made for the second study with the reservoirs of the
complete consolidated development operated in accord with schedule of
rater release proposed by the American River Hydro-electric Company.
Table 61 sets forth irrigation yields and incidental power outputs of
the third study and those for the reservoirs operated primarily for irri-
gation without salinity control. Tables 62 and 63 give characteristics
of the power listed in Table 61 for plant load factors of 0.75 and 1.00,
respectively.
126
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 57. POWER OUTPUT OF COMPLETE CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT WITH AND WITHOUT
SALINITY CONTROL
Water release to develop maximum primary power consistent with salinity
control requirements
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 3 55,000 acrc-fcet
Installed capacity of power plant,
54.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Auburn reservoir —
I li ight of dam, 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
66.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam. 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766.000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
30,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam. 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
10.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Power output
in kilowatt hours
Year
Without salinity
control
Annual primary
power output,
524,700 000
kilowatt bours
With salinity
control
Inflow into the
delta of the
Sacramento
and San Joaquin
rivers
maintained at
5,000 second-feet.
Annual primary
output
438,000 000
kilowatt hours
1905
674,900,000
776, 100.000
825,900,000
miO.OOO
809,000,000
705,100,000
752,700,000
608,500,000
612.700,000
734,200.000
724,000,000
776,800,000
693,500,000
599,100,000
623,500.000
636,900,000
726,100,000
694,500,000
716,900.000
541,700,000
62 1. 000,000
617,600,000
564,500,000
629,900,000
1906. .
761,400,000
1907
811.000.000
1908
589.700.000
1909 .
780,700,000
1910
652,100,000
1911
710.700.000
1912
558,700.000
1913..
594.200,000
1914
684,600,000
1918
666.600,000
1916
747.500.000
1017
663,100,000
1918
572,600,000
1919
566,900,000
1920
625,700,000
1921
677,600,000
1922
653,000,000
1923
670,500,000
1924
516.300,000
1925
575,500,000
1926
600,700,000
•1927
545,400,000
Average
689,500,000
652,900,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RWER
127
_ CO
M
u
i
©
,'J
Btf.
n £ .
O u J
v o' OO
«IS go
l^bt^
22£S§
SrhO d_-
c ™ a
U
V) CN
.*>
If*
o _
S: u • - £ °
7= o=:o
—
tv.
©
w II
C .
g 1- °i
°°
a-oo
v2 U^" II
si °u-'
i^S&a,
kill*
»- O Q y
4> r ° «
"En"!
o>— "-*
.'t 0T3O
. _r- — O
3 08 2d
U JL,—
■gxu.5
<
6 d
by 11
« 5 •
,-,.211,
0"T .
o «•>
IS *°q
S . U. 11
C u^ ll
O'O Or. -
SO ^DO
_ .,£ 00
u £ =
E.SPg.25;'
•§Xu5
J-J II
c .
oil,
aj
I*
(JO
o R°
"S— OT,
u 1-" '3 «
bEd™.
?! d 9->
-* O-OO
U oc2o
°X~
3
O
0)
5
f->
£ c ~
1
_o
u"°-T30
*§§g"
~ n on
»6oo
.-.: £ira 3
3 »T3 O
&.£- a> ^
1—3 —
0)
H
c
53 «
° 5P
- TO
.— <-
& >
^
(3
££
* 3
Q. e3
8 §1-8.31
3§-
fe§5
K 3
o o
5 2-3
o *i rt
PL,'
•g C3 g
Bl§°f R
"S"3
33 —
^ erf
I 5
O00««(D'-N^INOb'Q
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
o" o' o* o" o' o* o" o" o' o* 0' o"
OOOOOOOOOOOO
*0 O^tf^O CO CO "^"0 o»cc cc I-
c* o -^ *o «5 r*T ci" tC 1—" o" oo cs"
*-«ooc■" -*~cNf ^-'ooooc35cr-cocococo
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
000 000000000
o" o" o o" o" o" o' o" o' o' o" o"
OOOOOOOOOOOO
C:OONCO«C:NWMO'X;N
II
3^=
•— bi-
ts B -S
o ONiootN
N O t>- N 00 Oi C: ^iQOOOCOCO
• 'iim
.ji^Iliil
1
128
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TABLE 59. POWER OUTPUT OF COMPLETE CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT WITH AND WITHOUT
SALINITY CONTROL
Water release in accord with schedule proposed by American River Hydro-
electric Company consistent with salinity control requirements
Folsom reservoir —
I Light of dam, 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acrc-fect
Installed capacitv of power plant,
45.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. = 1 .00
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet
icity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Ins tailed capacity of power plant,
mho I v a IM-. =0 80 L.F. =0.60
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
37,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Pilot Creek reservoir—
1 leight of dam, 1 10 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
23.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacitv of power plant,
13,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
Power output in kilowatt hours
Year
Without salinity
control
With salinity
control
Inflow into t he-
delta of
Sacramento
and San Joaquin
rivers
maintained at
5,000 second-feet
1005
753.100,000
852,600.000
874,400.000
761,100.000
877,000,000
853,300.000
870,600,000
; (10,000
601,300,000
853,100,000
841,700,000
B66,700,000
846,700,000
703,300,000
7i7,.'iOO.OOO
671,700,000
839,900.000
823,100,000
855,600,000
3o!, 600,000
680,500,000
633,600,000
710.000,000
1906
858,200,000
1907. .
878,200,000
1908 .
(.i.l. •joo.ooo
1909 .
880,900,000
1910 .
784,903.000
1911
832,600,000
1912 .
554,200,000
1913
574,000,000
1914
818,000.000
1915..
786,700,000
1916
837,800,000
1917
769,400,000
1918 ...
670,800,000
1919. .
717,000,000
1920 .
676,200,000
1921 .
797,800,000
1922 .
813,600,000
1923
"
1924
440.200,000
1925
682.500,000
1926
670.500,000
•1927 .. .
648,700,000
773,100,000
742.500,000
•Partial year, January 1 to October 1 .
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RP7ER
129
^ -t-> +j
o
3
3
JB S
u o
By ll
a 5 •
-4 e § a «
■■j
6 3.*
EH ir
u" o o_*
« >>T> O
O *-> o o
*- _r':j=:o
£.SPg.2$"
<3 u co 2^
|X<3.£
IIh
o
.©
g».
CJO
.aS^«
u
CO W
©,>
CO
o_*
i> s
u a ll
°3 5 •
8. -J
o^ So
.8
cj u
,«3 OTJO
>-- c 13 -
-Q'cJ «-«
uJ.-
„.£ o = o
C Ml n n m"
i- .°JJ ri tj rs
3 u 5-woo
■gxas
<
o
•5
d
g»
a ;
u-
OjO
J.2°k
£ i-" o -
w CO Q->
«"-S
U t*2c->
.21 .5
la
Z 3
.H -a
I 1
§ g
— *"= J2
£ c ^3
T-. a v**
°— • 2
W c) O "^
■e 3 °. *f
i c3-« C.
. ° ** o
s «.= a
CO
J3
O
d
a
A
o>
em
ca
_ o
§8
oo
^
a
3
a
■a
a
3
a
'P.
- * a
!il-sil
ft.*s a
« o
c 3 —
» Sa
^ o
^ 3 —
° e «
. C n O
a
a a
.a i-
3 3_
si??
S 3
_2 o
M
■a "3
3 3 _■
S 95
II
3 J
•— tsC-S e '-"3 3
6 o 3
« > s °
03
= —
— ti— -
OOOOOQOO<
oooooooo;
o" o" o* o" o* o" o* o" c
oooooooo:
i£3 O: tD N O C CO O ;
o" as" co eo co"o oo"io ■-
3 Q Q
J o* o"
> oo
i »0 OS
oot^oooooooooooooooot^oo
o
d
o
oooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
o^q o o^ o o^o o o> o o o
o o" o o' o" o* o" o" o" o" o* o"
oooooooooooo
CO^CO^O^N OWCOWiHiOiMClO
i-T ci" «D* tjT co ^" co" tcT i-T ^h" aT ■**<"
NOOX»CO»CtCOCONCsC)
»C»C^iOlOfOeOr-«Oo''-'N
OTt-»OI>-J>-i00000i>-C^
Mt."oo
oooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
o_o_o_o o o_o_o o o o o
o* ©** o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o" o*
oooooooooooo
WCOC.NCSWMS'-'CCOiO
t^-COi>-t--00 010iOiOOOOOOOO
S-g « Q« S-3 3 &1S O g
B
130
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
X
H
Q
-
-
Z
o
<
o
I— I
g
a
O u
" wo
o - "• II
o'o ©uj
i c | H d
§2. a "8 8
_r; u— .o
■
at
CO CO
U CO
loi
O
H
Z
o
u
H
<:
CO
H
O
H
U
i. *
O u
oc" u =>
.3 u- r ii
si ^
i c » u ■
■- E g CO CO
§ a," a>
CJO
t. E o °?
-£•;;»> —
j-< 8 O >H3 ©
_ r =
C-tV 31 CO _"
•- ._ a ""8
3 u ™ «>D
3 U CO ^
■§IuJ5
<
y
■
c
CO
a
u
cjO
*/-■
st«J
V
r*>
£ll
s
c
1 -
—
= F
1
to to
O CO
£>.
f-o
n
« o >>T)o
X <-> — ©
*2 t
■glcji
a
1
g = -
m
— « o
_ c «
* c-o
■5 So
«'^' rt
«5 '. ~
•5 «•§
co-3 "
h
"§
- c_
■- ~& a =
P *; c o
o a 2 «J=
£7"i -
IP
o
111
"c.
c.
3
li
£Z
— c o e
« o2.2
MSI* IE
.s-e'o
* _
O IT i
-a a-
= I = §' 3 1 1 1 1 S' 3 88*S I S' I 5 = §' i' 1 1
r* — i - — I 09 r-'r -' ?/ ? i ■-' —' i - — .' (M* to* ^c* o* i -" —."'—"—* r ~* ro"
— c^ — oo — -*• ti -^ art -r :
?'
88888S8L .
:- ?i — r^ r- <- .: — — co oc eo
— " — ' -r' -r -c" e i" .c" — —•" f'ioc i oo" i-*" t>-" o c /-" p-T
N00-•*/:■:-.■ ." — -«
o«oooocooooooooooooooooo
ocooccoooooos
^ooocr-. ooo
i,r^.i^i.t-i-)-f-i-i-t-r-(-r-i-t-i-i~t-Til--h*r^-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'-OOO
a
fl n o
> 2 ° 5
w ^ '-S ^ J2
Pi
"3.
—
3
■Si
li
J3&
I
1
— c = c 9-2 <
3 oZ 2 2-= v;
I S^ 3^ § £ fe
00000000000000
0000000000c S £ -
o" o" o" o" o" o" o* o" o' o" o" o o o'
go o 00 o o o
0000000
500000000
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o' o' o' o' o o'o'o"
000000000000000c 00 = 0000
Oiia -■.^t.CNN^cotooccio Ol-: c s ri :im;««
10 s a n w c c. ei t r. r. c m c c 1 - ■ -m — o o c.
lOCNCDCXNIOft-CDNtOUJtOI'NCDNM^i?;-;
OOO
OOO
qnr-
CO 00 o o
> o o o o
"o'cTo'o"
0000
CN 0_c? — _
CO'UO IM'iTO
CO — eO "
tONCOCO
o o
= o
o o
0*0*
o o
CM —
00* to"
— m
■*< re
o o
o o
o o
o o
= o
o o
5
5§§!
o a
r-» 00
5 o c :
ice:
: — c :
- -
5 ~ :
cc lO '
OOO*
00 -^ ■
: O OO O
^ = 5 =
: r: o
= o o
■ CC iif^
00000 oooi^ooeoooroooo — 000
00000000000000000000000
§ :
lO *0 iC »f5 *C *C *0 *0 CC »C i/5 *C »C *C *C O "^ »-T "t rr »r^ U5 *C
I
5
iOONOOC'0-^CNCV5'*iO*NOOCiO"-NMf*0«DN
OOOOO — -*■— -^ — ^- .^^^- — — CN C) M CN CI CI CN CN
CidCi05C35CiOSOsOSOOiCaCs~w"-C:C"-C^CidC-CiCS
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
131
H
Z
u
S
(X
o
w
>
w
Q
Q
w
H
Q
o
CO
Z
o
o
H
Z
„ o
H
a
a.
H
_3
<
CO
O
Ok
W
H
U
u
a
9
o
u. . "
° r
8a
O u
»$%™
UN. go
^ ,_- °- II
£ £ u nj co
c.S>g.3o
-§XO.S
U
I og
is o**-o
o 1 - O ||
to - —
SiE
*l
&j o
co^*
I-
u >
o
^g
o 2
H Z ct>
°s|
B5 H 2
o"M>2g
■c-r co
z
o
o
"•is
ga
O u
o o
Ob
H
o
H
Z
W £
a*
Z tf
~ o
°Q
CO w
U H
PS
CO
■s E Si m °
„_r =
C "TV CO CO ~"
Sua? 10
-gluJS
<
OO
Oo
w
o
o S
CO
ga
O V.
i~" OO
>"> go
P Oil!
o
— 1-^1
.3 E Si o n
Si u £ o o
E SPo.2^'
S3 g""^
1.0 0^-
£ E co «
tn CO Q. <
-s°^g
U m2o
.2I-S
a. ?
g c -^^
CM »o
~ - m«
«5 CO "5
•C §<=«
3 a) "O o
3"".= s
5 a.g a
§ " a 2
■a 5
03
.t:o
1*3
0> ^ a
• S o
s :
II
Ph^S
a
a
'3
s
3 °
<5
C3 2
l§
^_ 1
CJ
§1*3.1
od
(U
>!
Ji
5"
g2
O CO O* OS 00 O Tt< <-<
OO'fiCNQ'I'NOOOO
oooooooooooo
OOOOOOOC2
o o o o_o o o o
o" o" o" o" o" o" o o"
oooooooo
■^" t»T -*" (N* O" oa" o o
c-i c^ -^ o» ^ oa co^ co^ to -t<_ »c_
CO* t>* TfT «— r -f" i-H r}T -r}T 00* ">•" t"^"
NCONNNNNNCcN CO
-a o >»^
*f g* 3 c3
■S > 8 **
• — c ^_
*- S c «*
-
o
a
COOiQOOOOO^WSt^uOOCq
l>-' CO t^ *>-* OO OS OS OS OO 00 oo oo
ill
.2
3
o
132
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
SO
Kg
u
u
•j
■J
o t.
.- C u m CO
g2£8S
__c o = o
c.Sc.2©
Mr
s
- o©
vji
i
O i_
UO
*°°
s8£a;
A o-ao
(J ".Kg
bjibjgo
-Q-r c
uJU<—
8 2^
§s.rss
__r u =
E.SP 2.2-0
<
UO
*°°
SR°
[o°H,
p-Scl
« 3a>
«T3 « •
'-J' o.*
-M o-po
w *-» — g
3
3
o
—
_'"5 O
S5 "2
c on £ o
£«§8
Ji| s
SJ2|
3 ~.= S
*~ a—
o i* S 3
J I
|8
.E *
■3°"
— S"
* 2
1°
n
B
'c
a
-■a s
111
= =5 =
ft-'s
a 2
SF 3
W
1
3 —
c a
P*"5
W
a
3
a
•a
« s
ca »_ fl -«
^ — -•
o a .2
3 i-
8 «
•3 «>
2 >>
B = —
(^■s
ca 2
£ 3
C3
c 3— .
" a
■5
§
s
OOUXOCOCK&'-QOOOO
o > e* o o r- to eo -*
00-PJ«flC.iC0«500
='§'§'=§' III"
» 6 ■ - 5 O •?» OO SO 00
-r* -?■" i >." '^' — " i - » a 9k
C^ Oi Oi t>. »C CO
OOPOQOOOOOOO
ooooooooocSoo
ggo-gg-ggggoog
C««OCNOOM«JNONO«N
O ONtO«t^«tNCOCQO
OfOOOO'J'OOO
00'T®aN«»0-NOO
ooooooooooo©
oooooooo
oooooooo
a
oooooooo
oooooooo
-1
CO Ol 00 ^"
—
EC
oodododoDOM *r
oocoooo=oooo
OOOO O
> O OO o
o" o" o" o" o" o' o o' o' o' Q
SSSSOboooo o
co n oo w oc cict io n i>»
naooo)ooo«f<>00 second-feet throughout all years of the
period investigated io meet the irrigation demands of the delta and for
salinity control at Antioch, contemplating control to about 100 parts
of chlorine per 100,000 parts of water. To meet the requirements for
salinity control, a total of 797,000 acre-feet of stored water above the
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 135
lowest levels permitted for power generation was held in reserve in the
reservoirs and released only as needed for salinity control purposes.
The reservoirs were also operated for an irrigation supply to San
Joaquin Valley, amounting to 334,000 acre-feet per season without
deficiency in supply, and released at a maximum rate of flow of 1000
second-feet. This was supplied in accord with the monthly irrigation
demand for the San Joaquin Valley floor, which is set forth on page 51
of Bulletin Xo. 6, "Irrigation Requirements of California Lands," pub-
lished by Division of Engineering and Irrigation, and is as follows:
Irrigation demand in pt r cent
Month of seasonal total
January
February 2
.March 5
April 11
May 17
June 18
July 18
August 1")
September 10
October 4
November
December
Total 100
The power output that could be obtained from the development oper-
ated for the uses described above was estimated for the period 1905-
1927. The maximum primary power possible of generation consistent
with other uses, and additional secondary power up to the capacity of
the generating equipment, were developed, utilizing the same total
generator installation, 179,000 k.v.a P. F. =0.80, given in Chapter IV for
the method of water release to develop maximum primary power. The
power output and characteristics are given in Tables 65 and 66, respec-
tively. The annual primary power output with this method of operation
is 340,800,000 kilowatt hours, 183,900,000 kilowatt hours or 35.0 per
cent less than the annual primary output for the complete develop-
ment operating primarily for power generation; however, the average
annual total power output is only 57,200,000 kilowatt hours, or 8.3
per cent less than the average total.
I
i
9—72924
L36
i>l\ [SION OF WATER BESOURi I s
TABLE 65. POWER OUTPUT OF COMPLETE CONSOLIDATED DEVEL-
OPMENT OPERATED COORDINATELY FOR FLOOD CONTROL
SALINITY CONTROL. IRRIGATION AND POWER
lit
I i. ighi of d in I' 1 " fa i
( apacitj "i reservoir, 355.000 acre- feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 54.000 1- v.a P.F, "0
Maximum reservation for floo I control, 1 75,000 acre- fed
Reserve i foi salinity control, 1 15 ooo acre-feet
\uburn reservoir —
I leight ol dam, 190 feet
rvoir, 5 l ),x,000 acre-l
Insi pacity of power plant, 66,000 k. v.a P.F »0i
Maximum reservation foi flood control, 200,000 acre- fa
Reservation for salinity control. 242,000 acr» I
< loloma reservoii
Height of dam. '40 |. ;
Capacity of reservoir, 7u\000 acre-feet,
Installed capacity of power plant, 30.000 k.v a P.F. =0 so
Maximum i i for flood control. 125,000 acre- feci.
Reservation for salinity control, 420 000 acre- 1
t 'ill it Creek reservoir
Height of dam. 1 10 fa I
Installed capacity of power plant, 19,000 k v.a P.F.—080.
Webb r ("reek res srvoii
I [eight ' if dam, l >0 feet.
Installed capacity ol power plant, 10000 k.v a P.F. =0.80.
Floods controlled to 100,000 second-feet maximum flow at Fairoaks
Inflow into the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers maintai
at 5,000 second-feet for salinity control and to meet the irrigation
demands of the delta
Irrigation supply for San Joaquin Valley of 334,000 acre-feet per season
deficiency in supply), at maximum rate of 1,000 second-feet
ned
(no
Veai
Power output in
kilowatt noun
Load factor
ii 75
Annual primary
power output,
340.800.000
kilowatt hours
1905
1908
621.900,001
739.500,000
1907
783.OOU.000
1908
'.iLViOO.000
1909
7M.70
1910
ih7.moo.000
191]
1912
o 13,400,001
517,800,001
I9H
S3]
1915
i.ID.OUO.OOO
1910
7-'O.9O0.O00
1917
i , .|i;.suu.ooo
1918
571,700.008
1919
551 I
1920
1921
B50. 100,000
1922
662,01
1923 .
ii.-f7.300.000
1924
roo.000
1925
.vjt.ooo.ooo
1920
iiU5.9OO.000
1927*
519.(100.000
(132,300.000
*Ptf tial year, Januar] I to October]
i
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
137
TABLE 66. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER OUTPUT OF COMPLETE
CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT OPERATED COORDINATELY FOR
FLOOD CONTROL, SALINITY CONTROL, IRRIGATION
AND POWER
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam, 190 feet.
Capacity of reservoir, 3 55,000 acre-feet.
Installed capacity of power plant, 54,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80.
Maximum reservation for flood control, 175,000 acre-feet.
Reservation for salinity control, 135,000 acre-feet.
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam, 390 feet .
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet.
Installed capacity of power plant, 66,000 k.v.a P.F. =0.80.
Maximum reservation for flood control, 200,000 acre-feet.
Reservation for salinity control, 242,000 acre-feet.
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet.
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet.
Installed capacity of power plant, 30,000 k.v.a P.F. =0.80.
Maximum reservation for flood control, 125,000 acre-feet.
Reservation for salinity control, 420,000 acre-feet.
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 1 10 feet.
Installed capacity of power plant, 19,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80.
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 90 feet.
Installed capacity of power plant, 10,000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80.
Floods controlled to 100,000 second-feet maximum flow at Fairoaks
Inflow into the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers maintained
at 5,000 second-feet for salinity control and to meet the irrigation
demand of the delta
Irrigation supply for San Joaquin Valley of 334,000 acre-feet per season (no
deficiency in supply), at maximum rate of 1,000 second-feet
Average annual power output, 632,300,000 kilowatt hours
Month
State-wide
average
monthly
demand
for
power in
per cent
of
annual
total
Power output in kilowatt hours
Load factor = 0.75
Maximum year, 1907
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of
annual
total
Minimum year, 1924
Kilowatt
hours
Per cent
of
annual
total
Per cent
of
annual
total
of
maximum
year
January. . .
February. .
March
April
May
June
July
August. . . .
September .
October. . .
November .
December .
Totals
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.9
8.8
9.0
9.4
9.5
8.7
8.5
8.0
8.2
100.0
74,400,000
07,200,000
74,300,000
72,000,000
74,400,000
72,000,000
74,300,000
69,800,000
54,500,000
39,000,000
42,400,000
68,700,000
9.5
8.5
9.5
9.2
9.5
9.2
9.5
8.9
7.0
5.0
5.4
8.8
25,000,000
23,800,000
26,700,000
27,000,000
56,900,000
64,300,000
67,700,000
59,400,000
42,800,000
31,600,000
30,200,000
31,300,000
783,000,000
100.0
486,700,000
5.1
4.9
5
5
11
13
13
12
8.8
6.5
6.2
6.4
100.0
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.5
7.3
8.2
8.6
7.6
5.5
4.0
3.9
4.0
62.2
138 DIVI8I0M OF WATEB RE80UB< I -
[f it were desirable l<> increase the irrigation supply for the San
Joaquin Valley from 334,000 acre-feel to 1,000,000 acre-feel per sea-
son, floods on the American River could be controlled to 100. ooo second-
feel ;it Fairoaks and the inflow into the delta could be maintained al
.')()()() second fed for salinity control ;m per cent
Dam and Hkskkyoik —
Exploration and core drilling
Diversion of river during construction
( Hearing rcscrvoirsite, 6,460 acrrs at $25.00
Excavation for dam and spillway, 370,000 cu. yds. at $1.00 to $10.00
Mass concrete, 498,000 cu. yds. at $6.30
Reinforced concrete, 5,000 cu. yds. at $15.00 to $18.50
Spillway gates, 4,000,000 lbs. at $0.10
Spillway cliannel
Sluiceways
Drilling and grouting foundation
Kartli fill section of main dam
Auxiliary dams
Lands and improvements flooded
Miscllancous:
< Sonstruetion and permanent camps
Construction railroad
$20,000
$20,000
75,000
76.000
162,000
IG2.000
627,000
3,137.„00
82,000
IDO.OOO
200.000
50,000
80,000
50,000
50,000
1,676,000
1,086,000
1,086,000
I8O.000
115,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir $6,31 1,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 631,000
Contingencies at 15% 947
Interest during construction 437,000
Total cost m dam and reservoir $8,329,000
Powek Plant —
Intake structure $54,000 $54,000
I'lMlStOClt*
Tunnel excavation, 25,800 cu. yds. at $7.50 to $10.00 206,000
Tunnel timbering I.-..000
Concrete tunnel lining, 8,500 cu. yds. at $20.00 170.000
Reinforcing steel, 500,000 lbs. at $0.055 000
Steel pipe, 686,000 lbs. at $0.085 58,000 507
Buildings and equipment, 43.000 k.v.a. at $35.00 1,505,000 1,50
Tailrace structure 65,000 66,000
Subtotal, power plant $2,131,000
Admi lustration and engine 'ring at 10% 213,000
Contingencies at l.V, 320,000
Interest during construction 133,00(1
Total cost, of power plant $2,797,0M
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir rnd power plant $11,126,000
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
Total cost i if dam and reservoir $8,478,000
Total com of power riant 2,842,000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant $1 1 ,320.000
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 145
TABLE 70. ESTIMATED COST OF FOLSOM RESERVOIR AND POWER
PLANT WITH FLOOD CONTROL FEATURES
Auburn and Coloma Reservoirs not constructed
Height of dam, 190 feet Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Capacity of overflow spillway, 100,000 second-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 100,000 second-feet
Tailrace elevation of power plant, 200 feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 43,000 k. v. a. P. F. =0.80 L. F. =0.75
Interest during construction at 4 ' ■> per cent
Dam and Reservoir —
Exploration and core drilling
Diversion of river during construction
Clearing of reservoir site, 6,460 acres at $25.00
Excavation for dam and spillway, 390,000 cu. yds. at $1.00 to $10.00
Mass concrete. 510,000 cu. yds. at $6.30
Reinforced concrete, 3,000 cu. vds. at $15.00 to $23.50
Spillway gates, 1,600,000 lbs. at $0.10
Spillway channel
Sluiceways
Drilling and grouting foundation
Earth fill section of main dam
Auxiliary dams
Lands and improvements flooded
Miscellaneous:
Construction and permanent camps
Construction railroads .•.
$20,000
$20,000
75,000
75,000
162,000
162,000
682,000
3,213,000
55,000
160,000
100,000
50,000
80,000
50,000
50,000
4,440,000
1,086,000
1,086,000
180.000
115,000
205,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir $6,078,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 608,000
Contingencies at 15% 912,000
Interest during construction 431,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir $8,029,000
Flood Control Features —
Excavation, 60,000 cu. yds. at $1.50
Trash racks :
Reinforced concrete, 7,700 cu. yds. at $25.00
Gates, 18-14 'xl4' sluice gates with hoists
Flood control channel
$90,000
$90,000
50,000
50,000
192,000
192,000
165,000
165,000
100,000
100,000
Subtotal, flood control features $597,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 60,000
Contingencies at 15% 90,000
Interest during construction 25,000
Total cost of flood control features $772,000
t
Power Plant —
Intake structure $60,000 $60,000
Penstock:
Tunnel excavation, 30,500 cu. yds. at $7.00 to $9.00
Tunnel timbering
Concrete tunnel lining, 9,300 cu. yds. at $20.00
Reinforcing steel, 550,000 lbs. at $0.055
Steel pipe, 862,000 lbs. at $0.085
Building and equipment, 43,000 k.v.a. at $35.00
Tailrace structure
Subtotal, power plant $2,194,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 220,000
Contingencies at 15% 329,000
Interest during construction 139,000
Total cost of power plant $2,882,000
225,000
50,000
186,000
30,000
73,000
564,000
1,505,000
1,505,000
65,000
65,000
Gr^nd total cost of dam, reservcir, flood control features and power plant $11,684,000
Interest during construction at 6 per ctnt
Total cost of dam and reservoir $8, 1 78,0(MI
Total cost of flood control features 780,000
Total cost of power plant 2,930,000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir, flood control features and power plant $11,888,000
1 Hi DIVISION OF WATER KKSOURCES
Auburn reservoir.
<>n Plate IX. "Auburn dam with power plan and flood control
features," arc shown the dam and the arrangement of its several
features. Seel ions of the dam together with area and capacity curves
of the Auburn reservoir are also shown on the plate. With the excep-
tion of the portions occupied by the overflow spillway and the flood
control features, the dam section is the non-overflow gravity-COn-
crete type. The maximum section has a height of 390 feet above
low water and if is estimated that 15 feet of stripping would be required
to obtain a suitable foundation. The length on the crest at elevation
905 feet is 1600 feet.
The overflow spillway, located on the righi abutment, has an overall
Length of 360 feet if flood control features are included in the dam.
Its capacity, with a depth of 20 feet on the spillway lip, is 100,000
second-feet and with the water level at the crest of the dam, is 144.000
second-feet. If flood control features were not included in the dam,
the capacity of the spillway would be larger. In this instance the over-
all length would be 608 feet, with a net length of 500 feet and with a
depth of 20 feet, on the spillway lip, its capacity would be 170,000
second-feet. As shown on Plate IX, with flood control features, flow
over the spillway is controlled by six steel drum gates, each 50 feet
long and 20 feet deep, hydraulic-ally operated. It is believed that the
character of the rock at the site would not necessitate the construction
of a definite spillway channel for the purpose of conveying the water
discharged over the spillway into the stream below the dam.
The flood control features in the Auburn dam are similar to those in
the Folsom dam. Sixteen 10-foot by 10-1'oot outlets are provided and
are located on the left abutment. The outlets 77 feet below the top of
the dam have a capacity of 50,000 second feet, with the reservoir drawn
down to the minimum flood control level at elevation 846 feet. Roller
sluice gates and a trash rack structure are provided at the upstream
lace of the dam.
Two sluiceways are provided In the central portion of the dam for the
purpose of unwatering the power tunnel and also to supplement the
capacity of the power tunnel in passing the maximum irrigation draft
if the reservoir were operated primarily for irrigation purposes. Each
sluiceway has a diameter of <>2 inches and is lined with steel. The total
capacity of the sluiceways is 1500 second -feet with the reservoir drawn
to one-half depth. Control of flow is obtained by means <>f roller sluice
gates at the upstream face and a balanced needle valve on one outlet
at the downstream face. Trash racks around the sluice gates are pro-
vided at the upstream face of the dam.
The power house is located on the left bank about 2400 feet down-
stream from the dam. Water would be delivered to the turbines
through a tunnel controlled by means of roller sluice gates in a rein-
forced concrete intake structure about 100 feet upstream from the dam.
The power tunnel is about 1250 feet long and is lined with concrete,
12 inches thick, and reinforced with steel where the overburden is not
sufficient to withstand the water pressure. Its diameter is 13.5 feet
without reservoir operation for flood control purposes and 14.5 feet
with flood control. About 200 feet above the power house, the tunnel
divides into 4 steel penstocks which would deliver the water to four
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
117
PLATE IX
u"U»P S"9Sn-*»»J "1 uo'|«a»)3
1
i
1
8
a
!
\
.
4
:
e
B
Y
Y
!
f
*
:
a
II
s
■
.
9
k
1
a
%
j
f
i
ft
1
//
i
s
i L
'
8
w
uimtp"
1
sosn
i
i
148 DIVISION OF WATBB BESOUBCES
vertical variable head reaction turbines, directly connected to genera-
tors. The installed capacity <>f the power plant is (>(),()()() k.v.a. for ;i
planl load factor of 0.75 as proposed in i his report ami 82,000 k.v.a.
for a planl Load factor of 0.60, as proposed by the American River
Hydro-electric Company.
The cost of the Auburn reservoir wilhont flood control features and
with interest during construction at 4h and 6 per cent. State and private
financing, respectively, is set forth in Table 71.
Table 72 gives similar information with flood control features
included. The power plant installation in each instance is oG.000 k.v.a.,
with a plant load factor of 0.75. These estimates together with those
with a power plant installation of 82,000 k.v.a. are .summarized in
Table 77.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVI'.U ]4!)
TABLE 71. ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RESERVOIR AND POWER
PLANT WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL FEATURES
Height of dam, 390 feet Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Capacity of overflow spillway, 170,000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 66,000 k.v.a. P.F. = 0.80 L.F. = 0.75
Interest during construction at 4' 2 per cent
Dam anh Reservoir —
Exploration and core drilling $20,000 $20,000
Diversion of river during construction 50,000 50,000
Clearing reservoir site, 4,200 acres at $60.00 252,000 252,000
Excavation for dam, 140,000 eu. vds. at $2.50 to $5.00 455,001)
Mass concrete, 1,153,000 CU. yds. at $0.50 7,495,000
Reinforced concrete, 7,000 cu. yds. at $15.00 to $23.00 112,000
Spillway gates, 3,000,000 lbs. at $0.10 300,000
Sluiceways 50,000
Drilling and grouting foundation-. 36,000 8,448,000
Lands and improvements flooded 855,000 855,000
Construction and permanent camps 250,000 250,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir $9,875,000
Adiui'dstration and engineering at 10% 988,000
Contingencies at 15% 1,481,000
Interest during construction 781,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir $13,125,000
Power Plant —
Intake structure $93,000 $93,000
i P Tl ^ t Of*K *
Tunnel excavation, 13,400 cu. vds. at $9.00 to $10.50 127,000
Tunnel timbering 25,000
Concrete tunnel lining, 5,180 cu. yds. at $20.00 104,000
Reintorcing steel, 470,000 lbs. at $0.055 26,000
Steel pipe, 1.000,000 lbs. at $0.085 85,000
Reinforced concrete 10,000 377,000
Buildings and equipment, 66,000 k.v.a. at $35.00 2,310,000 2,310,000
Subtotal, power plant $2,780,000
Administration and engine ring at 10% 278,000
Contingencies at 15% 417,000
Interest during construction 158,000
Total cost of power plant '. $3,633,000
Grand total cost of reservoir, dam and power plant $16,758,000
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
Total cost of dam and reservoir $13,396,000
Total cost of power plant 3,686,000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant $17,082,000
150
DIVISION OP WATER RESOl R< I -
TABLE 72. ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RESERVOIR AND POWER
PLANT WITH FLOOD CONTROL FEATURES
Height of dam, 390 feet Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Capacity of overflow spillway, 100,000 second-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 50,000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 66,000 k. v. a. P. F. = 0.80 L. F. =0.75
Inte'est du iny construction a! 4 1
Dam ini RasxBvon
I Ixploration and core Irillinn
Div raion of river during construction
Clearing res rvoirsite, 4,200 acres at S60.00
Excavation For dam, lit. mm ru, vds. at $2.50 t(. $5.00
Mass ooncr te, 1,178,000 en 6.60
Reinforced concrete, 6,300 cu. yds. at $15.00 to $23.00
S-.illway gat s, 1.8(1(1,000 lbs. at $0.10
Sluiceways
Drilling and grouting Foundation
Lands and improvements flooded
Construction and permanent campe. . .
Subtotal, dam and reservoir
Administration and engine iring at to' ,
Contingencii e at i.v ,
lnt treat during construction
p.r cent
Total cost of dam and r s irvoir
Flooi Control Featires —
Trash racks
Reinforced concrete, 8,000 cu. yds. at $15.00 to 125.00
(lads, 16 — 10'xlO' sluice gates with hoists
Subtotal, flood control features
A dnu dstration and engineering at Id' ,
( iontingencies at 15' ,
Int 'rest during construction
Total cost of flood control feat urea
Power Plant—
Intake struct urc
Penstock:
Tunnel excavation. 14,900 cu. yds. at $8.00 to $10.00
'runnel timbering.
Concrt te tunnel lining, 5.4(H) cu. vds. at $20.00
Reinforcing steel, 520.000 lbs. at $0.055
Steel pipe, 1,120,000 lbs. at $0.085
Reinforced ooncri te ....
Buildings and equipment, 66,000 Lv.a. at $35.00. . . .
Subtotal, [lower plant
Administration and enginaaring at 10?!
Contingencies al 16"
lnt res I during construction
Total cost of power plant
Grand total ccst of dam, reservoi;, flood control features and power plant
(20,000
60,000
262,000
170.000
',657,000
88,000
180,000
50.000
250,000
$35,000
138.000
110.000
120,000
50.000
252,000
8,479.000
855.000
50,000
I IIOO
991,000
1.486.000
701. 000
196,000
128,000
27,000
108.000
20,000
10,000
$13,174,000
135,000
138.000
110,004
$288
.'vein
43.000
12.000
I366,00fj
$96,000
397,000
2.310,000
$2,803,000
-Nll.OOO
I? 1. 000
161.000
$3,665,000
$17,205,000
Interest during coistruction at 6 per cent
Total cost of dam and raservoir $13,447,000
Total cost of Hood control features .... 370,000
Total oost of power plant .'i.719,000;
G and total cost of dam, reservoir, flood control features a id power plant $17,536,000
Pilot Creek reservoir.
The arrangemenl of the works al the l'ilot Creek dam is shown on
Plate X, "Pilot Creek dam with power plant." The dam is an over-
flow type gravity-concrete dam. 110 feet high measured above low water
and with a crest length of 500 feet. The depth of stripping is esti-
mated at 15 feet. The dam with a depth on crest of 20 feet would pass
175,000 second-feet. There are no crest gates or sluiceways. Provision
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
151
is made for passing fiO second-feel of prior right water of the North
Fork diteli through the right abutment of the dam. The power plant
is located on the left bank, about 500 feet downstream from the dam.
The power tunnel is 13.5 feet in diameter, the same size as the tunnel
for the 'Auburn reservoir without flood control features and has a
capacity of 1500 second-feet. It is lined with concrete. Control is
effected by two sluice gates near upper end of the tunnel. At the
lower end, the tunnel divides into four steel penstocks which connect
to constant head turbines of the four generating units. These units
have an aggregate capacity of 19,000 k.v.a. for a plant load factor of
0.75 and 23,000 k.v.a. for a plant load factor of 0.60. The estimated cost
of the reservoir with a power plant capacity of 19,000 k.v.a. is set forth
in Table 73, with interest during construction at 4| and 6 per cent.
State and private financing, respectively. This estimate and one with
a power plant capacity of 23,000 k.v.a. are summarized in Table 77.
plate x
CREST LLtV. SIS'
W.S. ELEV. 515 '
20O 300
Length in feet
PROFILE OF DAM
LOOKING UPSTREAM
MAXIMUM SECTION OF DAM
fEET
PILOT CREEK DAM
WITH
POWER PLANT
GENERAL PLAN
FEn
O WO 200
10—72924
152 DIVISION OF watii; BESOUBOBS
TABLE 73. ESTIMATED COST OF PILOT CREEK RESERVOIR AND
POWER PLANT
Height of dam, 110 feet Overflow dam
Installed capacity of power plant, 19,000 k. v. a. P. F. = 0.80 L. F. =0.75
Inleies' during co ist-uctio i at 4 1 - pe; ceil
Dam and Rismvoni —
Exploration and core trilling $10,000 110,000
Diversion of river during construction .'iii.OOO 50,000
Clearing of reeervoir site, 260 acres at 160.00 n.ooo 16,000
Excavation for .lam, 20,000 cu. yds. at $3.00 to $5.00 70,000
Mass concrete, (52,000 cu. yds. at $6.50 108,000
Drilling and grouting foundation 13,0 486.1
Lands and improvement! Hooded .'"j.ooo 28,000
Miscellaneous:
Construction and permanent camps 80,000
Construction railroad i.u.oOO 1 10,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir
Administration and engineering at 10%
Contingencies at 15% 109.IIIHI
Interest during construction 31,000
Total cost dam and reservoir $930,000
Power Plant —
Intake structure $30,000 $30,000
Tunnel excavation, 2,200 cu. yds. at $9.00 $20,000
Tunnel timbering 1,000
Concrete tunnel lining, 800 cu. yds. at $20.00 Hi.ooo
Steel pipes, 380,000 lbs. at $0.15 57,000 07.000
Buildings and equipment, 19,000 k.v.a. at $35.00 ">.000 Gti5,000
Subtotal, power plant $792
Administration and engineering at 10% 79,000
Contingencies at l. r >% 1 19.000
Interest during construction 34,000
Total cost of power plant
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant $1,963,000
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
Total cost of dam and reservoir $949,0001
Total cost of power plant 1 .035.000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant. . . $1,984,000
Coloma reservoir.
The layout at the Coloma dam is similar to that at Auburn. The
flood control features are located on the left and the overflow spillway
on the right abutment. The power plant is on the right bank of the
stream, about 2000 feet downstream from the dam. The arrangement
of the various features together with sect ions of the dam are shown on
Plate XI "Coloma dam with power plant and flood control features."
Curves of area and capacity of the Coloma reservoir are also shown on
Plate XL Estimates of cost are based on a gravity-concrete dam. The
maximum height 1 would be 340 feel above low water. The depth of
Stripping for the foundation is estimated at 12 feet in the stream bed,
15 to 20 feet on the right abutment and from 20 to 25 on the left abut-
ment.
The flood control features consist of ten 10-foot by 10-foot openings
through the dam, 48 feet below the crest. The capacity of the outlets
is 30,000 second-feet with the reservoir drawn down to elevation 865
feet, 25 feet below the top of the dam. Like the Auburn dam, the flow
through each outlet is controlled by a roller sluice gate at the upstream
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 153
PLATE XI
154 division OF WATBB RXBOUBl r-
face <>i' the dam operated by an electric hoist. A trash rack structure
is provided around the gates.
The overflow spillway has an overall length of 174 feel with Mood
control features included ill the dam. Without flood control features.
the corresponding length would be 283 feet. The spillway lip is 25
feet below the top of the dam. The capacity of the spillway, if flood
control features were included in the dam. would be 50,000 and 70,000
second-feet for a head on the spillway lip of 20 and 25 feet, respectively.
Without flood control features in the dam, the capacity for correspond-
ing heads would be 80,000 and 110.000 second-feet. Three steel drum
gates, 20 feet deep and 50 feet long are provided for the control of
water over the spillway, with flood control features in the dam. With-
out flood control features, five gates 20 feet deep and 47 feet Ion-
would be required. As in the case of the Auburn dam, no separate
channel is provided either for overflow spillway or flood control outlets.
Two sluiceways, with a total capacity of 1S00 second-feet, are placed
205 feet below the top of the dam. These together with the power
tunnel would be capable of passing the maximum irrigation demand if
the reservoir were operated primarily for that purpose. Each sluice-
way is 66 inches in diameter and lined with steel. Control is effected
by a roller sluice gate on each outlet at the upstream face of the dam
and a balanced needle valve at the downstream end of one outlet.
The arrangement of the power plant is similar to that at the Auburn
dam. Water would be conveyed to the power house in a power tunnel,
2120 feet long and 10 feet in diameter, which divides above the power
house into two steel penstocks, each 350 feet long and 86 inches in
diameter. The sizes of the tunnel and penstocks are the same both
with and without flood control because the draw-down in the reservoir
especially for flood control would be relatively small. The tunnel is
lined with concrete, 12 inches in thickness. Control of flow into the
tunnel is effected by roller sluice gates located in a reinforced concrete
intake structure at the upstream end of the tunnel. The turbines are
of the variable head reaction type directly connected to the generators.
The installed capacity of the plant is :!0.000 k.v.a. with a plant load
factor of 0.75 and 37,000 k.v.a. with a plant load factor of 0.60.
The estimated cost of the Coloma reservoir and power plant without
flood control features is given in Table 74, for interest during con-
struction at 4| and 6 per cent per annum, State and private financing,
respectively. Table 75 gives corresponding information with flood con-
trol features included in the dam. The power plant installation in each
instance is 30,000 lev. a., based on a plant load factor of 0.75. These
estimates together with estimates based on a power plant installation
of 37,000 k.v.a. are summarized in Table 77.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 155
TABLE 74. ESTIMATED COST OF COLOMA RESERVOIR AND POWER
PLANT WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL FEATURES
Height of dam, 340 feet Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Capacity of overflow spillway, 80,000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 30,000 k. v. a. P. F. =0.80 L. F. =0.75
Interest during construction at 4' 2 per cent
Dam and Reservoir —
Exploration and core drilling $20,000 $20,000
Diversion of river during construction 50,000 50,000
Clearing reservoir site, 6,565 acres at $25.00 164,000 164,000
Excavation for dam, 111,000 cu. yds. at $2.50 to $5.00 324,000
Mass concrete, 724,000 cu. yds. at $7.00 5.068,000
Reinforced concrete. 3,000 cu. yds. at $15.50 to $23.50 51,000
Spillway gates, 1,420,000 lbs. at $0.10 142,000
Sluiceways 50,000
Drilling and grouting foundation 30,000 5,665,000
Lands and improvements flooded 1,500,000 1,500,000
Miscellaneous:
Construction railroad. . , 270,000
Construction and permanent camps 200,000 470,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir $7,869,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 787,000
Contingencies at 15% 1,180,000
Interest during construction 710,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir $10,546,000
Power Plant —
Intakestructure $68,000 $68,000
Penstock:
Tunnel excavation, 10,800 cu. yds. at $11.00 to $13.50 122,000
Tunnel timbering 22,000
Concrete tunnel lining, 5,150 cu. yds. at $20.00 103,000
Reinforcing steel, 100,000 lbs. at $0.055 6,000
Steel pipes, 825,000 lbs. at $0.085 70,000
Reinforced concrete 5,000 328,000
Buildings and equipment, 30,000 k.v.a. at $35.00 1,050,000 1,050,000
Subtotal, power plant $1,514,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 152,000
Contingencies at 15% 227,000
Interest during construction 105,000
Total cost of power plant $1,998,000
Grand total cost dam, reservoir and power plant $12,544,000
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
Total cost of dam and reservoir $10,793,000
Total cost of power plant 2,035,000
Grand total cost dam, reservoir and power plant $12,828,000
156 DIVISION OP WATER RB80URCE6
TABLE 75. ESTIMATED COST OF COLOMA RESERVOIR AND POWER
PLANT WITH FLOOD CONTROL FEATURES
Height of dam, 340 feet Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Capacity of overflow spillway, 50,000 second-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 30,000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 30,000 k. v. a. P. F. = 0.80 L. F. =0.75
Interest during co lstruc'ioi at 4' j per ce it
Dam and Reservoir—
Exploration and core drilling ....
Diversion of river during construction .
Clearing reservoir site, ti,.'>r>"> acres at $25.00
Excavation for dam, 113,000 ou. yds. at $2.50 to $5.00
Mass concrete, 736,000 cu. yds. at $7.00
lie inforccd concrete, 2,500 cu. yds. at $15.50 to $23.50
Spillway gates, 900,000 lbs. at $0.10
Sluiceways
Drilling and grouting foundation
Lands and improvements flooded
Miscellaneous:
Construction railroad
Construction and permanent camps
$20,000
$20,000
50,000
50,000
I6i,000
164,000
351,000
5,152.000
12,000
1(0.000
50,000
30.000
5,715,000
1,500,000
1,500.000
2711.000
800,000
170,000
Subtotal, dam and reservoir 17,010,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 7 > 2, 000
Contingencies at 15 r J 1.188,000
Interest during construction 715,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir $10,014,000
Flood Control Features—
Trash racks $20,000 $20,000
Reinforced concrete 3,500 cu. yds. at $15.00 to $25.00 62,000 62.000
Gates, 10— 10' x 10' sluice gates with hoists 60.000 60,000
Subtotal, flood control features $142,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 14,000
Contingencies at 16% 21,000
Interest during construction 7,000
Total cost of flood control features $184,000
I'owkr Plant —
Intekestructure 168,000 168,000
Penstock:
Tunnel excavation, 10,800 cu. yds. at $11.00 to $13.50
Tunnel timbering
( ionerete t unnel lining, 5,150 ou. vis. at $20.00
Reinforcing steel 100,000 lbs. at $0.055
Sleel pipes, 825,000 lbs. at $0.085
Reinforced concrete
Buildings and equipment, 30,000 lcv.a. at $35.00
Subtotal, power plant $1,514,000
Administration and engineering at 10% 152,000
( lontingeneies at l.V , 227,000
Interest during construction 1 05.000
Total cost of power plant $1,!»!»8.00
Grand total cost dam. reservoir, flood control features aid power plant $12,796,000
$122,000
22,000
103.000
6,000
70,000
5,000
328,000
1,050,000
1 ,050.000
Interest during construction at 6 per ce it
Total cost of dam and reservoir . $10,863,000
Total cost of flood control features 186.000
Total DOBl of power plant 2,035.000
Grand total cost of dam, rese. voir, flood control features and power plant $13,084,000
Webber Creek reservoir.
The dam for the Webber Creek reservoir is an overflow gravity-con-
crete type the same as for the Pilot Creek dam. It is shown on Plate
XII, "Webber Creek dam with power plant." Its maximum height is
00 feet above low water level. It is estimated that 10 feet would be
required l<> be stripped from the stream bed, 15 feel, on the left abut-
ment and 'JO U'ri on the right abutmenl to secure a suitable foundation
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
157
for the dam. A flow of 115,000 second-feet could be passed over the
dam with a depth of 20 feet on the crest. No crest gates or sluiceways
are provided in the dam. The power house is located 4300 feet down-
stream from the dam. A concrete-lined tunnel 2650 feet long and 10
feet in diameter would convey water to the power house. It has a
capacity of 800 second-feet. The tunnel divides at the lower end into
two steel penstocks, each 86 inches in diameter, which deliver water to
two constant head reaction turbines directly connected to generators.
The installed capacity of the plant is 10,000 k.v.a. with a plant load
factor of 0.75 and 13.000 k.v.a. with a plant load factor of 0.60. The
estimate of cost with a plant installation of 10,000 k.v.a. is set forth
in Table 76, with interest during construction at 4^ and 6 per cent,
State and private financing, respectively. This estimate together with
one for a power plant installation of 13,000 k.v.a. is summarized in
Table 77.
PLATE XII
CREST E1£V. 550'
:
'n
;
X,
\
*
\
/ /
/ t
\ \
/ .-
EXCA
/ATI0N LINE
\
r A
/
/
.
j
100 200
Length in feet
PROFILE OF DAM
LOOKING UPSTREAM
WS ELEV. 550'
MAXIMUM SECTION OF DAM
WEBBER CREEK DAM
POWER PLANT
1 58
DIVISION OK WATER liKSOl K< !■,.-
TABLE 76. ESTIMATED COST OF WEBBER CREEK RESERVOIR
POWER PLANT
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 10,000 k. v. a. P
AND
Overflow dam
F. =0.80 L. F. =0.75
Interest duri ig co istruc io i a. 4' i per ce it
Dam m RasnvoiB —
Exploration and ''"re Irilling
Diversion of river during construction
Clearing of r aervoirsite, 200 acn b at $25.00 .
Excavation for dam. 15,000 ou. yda. at $2.50 to $5.00
Muss concrete, 30,000 ou. vis. al 16.78
Drilling and grouting foundation
Lands and improvements flooded
Miscellaneous:
( ionstmotion and permanent camps
( 'instruction r.iiln ;u
Subtotal, dam and reservoir
Ailnii istration and engineering at 10' ,'
Contingencies at 15%
Interest during construction
Total cost of dam and reservoir .....
Powbh Plant—
Intake structure
Penstock:
Tunnel exoevation, 11,800 cu. yds. at $11.00. ..
Tunnel timbering
Concrete tunni I lining, 5.400 cu. vds. at $20.00
Steel pipes, 190,000 lbe. at $0.15
Buildings and equipment, 10,000 k.v.a. at $35.00.
Subtotal, power plant
Administration and engineering at 10%
Contingencies at 15%
Interest during construction
Total cost of power plant
110,000
50.000
5.000
50.000
243,000
8,000
10,000
50,000
30.000
120,000
130,000
12,000
ins nun
.'S. in id
350,000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant
$10.1100
50,000
5.000
301,000
10.000
BO.OO0
$456,000
46,000
liS. 1)011
20,000
$590,000
120,000
278.000
350,000
$648,000
85.000
28.000
$838,000
$1,428,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir
Total cost of power plant
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
$596,000
847,000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant
$1,443,000
L58
Dl\ l-m\ OF WATER RESOURt EH
Overflow darn
F.=0.80L. F.=0.75
TABLE 7b. ESTIMATED COST OF WEBBER CREEK RESERVOIR AND
POWER PLANT
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant, 10,000 k. v. a. P
Interest duri ig coistruc io i a. 4' .. per ce it
Dam an- Kesf.rvoir —
Exploration and corr Irilling
I >r. iraion i f rival during oonstnjotion
Clearing of rsaervoirsite, 200 acri ■ at $25.00 .
Excavation fur dam, 15.000 cu. yds. at $2.50 to $5.00
Mass concn te, 30,000 eu. yds. at 16.78
Drilling ami grouting foundation
Linls and improvement! flooded
Mis© Uaneous:
Construction and permanenl camps.
Construction railroad
Subtotal, dam and rei irvoir
Administration and engineering at 10^
Contingencies at 1-V I
Int Test during construction
Total cost of dam and r •.■; rvoir
Power Pi.v.t
Intakestructure
Penstock:
Tunnel excavation, 1 1,800 cu. yds. at $11.00. ..
Tunnel limb ring
Concrete tunnel lining, 5,400 cu. vds. at $20.00
St»el pipes, 190.000 lbs. at $0.15
Buildings and equipment, 10,000 k.v.a. at $35.00
Subtotal, power plant
Administration and engineering at 10' ;
Contingencies at 15%
Interest during construction
Total cost of power plant
$I0.IHKI
50.000
5,000
50,000
3 13.000
8.000
10,000
50,000
30.000
$10.1 II Ml
5.000
301.000
10.000
80,000
1460.000
46 000
(18 000
20,000
120,000
130,000
12,000
108.000
350.000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plan!
1500,000
120.000
3,000
350,000
$648,000
65 iiimi
28.000
$838,000
$1,428,000
Total cost of dam and reservoir
Total cost of power plant
Interest during construction at 6 per cent
$596,000
847.000
Grand total cost of dam, reservoir and power plant
$1,443,000
TABLE 77. ESTIMATED COST OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Folsom reservoir —
Height of dam. 190 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 355,000 acre-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 100.000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs not constructed,
43,000 k.v.a. P F. =0.80 L.F, =0.75
35,000 Icv.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. = 1 .00
Auburn and Coloma reservoirs constructed,
54,000 k.v a. P F =0 80 L.F. =0.75
45,000 k.v a. P.F. =0 80 L.F. = 1 .00
Auburn reservoir —
Height of dam. 390 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 598,000 acre-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 50.000 second-feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
82.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.60
66.000 k .v.a. P.F. =0.80 L F. =075
Coloma reservoir —
Height of dam, 340 feet
Capacity of reservoir, 766,000 acre-feet
Capacity of flood control outlets, 30.000 secnnd-feet
Installed capacity of power plant.
37.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0 80 L.F. =0.60
30.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0 80 L.F. =0.75
Pilot Creek reservoir —
Height of dam. 110 feet
Installed capacity of power plant,
23,000 k.v.a. P F. =0,80 L.F. =0.60
19.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L F. =0.75
Webber Creek reservoir —
Height of dam, 90 feet
Installed capacity of power plant.
1 3.000 k v.a. P.F, =0.80 L F. =0 60
10.000 k.v.a. P.F. =0.80 L.F. =0.75
Cost with interest during construction at i 2 Per cent
Cost with interest during construction at 6 per cent
Unit
Dam
Lands and
improve-
ments and
clearing of
reservoir
site
Power plant
Additional cost for
flood control features
Total cost
Dam
Lands and
improve-
ments and
clearing of
reservoir
Bite
Power plant
Additional coBt for
flood control features
Total cost
L.F =0.60'
L.F.=0.75
L.F.=0.60'
L.F.=0.75
L.F.=0.60'
I..F-0.75
L.F.=0.60*
L.F.=0.75
L.F.=0.60'
L.F=0.75
L.F.=0.60 -
L.F— 0.75
Folsom RcBervoir (Initial develop-
ment. Auburn and Coloma rr-s-
56,633,000
$6,633,000
11.597,000
886,000
51.696,000
81,696,000
1,528.000
53,000
•52,400,000
•52,949,000
4,357,000
1.205.0U0
52,797.000
53,390.000
3,633,000
1,024,000
•$558,000
•5503,000
447,000
8558,000
5563.000
447.000
•811,287,000
•811,841,000
17,929,000
2.144,000
811,681.000
$12,282,000
17,205,000
1,963,000
$6,735,000
$6,735,000
11,818,000
896,000
$1,743,000
81.743,000
1.578,000
53,000
•52,441,000
•82,997,000
4.418.000
1,218.000
82,842.000
83,444.000
3,686,000
1,035,000
•8568,000
■1573,1
454,000
5568.000
5573,000
454.000
•811,487,000
•812,048,000
18,268,000
2,167,000
811,888.000
812.495,000
17,536,000
1.984,000
Folson, Reservoir
Total, second stage of development.
119,116.000
8,234,000
570,000
S3.277.000
2,312,000
20,000
88.511,000
2,220,000
973.000
58,047,000
1,998,000
838,000
51,010.000
252,000
51,010,000
252,000
831.914,000
13,018.0(10
1,563,000
831.450,000
12,71 i
1,428,000
$19,449,000
8.398,000
576,000
$3,374,000
2,395,000
20,000
18,633,000
2,256,000
984,000
58,165.000
2,035.000
847.000
$1,027,000
256.000
$1,027,000
256,000
132.488,000
13.305.000
1.580.000
532,015.000
13,084,000
1,443,000
Grand total, complete develop-
ment
$27,920,000
55,609,000
$11,704,000
$10,883,000
$1,262,000
$1,262,000
846,495.000
$45,674,000
$28,423,000
$5,789,000
$11,873,000
811,047.000
$1,283,000
$1,283,000
847 368.000
$46,542,000
• Folsom Power Plant, L.F.=1.00.
72924— p. 15S
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 159
Complete development.
The estimated costs of the complete development are assembled in
Table 77. Costs are given for interest during construction for both 4^
and 6 per cent, the rates assumed for State and private financing,
respectively. It may be noted that two sets of figures are given for the
Folsom reservoir. One set is for the condition of Folsom reservoir
constructed alone. The other is for the condition of Folsom reservoir
constructed either in conjunction with Auburn reservoir or in con-
junction with both Auburn and Coloma reservoirs. With these latter
reservoirs constructed a larger power plant would be justified at Folsom
due to the increased regulated flow. Costs are included for varying
power plant load factors. In the proposal of the American River
Hydro-electric Company, all plants would be installed for a plant load
factor of 0.60 except the Folsom plant, which would be for a plant load
factor of 1.00. Estimates have also been made on the basis of all
plants being installed for a plant load factor of 0.75.
Under State financing, the total cost of the complete development
including flood control features, with the power plants installed for a
plant load factor of 0.75, is $45,674,000. This total is divided among
the various items as follows: dams, $27,920,000, 61.1 per cent of total
cost ; reservoir lands and improvements and clearing of reservoir sites,
$5,609,000, 12.3 per cent of total cost ; power plants, $10,883,000, 23,8
per cent of total cost; and additional cost of flood control features,
$1,262,000, 2.8 per cent of total cost. Under private financing, the total
estimated cost, with same power plant installation under State financ-
ing is $46,542,000. The division of costs for the various items are prac-
tically in the same proportion as under State financing.
160
i-i\ ision ok WA'i 1:1; uksoi 'ROES
CHAPTER X
ANNUAL COST OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
The annual cost of the three stages of the consolidated development
lias been estimated for various nut hods of reservoir operation, both
with and without inclusion of flood control features and under both
State and private financing. The annual costs ;is set forth in the
tallies thai follow are based on the units given in Table 78.
TABLE 78. BASIS OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF CONSOLIDATED
DEVELOPMENT
Item
Private
financing
and
Return or interest, in per cent <>f capital
Amortisation of slate bonds (40 year sinking fund basis), in per cent of capital
I >''pri'ciation —
bands and improvements, in per cent of capital
Darns, in per cent of capital
Spillway gates, flood control gates and appurtenances, in per cent of capital,
Power plant {U) year sinking fund basis), in |mt cent of capital
Taxes-
State, in per cent of capital
Federal, in per cent ol capital
i Iperating expenses and maintenance —
Dam and reservoir, in per cent of capital
Power plant, in dollars per k.v.a. of installed capacity
0.40
1.00
Under State ownership and financing, the interest rate is 4^ per
cent per annum which is about one-half per cent higher than the
interest bearing rate of the recent State bond issues. The return of
7.5 per cent given for private financing is slightly above the rate of
return allowed recently by the State Railroad Commission on invest-
ments of privately-owned electric utilities. The amortization of State
bonds is based on a life of 40 years and is estimated on a sinking fund
basis at an interest rate of 4 per cent per annum. This would be the
average annual cost for retirement of bonds.
Depreciation on the dam has been estimated at 0.3 per cent. For the
spillway and flood control gates and appurtenances, and power plant,
depreciation has been estimated al 1.05 and 0.65 per cent of capital
cost for State and private financing and ownership, respectively,
assuming a forty years' life on a sinking fund of 4 per cent for State
and 6 per cent for private financing.
State taxes for private ownership have been estimated on the capita]
cost including lands and improvements. Under the present method of
taxing electric utilities, ,-i private utility would pay the same state tax
as it would if the plant were constructed and owned by it, the lax
being determined ;is a per cent of the total gross revenue of the utility.
For Comparison with costs of other power, therefore, the cost has been
estimated excluding state taxes. The presenl State tax is 7.5 per cent
of the gross revenue. Assuming revenue would equal total cost, the
resultanl tax rate would be approximately 0.72 of one per cent of the
capital. Since this basis can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely,
a rate of I.:').") per cent of capital <-<>s1 has been used, which on the
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 161
average would be approximately equal to the tax rate on general prop-
erty in the State.
Operating and maintenance expenses, which would include not only
local but also general expenses and contingencies have been estimated
at 0.4 per cent of capital cost of the dam and reservoir and $1 per k.v.a.
for the power plant, for both State and private ownership and opera-
tion.
Table 79 sets forth annual costs in total, in per cent of capital cost
and per kilowatt hour of power produced at the plants under the State
financing, for the units operated in accord with the schedule of water
release to develop maximum primary power and with power installa-
tions based on a 75 per cent load factor and both with and without
inclusion of flood control features.
The annual cost, in per cent of capital cost, ranges from 6.7 to 6.8
both with and without flood control features for all three stages of the
development and for each kilowatt hour of power produced at the
plants from 4.3 mills for the second stage and complete development,
without flood control features, to 5.1 mills for the initial stage of
development with flood control features. Corresponding figures under
private financing are higher and are given in Table 80. The annual
cost in per cent of capital cost is about 10.3 per cent for all stages
of development both with and without flood control features when
State taxes are included and about 9.0 per cent, excluding State taxes.
The annual cost of each kilowatt hour produced ranges from 5.8 mills
for the second stage of development, without flood control features
and excluding State taxes, to 8.0 mills for initial development with
flood control features and including State taxes.
Tables 81 and 82 give similar data for the schedule of water release
and for power installations proposed by the American River Hydro-
electric Company. Under State financing (Table 81) the annual cost
in per cent of capital cost ranges from 6.6 per cent for the initial stage
of development to 6.8 per cent for the second stage and complete
developments, both with and without flood control features. The cost
of each kilowatt hour produced at the plants ranges from 3.7 mills for
the second stage without flood control features to 4.6 mills for the
initial development with flood control features. Under private financ-
ing (Table 82) the annual cost in per cent of capital cost is about 10.3
per cent for all stages of development, both with and without flood
control features, when State taxes are included, and about 9.0 per cent,
excluding State taxes. The annual cost of each kilowatt hour pro-
duced ranges from 5.0 mills for the second stage of development, with-
out flood control features and excluding State taxes, to 7.3 mills for the
initial stage of development with flood control features and including
State taxes.
The annual costs given in Tables 79, 80, 81 and 82, together with
jannual costs of other methods of reservoir operation, are summarized
in Tables 83 and 84
162
DIVISION OP WATER RESOUR* I -
w —
- - -
-i-o-o
S c c
o o q
•- - l.
ST =
'O CO
J ^ u u
fc'S'o'S
z. > > >
g s. B u
I. H 7- 1
_ *- *- >-
o — c a
e - 3 5
O - 3 O
85
*-3
"S
3CJ°
Qcf2 £
c
CScOO) CO
—
I
E
« o c c
§,Sr I 1
Jw e 3 »- »-
"o; 1 St?
|«a
-a = £
= *-.-:
a> at.
> i; = a 3
o ^ es C u
Q .- a._ 2
— g S-o w
eSg = 2
— "3 ~ - -
fa
o
o
O
c
3
O
£
I
g-s-sia
fs rt l|
£ E —
5? - n i-
a, i. g j> E
> =-5 t a
5,
-
o
■3
a.
a
O
a
—
eg
C
-o m „• —
sii =
q) C - 'A P
■3C- BvJ o
Pn
d
Iff
— jg
§
>© o
: B O
> a o
- -in
e a -
*c CO
§
5 5 5
ao >-" —
8 CO eo
— C £
?: « 2 I
5 — ■*
is
> £ = 3 =
£ Sj2 Si
o c -•! s
bu
.— a u
S g E -o -.
c 5 c c c
— -2 c n e
-
D
-
is
.0
5
c
1
—
a
— cj **
i'flli
4 E
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
163
$495,000
116,000
116.000
o
o
o
-
EC
-
■'
$2,055,000
480,000
212.000
o
o
q
oo*
CO
o
o
o
•c
CD
o
CO
M
1-
CO
o
o
o
CD*
O
o_
o
O
o_
-r*
CD
■O*
m
$368,000
86,000
86,000
139,000
o
o
o_
as*
r^
CO
I*
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o^
oo'csf csT
« CO UO CO
-«*• CO -h CM
M
o oo ■«*•
o
O o -r
o"
o
o
o
©"
00
O
o
o
o"
"**1
TO
W
$130,000
30,000
30,000
43,000
o
o
o_
to*
TO
CM
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o_
o"w**o oo"
e^ cq »o i--
»o — <
o 1- —
o •
q co >o I
oo
u
1
o
o
o_
to"
00
00
cm*
9»
o
o
o_
1*
oo
"**.
M
$490,000
114,000
114,000
179,000
o ooo o
o -ooo o
°. " .°. = . °.
r— * ; o'co'ce* to
OS ,0350 ~-<
oo . O: -CH CM TO
- 6*
o r* co
o
©_ co -«*
oo
o
csT
o
o
o
to*
00
00
o"
O
o
o_
CM*
$362,000
85,000
85,000
139,000
o
o
o_
rt
CD
M
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o
;o'o"r** c*T
t— e>* -»-j- cm
•O^ CO —« 00 CO
o
0_ CO «*
oo"
CO
o
*
■*
o
00*
c
c
c
c
■o
-d
c
>
>
>"
«
>
>
• o o o
-ooo
■ooo
-ooo
ooo
' = .°. =: .
i-TcOe*
O — IT5
O
O
o
r- at
CD ■**
164
DIVISION* OK WATER RESOUR< ES
H
Z
w
o
oo
u
I
I
a
£
3
s
CU
o
-J
w
> °-
w J2
Q "3
• _l >
Q 3
i— i C8
o «
4)
u
to
o
3
o "8
u x
j »
I*
Z
<
Q
UJ
H
<
H -5
u &
c
bD
-
4)
c
B
5
< c
? O
V.
<
7.
U
H
<
>
a
i C
«* £ ■
ofv Co
•s E S" « n
5 « u a >
S2.?88
o-j! & c""
CO
JO II
g- o «
|I|J
CJ>— •»
*- 0"0 v
x-j; «9.
o o
O u
.« . - a II
b
c"".
J2U.
oj
u
OO
S go
■a
2
3
O
X
?
9°Ii
■h" ?
nn | cs J-
i 1 1 a «
S u-S.22
_ f- u — o
Em£2x
<
I.O 0[£
'5-&0.
£ e'S ™
o c o a
8 cs C >
J*"0 « ■
■% O '°o
>-X-=
a 3 ""
as
u
3
s 8
|->| J J
Sofcg -
I " fe & U «Q ™ O
- « u _ v:^ b.
. J 9
I
'j —
E.rcfE.5
•? > .'o'-'.'- ;s
o O^!
cs coo
•-C u O j.
3^3 t.
< ^ a
3J
3
^^
e II
■C^ CO
>o —
^So
o- §
§50
0^0
g e>"
° c%
'^ Cl -
-lc
■_- Q
s "* P
c -j £
_ c. o ?
£•2 S a "
l§lil
g x$0
3
a
3
;
■ ■ 1
— — —
= c c
S'o'o
»C CO
g •- t- t-
tilt
lb 9 O]
_ *- ^- *-
2E£g
iiil
, z - z
si c
o a
Hi
tJJn
o.
- b — =
S =30
5 : : =
o- g-a-S
c55 a-~— -
^^ i ft
"i * - s r
>gi — " ^ 1;
CS
O
i.s-5
n
® u ♦" (9 5i
> - - - -
a - =-- ■'=
.= 9 # -c —
e g o c o
— — c. cs c
s
I
—
|ffi S
ill
&s ■
EC u.
© — w
L- O
o &
>- q
la
a
B
o
I.
c
o
o
Us!
cs ; = -
-> *- = r E
— — ■
03 b 1. ^
2 Ej "" ■- ^
> * a. cs ^
1>
-5 =
qD «r — • —
I
Cl CO — -x
1 - D ti n
2
£0 =
co ao co n
iC -r —
CO
Cl
s
o
•a
s
OOOO
c c
8
3
s
__,
•NPJX-
—
■
— r
o>
3
!•» CO
-1
C
_"
-1
<
SA r BE
e« c— 2*S =
■ w- - - c
-r — It » 9
—
-o e £
is-* i-p
■ s -a 4 S
> ^ = B 3
-
—
cs
O
: C5 C:
— ci ■«■ -r
CO CI — CO
•C —
CS
>?. fe£
K ^ S
cs = —
** 5.S
8 t-
S - i — "£ —
I - - X X C
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
165
• O ©© ©
• © O O O
• © o © o_
" oo ro *-f «
! M*«'o*n
— IQ — re
.5*
OOOO
o o o o
o_o_oo_
CI — — CI
co — -?• — «
CO — .
oo
oo
o_o.
i-Tco
ci rC
-* o
O 93
O
oo
•OOOO
■oooo
o o ~ c:
oooo
oooo
oooo
oo
o o
o_o_
CO*— •"
GO ~
— o
CO o
ooo
to »
t^. :0
o
o
o
o
13 *
B ~ 2 P.
39
a
-
•V
fc.
B
CJ
S
C
o cS — .X
5 '3
8 E
is -
- - o «
—
5 5
-5 C.
crt
C3
-
i.
-
7.
—
'S'a
r =
_f M M «-.
° 3 =
2 "
»=W
160
MYISION ()!•• WATl'.H KKSOT'RCKS
4>
■
O
a
o
r '-
H &
/ a)
ft, 4,
O -c
►J tf)
> ■£
w •-
Q *
Q
w
H
u
>>
<
CO
c
Q
l-H
c
CO
&
J
u
i
o
C»
CO
CO
"3
s-
U
o
• —
u
t-
4)
4->
4->
o
4>
4>
H
4-»
co
T3
O
U
>>
X
-j
u
is
c
u
<
>
*z c
B I
S bfl
H o
!««
J §U.
S | °UL
' - o >-oo
SJ u ■- S o
r- 'J^O
SmSJn
-SlU-
?
d
|s
Bei"
3
■S-S^
■= p
Ow "*
" 3
,K 073O
5
^ ^ "O
1 S2 S-c
i_X-=°.
PJOu
5uS-«
t- 0" *-»
o-L —
gx_* J
T3 *S-^
g^8o
e2?-S
•7 °
cj O
07 ■
O u
o- s*°o
- o o
- u ii
s
6
JSU.
CJ O
u go
viiC'll
&?££ is!*
~ « .§0-
5 >>-oo
- .a -jc
.^: u = o
- Sr o_ *-»^*
5E «
«T3 to <
*-x-=°.
„'!;«"
-£8 3 °"
sSeS
o — _o c
« g > E
c > ^ .
c v Si
_ "*^ «•
<
_X^i -l
1
W
(J
S
u
S >.T3 t O
ifll 5
u.
u
u
u
^8
I -
O
r »
■a
^
bJ
i
uO
J *
So
u
k
C II
a
8!
^■ 5 >
JS8|
"5833
3 — Oo
^ E^
c— o C
. ."3 u
Sg > E
* ""-n -
-&°>
«>— M. u
3 •> Sf "3
c > n ■
— .**■ /
C " -
CO— o
i-
o o o
— - -
o © =
X > > >
£ = - ■ -
e ° 3 5
CJ O 3*3
• a. ci gg
tsim
SjJ
o> 1- c
o. B:-Tz. E
c
■g
£ 3
.•2 O
5 "3
O "5
a 8 a ■
3
5
« E 3 L u ,
s ill 8 53
°s " ai
» Q So- = a
■
9
a
-
r.
OS
C
IS
i 3 |
i.s-<
.2 S tc — _
c g 2 n o
3
8
u
3
'3.
1
a
! i
oo_o
oc "*" *-o"
!SS
© ^* »o
39 9) CN
CO
_ — —
E-
fag
S 3 J
t) - :
O so
l c
•- s
'_ -
-a
>- =
3 2
°c2
c
a
■-
■Si
CO
3o
s c
b
c
o
is (
oo 3
8 5?
O a « 3
l-sll
C§c5s
o.
CO
O
•3C J
i 9 ii
lr
S § | -n -m
c s o c o
a
-
^.
o o ©
552
CO©
©
g
CT. Tl -M
— ic ac
iC CO
CO
«A>
§
s
•
§
©
oo"
s
£
c c c S
|o*5
■-•2.2-s
?£^^
-o
B
CO
•a
-- -
o
H
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
167
ooo c
o
OOO O O QO pn
ooo c
o
ooo
o o
ooo c
o
o o o O O CO <**
c-i -r -r c
o
NOOO
CON CN C
00
os ooo
CO CO
U3 ^* FH CN
0B
O --"cn
CO »-
M
M>
©f
CO
•»
ii
o
o
o
o
o
o
t-~
id"
CN
CT>
°°_
Tjl
^h"
CO
*H
T
•»
•»
ooc
c
c
ooo
c
c
00 00
ooc
c
c
ooo
c
o
ooc
c
c
ooo
c
c
CD CO
"
O -*»-
c
•—
NUits
CO
CN
OOCTO-
w.
CN
««»/;
•**
r*.
CO
r^
■"-f^CO — .
CN
-■
•M
M
(•
CN
M
o
o
§
o
o
s
•w"
CD
o
00
•»
CO
Ml
ooc
c
C
OOO
c
O
CO CO
ooc
c
C
OOO
c
o
ooc
c
c
ooo
c
o
CD *tJ4
CN CO CC
v.
o-
O0 CO —
c
1^.
-HCNCN
CO
a-
O — t^
r^
^t
^H
lO -^
l>-
•»
M
•
w»
M
o
o
o
o
o
o
to"
fc*
00
00
■<*
N
CN*
^H
V*
V
OOC
c
c
ooo
o
o
OO o
ooc
c
c
ooc
c
c
ooc
c
c
ooo
c
o
CD -*J1
t~ CO CO
c
CO
COiCiC
■
M
M
o
o
o
o
©
o
s
CO
CO
r~_
CN
»-«
lO
1— t
•■a*
*»
«»
ooc
c
C
ooc
c
C
00 r-
ooc
c
C
ooo
c
o
csoc
o
C
o_o_c
c
c
CO CO
coTo'cr
c
i-r^cc
c
oc
'
00 OO oc
ic:
™
oknu;
■"*
c
CO
t-
co_co «—
CN
^
*»
M
M
CN
1
o
o
o
o
o_
o_
P4
■**
o
■o
O
oo"
o"
Ml
CO
M>
ooc
c
C
ooo
c
c
CO ^4
ooc
c
C
ooo
c
o
•
ooc
c
C
ooo
c
o
co ^*
'
MlOU*
";
CO
c-ocnoc
oe
T-
OCNCN
CO
o-
OO — ' *-*
cc
^>
■"-J* 1—1
t-
•»
M
<■/>
m
1
o
o
o
o
o
o_
o"
o"
o
N
T
r~
cn
o"
•»
Ml
-4-
C
I
o
o.
1
c
*o
s
% -
OT3
a
"c
k -o
a
1
1
c
c
I
3 2
■*-
c
It
. a
i *
*
E
1
!
c
p
I
■a ?
CS c
p'S
'a
1-
a
i
1
E-
9
: a
q
-t-
c
c
'-^
q
1
1
i
I
c
rt £
a
ual cost, in pe
capital cost
ual cost per
hour prodi
mills
%£&
I 5-i ■■"
o
a
a §
P-
-)
o
M
e
■3
<:
11—72924
His
DIVISION OF WATKK RESOURCES
>>
£>
73
V
(/>
o
H o
z a
•J J3
U o
>. <»
Q 2
o
o
u
C3
H
<
Q
O
C/3
D
z
H
-
oo
C
03
a
S E
o
£ % U
o 2 .a
« i
fa
o
i
o
u
U § E
? u
* s
5 "8 |
Q C a>
u.2 g
O
z
o
o
c
DC
O
w s
j £
CQ f
< a
■u
A
t-
5
a
O
* o
i d
sis
I ^ fc"CL
i. - "> u ■
•5 1 ^ a p
§2.^38
? U — O
Mr
s
d
u
(UO
kit
u E a ™
4>>— u_ *
,^ OTJO
^l § -
V Qt>2f\
X>'53 <"""
■O-T C
jj s
i d
* 5. •
S<~g©
•S u,T ii
Op Of.'
■sE"28*
§2£I8
__r o=:o
■§XU.S
<
o
s 1 .
UO
. *°?
-x-r
.21—
•s
5 « "
c © ?
8«
rU.
© I- WOO ,<"
Y^ i 4j© «
« n Q II
o 5 °_2CL.2
p S^" ac^ c
*- _g 'G =: x
u
o^
— o
II ^
ei
o h
oo "
fi. CO
C
«.°
> *-•
ixds
ta
g
^ J W 4-1
P o~ «
3
J*
111
Xo>D
'^°. -
a - E
o— °
i_ - "
u y >
> c u
a lo
• u
3 u
c >
M T3
to g Si
Pi 6
2?5
3.0
. O— ; «
lis 2
3 — M g
i*o . <=>
ill k
« y > p
g «T3 a
tt ao u
S,« ex a
DC— f-, c
3
x
-CTJ-3
e c c
coo
V SJ ZJ
a £ -.
§00
oo'o'
- IC M
» •- »- I-
° = ^ "
*- " ^ -
1? o 3 9
U O 3 O
1 "3.
2 £ i-2 t
IJb«
I rile
Mid
O
MS r. 1 - -r -f
8
10
— o
i-o
O °
—
O
o —
_ o
2 E
.55 2
o c c
>
■/.
Willi
o a>
o '
-^ Si
E§oS
'c.
n
O
HI
O > Si,
> a C S 3
Q - c.§ g
.-= = ■£-=_
c » o c o
— -J a. a a
'c.
a
O
c 1- a.
9- - * t.
? 3JS*
a» 1- c
S ..*- * *
c tS °
cs'o c a
__ > a
a> c a m o
sl|>fe
S|1li2l
II o-g§
D.
a
o
Sf
qqqo o
t* -O o o o
iSsB
: c: r -
«0 '"(•-^ r~
i
5
o
000= o
8888 8
g
§
■SS.B
||^ El
> s = 3 3
Q - ^~ 3
5 S S U §
Ex.
c
03
O
OOOO
8888
Q
g
CO tM ^1 CO
CD ~
M
I
s
— V
rt 01
OS •'
s£^ 2 2§S
S 3 g * S'-c =
C *? o-^S-3 0S-3 H
i
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
169
oooo
o o oo
o o o o^
o'oo'cV oo"
oooo
o o o o
oooo
o
o
o
oo
o o
oo
»o rococo
CO
eo «■*«
00 CI
co
W CO
CD»0
a
s
o
r- t^ oo to
io kn *-* co
oooo
oooo
oooo
o
o
o
oo
oo
oo
■^ — -3* —
CM
O CM
I-- CO
-O CTi
CM
4»
CO CM
-*f o
o'oi
C7> CM
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
o
oo
NO
oooo
o
o o
oooo
o
oo
O OO
t-<0
CI Ol io o
,_l
' '
CO CO »C •"■"*«
r-
r*- — i
OO ""-1
hO
M»
5**»
oooo
oooo
oo_o_o_
o'r^o'r—"
OS t>- CD tJ<
00 —
oooo
o
oo
oooo
o
o o
oooo
o
o o
do
COU3
co"eo CM "■"I"'
r^
lOCO
1 -•
>OtO(NOO
eo
CO •**«
•*P ■"-« CD *-<
CO
CO
«*
«. e«-
o
s
CO*
oooo
oooo
oooo
j-»*co"r-."io"
^< iO •-• CO
eo •-»
oooo
oooo
oooo
o
O
O
OO
o o
oo
-* o
O Oi
t-o
U3 y— CM CM
CO^H-^ -«
CM
OS "<**
CO -^
CM 0O
o
oo"
oooo
oooo
oo_o_o_
CO* CO co'o*
00 — CO —
o — = o
oooo
o_o_o_o_
HCOf 't
00 —
oo
o o
oo
r~*o~
cm cr
O 00
O —
r- CD
I
4
O
ctT
a c
•a
c
cs
s
a
T3 ■
'
8 » « iS £ a
I *.2
c "3
8H-?S.
gsga33i£<5
"3 .B<5 c-s5 , 73"-5 § o = : 5
o g^S£«c32 S £3.2
g BSQccfeO g~W
PS O
a 8-S"3
o c. "-•"";
5*312
2 II
5 ~w
s -
0-0
g "3.2 ge
u £ = 5"9
c Eg 3
§ ~W
170
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURt ES
QO -Q
cj fc- o
5. 3 3
— a ». B
W
W
=> rt *
w
CO
c c
o o
a
c
fS'B • 82 3
' — S p*
2 e„
? *^ ♦- a
- — Ij
3 F £.• *= = 3
■30 Si c
Soa ».4.I
n c p o f
- -
. r* ■— oj A. u .
E
B
§
3
, i
o d
— °.£
«JE
- §-8|^'>.^
•- a c -r '- o. 5
£.— -^CO 03 O cc oo
|3
3 at
m
c
I
00
a 1
O 1-
—
3- 05
V
»- fe t -
Q 5 Cv
o ""o
Ph PL,
' 2 2"
1""3
eg f
! ^ S -
■ = = X
.ill
ill
.1:1
E * s
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
171
o
00
CO
o
o
OD
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO*
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to"
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
■n
o
o
o
o
oo"
o
o
o
us
CO
o
■*
V
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
in
K5
OS
TO
CO
CO
a>
OS
CM
CM
o>
-^
oo
OO
•o
TO
-*■
•^
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
0>
'-■
*•— ' 0> U o
111-
1 2- " .
*Oj
. a
•J o
o >> c b
•.3 o c
3i C C3 C3
.— •- Cs is
. _ -i r.
■gg.i
§•„.£
.— o
jtiqa t
11!
o
^ilio
a a "s § .i
00 ,-, CO «*
' S >.S 2 s
"3 as
as
as cs 5; i
acc a .-3
£ • a
5 «^<
a s
3 »-
g.2-3
;T _ —
l- rt c
o be o
03 »^ S J§
«o £ o OS
O w -"20 O
o ^-s o O cj
■is
o2
lis-
> j= _^_2
1 eis
.£ 3 «- O
o. .efc a
E jS
o ■<. a>
CO c
•a-ssi-a
C os o t~ o
"3°S S'S'S'
> - 6h >
■S§o--S
-E„*ts
"3 S-S 2 £
2 a c g =
§ >> 3 u
_ 2 5?-- fe S
^ ° A fc.
CO "ti £j cs
u fc"0 3
See rt g
£ 3 B
h M no"
3.E CS
-3 >-
- -
J; S
3 O « fe
SfJJ
3 J 91
»-i'S
5 3 ^
■■ O u
3 "s
3 Is
.5 few
3 =5
.Son
- C.S
i o a
5 cs o
^ GS ^Tf
ggJS
II
X 5
oc B •
o *-
— ^^ S3 .
~ §• 3
33
O C
.•-r O O
C o -^
"8. °
s .«
3 3^_
c 1 S
— so
*-Z.*3^- « S°*-5— a)-— « eg
- - 7* «— • -^ ^ -*-i > ^ *T^ c_ -.- fc«
o ^ -
,33^
: 5 5£-3
. X -^ c »-
1 P3 .t^ « 0)
t ._-x -
a a m
g 3 O i-
■axS o
a.-S-r'g;
SiNI
3 ° M* S
8-g.s^S
■- . 3.SS
3 t. > w _.
- a cs 3 o
fe-o oo
S>— cs —
BJ3 «
cj*3 "*^ CS
4 E'o.S
"3 .£?
•is: o
S3 «5 «■
„c« - S
&s
-^ cs -
"S. 3
a- 3
3 a
03 a.
a^ 3
cc c
3 O
5 s
C3 l-
-SPg.S ■
,_, ^ E as
.1*
o
S-s.
£■8.1 s -|-
" "" Cass's'
B'S 3
3«— *■
•O £ C 3
■ 3 cs *>-g
cs eg cs 3
.0) cr
-oT «
C OTJ o
= "'8 5
OK u 5
o« coOQ
172
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
- O
*W +J
=> * ..
a
c
■ -3 0> «>
3 « K
— *- rS
■i m a
P rt «
"71 ** "
W
M
Q
00
00
CO
O
co
o
CO
©
o
— :
O
a — -g
u.3
& S3
o a-
I
o.S " o p. <
<
o
o
o
CO
to
>ra
o
St
S3 £ => « _
S» S o-S— o o u .
O
■g
—>
a.
2
g
o
o
o
•o
OO
•5*5 5 .£"3 fc'S'S
g-o-c ao« B j;
U as g 5.5
fci'S.S*' »"3
"&§ t £.5 * - 3. «-,
■"a " S*f S-s-
00 _ ™o & « a c
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
173
G
a
o
O
u
>>
u
> 0>
S
u
>> t-
_ JC
73 *£
cj O
O - t - >
a «
o S
& S
J} 2
"73
■o
c
a
■a
c
B33
— . OS b H
| I 1-2
3 cJ ><
W
O G _
OOcS
_, W ^>
03 t-i 'q,
=> $ OS
c ft 3
O — '
Jli!
I
§a
i oj r- Mt-.^ m
a 8- S "° ft S
3"
a
3
o
<»— .
> 3 2 3
>ft^
.1-8°.. 8
« .S^sS*
£.2 2*--
wo cj
— £ a
— I «
■" □ ^
— S -a
a
rf m
o o
_ O -
3 6 «
0JT3 _
-3 >, - ^ SK.S O 03
O"— I > V O k t, q
oo* g k. ft^ *j n
O 3 3T3 o
.H>.a«i
o^Oc 3 !
S"o -S.S
!j S-H-ol
174
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
w
E
Q
>
c
Q
09
C
/,
u
u
O
u
£
<
3
o
9
>>
Ih
H
Si
(/j
•o
o
z
V
§
3
"3
6
o
(Q
,_
o
TD
09
6
j:
3
4-1
c
4->
c
•o
u
o
f 1
^-^ '
g
as
■>*
C
oo
••-»
4>
uu
x
_
1
CQ
<:
H
u
o
■t->
C3
£
o
■o
c
(9
£.3 3
1 1 1-2
|5&
o
■■5 Si S
=53
3 M
ill
H
a
J.S |
.2.3
2
a
a
<
■oSS
3 si K
o
■a
c
03
■< cj.3 o ft—
3- g
=• S.E S
a ° !r,
■< a
o'n j
3 o
4 s
■3ts
ft o
OS o
O
S 2 r
it
£ 2 s ft c * s
« 5 o-S— o o .
e
I
c
-g
CO
•o
o
o
8
§
r-
8
5
o
S
8
S3
o
8
g
o
S
o
o"
CO
§
8
3
° eS
c
■
E
111
r J5 £
i
J*!f
"5 &-c I
4 i-S-rb
•SB? S_
-n 3 _,J2
iu *- 4- S «
••S >.:°.i:
"5 s§;«
"S3 S<°
.a >> &
t 4 4^2.5 5-
i.'H o o
^ 3 •* w
■as
O 3 3 O
u< gca
C8 JS
en 2
B
o-o
m 3
-§*
* -R-IXS
B
Da
5 « !
1 £•§ SJ
C._ 3
- =>
■a
-o —
is
S "
ii
org
3 P
^■s
O q *j
CO 3 ^
S'3 >
— > j, :Z -
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 175
CHAPTER XI
GEOLOGY OF DAM SITES OF CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT
Examinations and subsurface explorations.
A geological examination was made of the dam sites of the consoli-
dated development and a report rendered thereon by Hyde Forbes,
geologist, at the request of Mr. Stephen E. Kieffer, representing the
American River Hydro-electric Company, with the view of determining
the geologic suitability of the sites for the dams proposed.
Mr. Forbes reports the foundation rock at the sites on the north and
south forks, which have been used in the estimates in this report, is
hard and durable and suitable in all respects for the structures pro-
posed. At the Folsom site, he reports the gelogic conditions are not
quite so favorable as for the selected sites on the forks, nevertheless,
with usual precautions in stripping and pressure grouting, the site is
entirely satisfactory for the dam proposed. Mr. Forbes' report is
included in full herein.
Subsurface explorations have been made only of the Folsom site,
which was core drilled by the American River Hydro-electric Company,
with 35 vertical holes aggregating 1265 feet. These in most instances
penetrated solid rock. The sites on the forks have not been drilled.
Geologic report.
The report of Hyde Forbes is as follows:
Mr. Stephen E. Kieffer,
Consulting Engineer,
57 Post Street,
San Francisco.
Dear Sir:
At your request, I made a study in the field during August and Sep-
tember of 1928 of the geologic and topographic conditions obtaining
along the North Fork channel of the American River, in the vicinity
of Auburn, and the South Fork channel of the American River, from
the vicinity of Coloma to Salmon Falls. These river sections contain
six proposed dam sites, three on each stream, which were studied in
some greater detail. Subsequently, I have investigated the proposed
Folsom dam s,ite.
Based upon surface indications as to rock types, as well as general
geological and topographical conditions, but subject to later check and
corroboration through subsurface exploration, it is my opinion that :
(1) The massive rock spurs through which the rivers have cut their
courses offer excellent foundations for the structures proposed at the
Lower Auburn and Pilot Creek dam sites on the North Fork of the
American River and two proposed sites on the South Fork of the
American River at about river bed elevations, 430 feet and 550 feet
above sea level, respectively. No major faults occur in the region
examined. Shear zones are few, very limited in extent, and at unweath-
ered exposures are found thoroughly strengthened through the deposi-
tion of secondary quartz. There is no reason to anticipate that any
structural weakness will be revealed upon stripping of the dam sites.
176 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
(2) The Lower Auburn dam site occupies a gorge cut by the North
Fork of the American River through a massive ridge of hard, compact
rock, the joints in which become inconsequenta! at short distances below
ground surface and, in unweathered portions, are closed by quartz
deposition. It is probable that unweathered rock will be found a1
relatively shallow depth on the steep canyon walls. But the topography
suggests waterfall conditions during the erosive history of the North
Pork of the American River at this point, and it is probable that pot
holes of some extent will be found in the rock bottom of the stream.
(3) The Pilot Creek dam site is located upon the North Pork of the
American River where it cuts through the most conspicuous topographic
feature of the region — a high ridge wh.ich strikes northwest-southeast
across the region through Pilot Hill. The foundation rock for the pro-
posed structure will be made up of the same material that occurs at
the Lower Auburn dam site, capable of entirely fulfilling the require-
ments as a support for the proposed structures.
(4) The Lower Coloma dam site is located upon the South Fork
of the American River at the point its course cuts through the Pilot
Hill ridge, described just above. Here topographic and geologic features
combine to make an excellent dam site.
(5) Beginning at river bed elevation 430 feet (downstream from
Webber Creek) and extending up the South Fork of the American
River for several hundred feet is a rock formation that is hard, durable,
and difficult to break under blows of a hammer. The stream bed is
narrow and the side walls rise abruptly above it the full height of the
proposed structure. Detailed surveys will reveal the best topographic
location for a dam site within an extensive area whose rock will afford
an excellent foundation for a dam, require a minimum of stripping,
and should present shallow depth of stream bed materials. This site
is designated upon the accompanying map as the Webber Creek site.
(6) An investigation was made of a surveyed area designated as the
Upper Auburn dam site. The rock at this point is composed of schist
and related metamorphic rocks which are less desirable as a founda-
tion for the proposed 7najor structure but could be made to serve were
there no better site available.
(7) The upper Coloma dam site which has been surveyed and con-
sidered for some time past was also invesigated. A dam foundation
here, however, woidd be composed of a series of metamorphic rocks
which change in physical characteristics and mineral constituents
within relatively narrow zones. One of these zones consists of serpen-
tine which dips beneath the dam site. The rock's are not suited as a
foundation for a major structure such as that proposed.
(8) While at the Polsom dam site the topographic and geologic con-
ditions are less favorable as a site for a major structure than those found
at the Lower Auburn and Lower Coloma sites, with the usual precau-
tions of complete stripping to solid rock and pressure grouting the
foundation, it will prove an entirely satisfactory site for the structure
proposed.
Tin 1 results of the field investigation upon which the above stated
conclusions are based, are herewith appended in a report.
Respectfully submitted.
(Signed) Hyde Forbes,
Geologist.
San Francisco, California, January 21, 1929.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 177
GEOLOGIC FEATURES ALONG SECTIONS OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH
FORKS OF THE AMERICAN RIVER
The region investigated is one in which occur the oldest of the Sierra
rock masses. The formations consist largely of metamorphic rocks
derived through dynamic-metamorphism. Intense movement and pres-
sure have altered the original ancient sediments and basic igneous rocks
over a wide region. The alteration has effected an increase in crystal-
lization, thus changing the texture and generally increasing the hard-
ness. Within the region younger masses of granitic and other igneous
rocks, intrusive in the metamorphics. have caused (due to the great heat
of and the escaping vapors from the molten intrusion) a border zone of
increased metamorphism or further alteration to exist along the con-
tacts. Consequently the complex nature of the formations derived
through these processes requires a field study of a wide area surround-
ing, as well as a detailed study of the proposed dam sites, in order that
a thorough understanding of the rock characteristics may be had.
Waldemar Lindgren, in the earlier publications of the United States
Geological Survey, includes the metamorphics and intrusive igneous
masses in a broad classification as "Bedrock series" of Pre- Jurassic
Age. Sufficient for the present purpose is the fact that the rock forma-
tions are ancient, that no major faults have been found in the Bedrock
series, and that minor shear zones, faults, and joints have been closed
and the mass consolidated through the deposition of secondary quartz
in the ages since movement has taken place.
Amphibolite and Amphibolite-schist.
The United States Geological Survey classifies the metamorphics,
which make up the greater portion of the region examined, as amphibo-
lite, which designation embraces all phases and modifications within the
rock mass. Dynamic metamorphism acting upon basic igneous rock
whose chief bisilicate was pyroxene, caused it to pass into hornblendic
rocks with more or less development of schistosity. The formation is
"banded" through the variation in texture and mineral constituents
which occur within relatively short distances, all phases being, how-
ever, perfectly crystalline. The trend of the banding is northwest to
southeast and the bands dip almost vertically.
Some of the bands are decidedly laminated or foliated due to the
parallel arrangement of hornblende crystals. Others present a massive
appearance with the schistosity hardly discernable. Certain bands of
the hornblende schist have passed into more finely laminated, green
chlorite schist which softens to a scaly mass and weathers to the rusty
colored clay soil characteristic of the region. Variation of the massive
and schistose texture is irregular. The massive phase resembles the
original igneous rock, is very hard, durable, and resists erosion and
weathering. The bands of massive amphibolite therefore mark the
highest mountains and the most continuous ridge spurs.
Topographic development.
Both the North and South forks of the American River cross the
amphibolite over the greater portion of the sections examined. In the
DIVISION OK WATER HESOI'HCKS
GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC FEATURES
PERTAINING TO
DAMSITES ON NORTH AND SOUTH FORKS
OF AMERICAN RIVE.R
SCALL IN MILES
2 3
I
KCT^ Amphibolite
ffi&Ma Amphibolite Schist
LEGEND
\;^^ A Granitic Igneous In+rusion
i3 Basic Igneous Intrusion
1 Slates and Related Rocks
Note: Investigation limited to areas marked for legend.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIYI.i; 179
I'LATE XIV
Typical amphibolite schist. Jointed massive amphibolite.
Upper Auburn dam site on North Fork American River.
Massive amphibolite — Schistose development (at hammer). Quartz vein fillings.
Lower Auburn dam site on North Fork American River.
180 DIVISION OP WATEB i;i .'SOURCES
erosive development of the streams they have met the massive bands to
turn and follow the southwesterly strike of the less resistant schistose
bands for short distances before cutting southeasterly across the trend
of the massive bands. The side streams are developed along the schist
bands. There, slopes are gentle and soil covering is the heaviest. Thus
the topographic development has resulted in draws marking the
schistose bands and ridges marking the more resistant massive bands.
Where the massive bands have been crossed by the rivers the hard
resistant rock stands at steep angles above streambed, outcrops of rock
make up a large portion of the slope, and soil covering is shallow.
Geologically and topographically the most desirable dam sites will be
located at points where the streams cross the spurs of massive
amphibolite.
Upper Auburn site.
At the junction of the Middle Fork with the North Fork of the
American River lies a body of slate containing siliceous layers resem-
bling chert and a limestone deposit which has been extensively quarried.
The black slates merge with the green amphibolite downstream. The
Upper Auburn dam site is located in the amphibolite less than 1000
feet distant from the contact. Over this distance the rocks have
developed a marked schistosity and the prevailing rock bands are horn-
blende schist which has, in some places, altered to chlorite schist, a
green flaky mass on the canyon sides which has weathered to a reddish
clay soil.
The proposed Upper Auburn site contains a topographic draw which
has developed along a band of chlorite schist. Bordering the chlorite
schist band are bands of hornblende schist, downstream and upstream,
which merge into massive bands of relatively limited thickness. The
hornblende schist does not weather as readily as does the chlorite schist,
but it and the massive phase at the dam site have developed two main
systems of joints which have weakened the outcrop exposures. These
joints' systems are at right angles and oblique angles with the schistosity
and large blocks of rock have been displaced along these lines of
weakness.
That these materials are firmer and much more indurated below
ground surface Iban might be expected from the weathered exposures
on the canyon sides, is attested to by the character of rock exposed by
stream erosion in the bottom of the canyon. It is my opinion that the
site could be made to serve as a foundation for the structure proposed
were no better site available. The disadvantages would be in the
amount of stripping necessary to reach firm indurated rock in place.
Lower Auburn site.
In passing downstream from the Upper Auburn site the same mate-
rial, in bands, occurs with the green chlorite schist bands becoming
less pronounced. The stream cuts across the bands at right angles to
their strike for about a mile and a quarter below the junction. At
three-quarters of a mile a band of fully developed chlorite schist is
exposed which merges into hornblende schist. From this point to
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 181
PLATE XV
!SP^,, if
OBE&k
Left abutment. Right abutment. Stream bed.
Weathering of schist. Jointing of schist. Indurated schist.
Upper Auburn dam site on North Fork American River.
Right abutment. Left abutment. Right abutment.
Massive amphibolite at Lower Auburn dam site
on North Fork American River.
1
182
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
beyond the Lower Auburn site the schistosity is not so marked nor is
there parting along joints, and the rock lias resisted erosion.
The massive phase of the amphibolite predominates and at the dam
site occurs a massive band some five hundred feet in thickness in which
the rock resembles the original diabase, portions of which have
developed schistosity. The whole has been so thoroughly indurated by
the deposition of secondary quartz that it has been the controlling
feature of the topographic development. The canyon sides are pre-
cipitous, rock outcrops continuously and soil covering is shallow. Joint
PLATE XVI
Upper portion of right abutment.
Lower Auburn dam site on North Fork American River.
blocks have been carried away as they developed on the steep canyou
sides so that stripping will probably be limited to that necessary to
key in the structure.
Just below this spur occurs a more schistose band and the stream
turns to the southwest along its strike and side canyons have been
developed. Above the spur the stream bed drops less than twenty feet
to the mile, while in the four-mile stretch below it drops 120 feet. The
topographic development suggests waterfall conditions during the
erosive history of the North Fork of the American River at this point,
and it is probable that pot holes of some extent will be found in the rock
bottom of the stream. In my opinion the geological and topographical
conditions at this point combine to make an excellent site and founda-
tion for the major structure proposed.
Pilot Creek dam site.
The most conspicuous topographic feature of the region examined is
the high ridge which strikes north west -southeast across the region, the
highest point of which is Pilot Hill. This spur is crossed by the North
Fork of the American River at Pilot Creek. From the dam of the
North Fork Ditch Company downstream to Pilot Creek the topo-
graphic development in the bands of more fully developed schistosity
and jointing have produced gentler slopes and numerous draws. Few
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER
183
massive bands exist and these have not sufficient width extent to become
important until the Pilot Hill spur is reached.
Pilot Creek has eroded the southerly wall of the American River
Canyon where it crosses the massive amphibolite. But just below the
junction of Pilot Creek with the river exists an excellent site for the
structure proposed. The canyon walls rise at steep angles from a
narrow stream bed. Stripping should be at a minimum and firm rock
should be found at shallow depth below stream bed.
PLATE XVII
Right.
Massive amphibolite spur.
Pilot Creek dam site on North Fork American River.
Left.
Upper Coloma dam site.
An area of granitic rock lies intrusive in the metamorphics along the
South Fork of the American River from Coloma downstream to Hast-
ings Creek. Such intrusions are the most effective agents of contact
metamorphism and, as is of common occurrence, there is found a zone
of highly metamorphosed rock along Hastings Creek and in the vicinity
of its junction with the South Fork of the American River where the
upper Coloma dam site is located. The metamorphic rocks of this
zone are composed of a number of lesser zones or bands of rock in
which the alteration decreases in passing downstream from the intru-
sion. Physical changes, due to baking, as well as complete chemical
changes, are apparent in very limited distances.
Such changes have produced an area over which the rocks are not
homogeneous in the mass, part readily from each other, and react to
weathering and other conditions with considerable variance one from
12 — 72924
184
DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES
another These bands strike across the dam site, dipping about 45
degrees upstream. The most conspicuous Land is composed o! serpen-
tine In the river bed exposure it is brittle flaky green rock Inn
under exposure to the atmosphere on the canypn wads it lias broken
down to an incoherenl mass of clayey soil. In that condition it has
PLATE XVIII
Broken rock and soil (left bank).
Upper' Coloma"Dam"site on South Fork American River
Serpentine outcrop (right bank).
slid out of place down the canyon sides, which accounts for the land-
slide topography. The serpentine found at the dam site is a thoroughly
altered derivative. It is subject to further decomposition by simply
softening to dirt and clay, usually accompanied by swelling, bnear
and crushed zones border the serpentine. It is difficult to anticipate
how deep the decomposition and shearing has taken place or how
rapidly will the serpentine decompose upon exposure and stripping.
It is very poor foundation rock and as it dips under the dam site
makes the site unsuited for the major structure proposed.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RP7ER 185
PLATE XIX
Shattered rock and decomposed serpentine slide (left bank).
Upper Coloma dam site on South F'ork American River.
Higher portion of landslide topography. Face of landslide the top of which
appears in picture at left.
Upper Coloma dam site on South F'ork American River.
186
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Lower Coloma dam site.
For the reasons stated above, it was considered expedient to examine
the South Fork channel helow Hastings Creek in considerable detail
for the purpose of obtaining a substitute site which would be suitable.
Downstream from the highly metamorphosed zone abovi' described was
found slates, chert, and siliceous beds resembling qnartzite. Some
diabase also was found. About two-thirds of a mile downstream
chlorite schist crosses the stream bed. The stream to this point
follows the strike of the cleavage of the slate. A resistant band of
amphibolite turns the si ream about one mile below the upper Coloma
site but the topographic development prohibits its use as a dam site.
Amphibolite, resembling closely that found along the North Fork of
the river, continues with no suitable dam sites tor a distance of three
and one-quarter miles below the upper Coloma dam site. At that point
the Pilot Hill spur is cut by the South Fork, diagonally across the strike
of the band. The formation is the massive phase, described in con-
nection with the Pilot Creek dam site on the North Fork. It has here
resisted erosion so that the stream channel is narrow and the canyon
walls rise abruptly from a stream bed elevation of about 550 feet to
over 900 feet above sea level. In my opinion the topographic and
geologic conditions here obtaining provide an excellent dam site.
PLATE xx
Massive amphibolite outcrops and joint blocks.
Lfwer Coloma dam site on South Fork American River.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 187
PLATE XXI
Upper portion of left abutment.
Lower Coloma dam site on South Fork American River.
Middle portion of left abutment.
Lower Coloma dam site on South Fork American River.
188
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Webber Creek dam site.
The proposed development of the South Fork of the American River
calls for a low height ( 100-1 f>0 feet) dam to utilize the head between
the Coloma dam site and the Folsom reservoir. It -was desired to obtain
a site for this dam as low as possible on the river. For that reason
the river channel was examined from Salmon Falls upstream.
Just above the Salmon Falls bridge the South Fork of the American
River has cut its course through an area of intrusive igneous rock which
continues, with varying phases of texture and mineral constituent-,
upstream as far as the investigation went.
The igneous mass is a dark green rock of granitoid texture whose
main mineral constituents are pyroxene, hornblende, and plagioclasr.
Quartz is present as a secondary mineral in the lighter phases. The
mass contains areas which are composed almost entirely of hornblende,
which may be primary. These areas make up the more resistant por-
tions and mark the narrow gorge, precipitous walled portions of the
river course. Beginning at about stream bed elevation 430 and con-
tinuing upstream for several hundred feet the river cuts westerly across
such an area. The stream bed is narrow and the side walls rise abruptly
above it the full height of the proposed structure. The rock is hard and
durable, difficult to break under blows of a hammer. Detailed surveys
will reveal the best topographic location for the dam site, within an
extensive area whose rock will afford an excellent foundation for a
dam, require a minimum of stripping and should present shallow
depth of stream bed materials. The site takes its name from "Webber
Creek which enters the South Fork about 1£ miles above the proposed
location.
Hornblende rock — Secondary quartz filling.
Webber Creek dam site on South Fork American River.
Looking downstream.
A PROPOSED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AMERICAN RIVER 189
PLATE XXIII
Webber Creek dam site on South Fork American River.
Looking upstream.
Folsom dam site.
The Folsoru dam site is located upon the American River below the
junction of the South Fork with the North Fork and a short distance
above the point where the river leaves an extensive area whose country
rock has been designated granodiorite by the United States Geological
Survey. This term is a contraction of granite-diorite employed to dis-
tinguish the intermediate rock between granite and quartz diorite. The
latter strongly resembles granite, physically and chemically, and for
the purpose of this report the rock will be referred to by its local
name in general use — granite. The dam site lies wholly within the
granite area with topographic differences due largely to the effect of
erosion and attack of the weather upon rock of fairly uniform
characteristics. There are no evidences of major lines of structural
weakness in the vicinity.
Contrary to the popular conception, granite is one of the least durable
of the crystalline rocks. The constitutent mineral crystals of the
granite at the dam site are mainly hornblende, the mica biotite, quartz,
and feldspar. As the original molten mass cooled, these relatively large
crystals formed, interlocking with each other, until the whole became
converted into a mass of interlocking crystals, firmly knit together into
a strong crystalline rock mass. However, this crystal fabric is subject
to breakdown and the tenacity or bond of the fabric is overcome by the
forces of weathering. Temperature changes cause the rock surface to
break down through the unequal contraction and expansion of the com-
ponent crystals. Minute cracks open as the crystals part from each
other and surface moisture, penetrating through these openings,
enlarges them and further weakens the rock through the removal or
alteration of some of its mineral constituents. This process of disinte-
190 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
gration may continue to some considerable depth below the ground
surface, the residuum or so-called rotten granite, remaining in place
over the unweathered portions. Such material is a physically weak
crumbly mass, subject to penetration and percolation of water, and
readily eroded.
The surface of the dam site is spotted with outcrops of unweathered
granite but the larger portion of the dam site surface is made up of the
rock in varying stages of disintegration, ranging from the completely
broken down and altered product — clay soil — to rock which may be
broken down with a hand pick. The driller's logs of the test holes bored
across the dam site show disintegration to be uneven as to depth,
increasing generally from upstream to downstream, with a maximum
depth to solid rock of forty-three feet on the west and thirty-eight feet
on the east abutment. All of this residuum must be removed in
stripping the dam site and the structure keyed in to the firm unaltered
granite to depths of at least five feet.
The residuum is rapidly carried away through erosion on the slopes
and bottom of the gorge at the dam site and the unweathered granite;
exposed below elevation 325 on the east and 340 on the west abutments
is firm. The rock mass has developed three major systems of joints;
one striking southwesterly, diagonally across the dam site but parallel
to the stream course just above the site, and dipping 75 degrees from
the horizontal; one striking southeasterly making about an 80-degree
angle with the first and dipping 75 degrees from the horizontal, and
an intersecting horizontal joint dipping N. 75° about 25 degrees. At
the surface these joints are opened and in many places a weathered
zone (rotten granite) ranging from one to eight inches in width borders
the joints.
The presence of secondary quartz filling in the joints in the freshly
eroded granite at stream level and considerable quartz float in the soil
indicate that the older and larger seams and joints, below the
weathered zone, are probably closed to the passage of water. However,
the diamond drill core records show "seamy" and rotten granite zones
and an examination of the cores reveals joints, which persist to depths
in excess of fifty feet, through which water has circulated and whose
wall material has disintegrated. It will therefore be necessary to
carry out a systematic program of pressure grouting over the dam site,
the location, number, depth and direct ion of the grout holes being
dependent upon the joints revealed when the site is stripped.
The design of the dam calls for two flood spillways, four hundred
feet in length, along the crest of each abutment as part of the structure
This portion of the structure will lie along the flatter portions of the
dam site where disintegration has progressed to the greatest depths.
It will be necessary to strip and treat the foundation over these stretches
as carefully and fully as the stretch upon which the gravity dam section
will be founded. The wasteway to the river from the spillway crest
may require a "cascade" treatment of the natural rock slopes. The
waste discharge may equal one hundred thousand cubic feet of water
per second and further consideration must be given to the ability
of the rock to withstand the effects of such floods and the weather.
1
■
PLATE XXIV
% <**)
>CATION OF TEST HOLES
FOLSOM DAM SITE
SCALE IN FEET
100 200 300
400
190
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
gration may continue to some considerable depth below the ground
surface, the residuum or so-called rotten granite, remaining in place
over the unweathered portions. Such material is a physically weak
crumbly mass, subject to penetration and percolation of water, and
readily eroded.
The surface of the dam site is spotted with outcrops of unweathered
granite but the larger portion of the dam site surface is made up of the
rock in varying stages of disintegration, ranging from the completely
broken down and altered product — clay soil — to rock which may be
broken down with a hand pick. The driller's logs of the test holes bored
across the dam site show disintegration to be uneven as to depth,
increasing generally from upstream to downstream, with a maximum
depth to solid rock of forty-three feet on the west and thirty-eight fed
on the east abutment. All of this residuum must be removed in
stripping the dam site and the structure keyed in to the firm unaltere 1
granite to depths of at least five feet.
The residuum is rapidly carried away through erosion on the slopes
and bottom of the gorge at the dam site and the unweathered granite
exposed below elevation 325 on the cast and :>4() on the west abutments
is firm. The rock mass has developed three major systems of joinis;
one striking southwesterly, diagonally across the dam site but parallel
to the stream course just above the site, ami dipping 75 degrees from
the horizontal; one striking southeasterly making about an 80-degree
angle with the first and dipping 75 degrees from the horizontal, and
an intersecting horizontal joint dipping N. 75° about 25 degrees At
the surface these joints are opened and in many places a weathered
zone (rotten granite) ranging from one to eight inches in width borders
the joints.
The presence of secondary quartz tilling in the joints in the freshly
eroded granite at stream level and considerable quartz float in the soil
indicate that the older and larger seams and joints, below the
weathered zone, are probably closed to the passage of water. However,
the diamond drill core records show "seamy" and rotten granite zones
and an examination of the cores reveals joints, which persist to depths
in excess of fifty feet, through which water has circulated and whose
wall material has disintegrated. It will therefore be necessary to
carry out a systematic program of pressure grouting over the dam site,
the location, number, depth and direction of the grout holes being
dependent upon the joints revealed when the site is stripped.
The design of the dam calls for two flood spillways, four hundred
feet in length, along the crest of each abutment as part of the structure.
This portion of the structure will lie along the flatter portions of the
dam site where disintegration has progressed to the greatest depths.
It will be necessary to strip and treat the foundation over these stretches
as carefully and fully as the stretch upon which the gravity dam section
will be founded. The wasteway to the river from the spillway crest
may require a "cascade" treatment of the natural rock slopes. The
waste discharge may equal one hundred thousand cubic feet of water
per second and further consideration must be given to the ability
of the rock to withstand the effects of such floods and the weather.
PLATE XXIV
LOCATION OF TEST HOLES
FOLSOM DAM SITE
SCALE IN FEET
lOO 200 300 400
I I I
2924 — Opp. page 190
s
PLATE XXV
NUMBER
33
32
58
- El. 349.0 -
Earth
3 0"
31
Rotten
Granite
190'
Hard I
Granite
El. 346.5"
Earth
3 0-
30
Rotten
Granite
El. 341.8'
Earth and
Granite
Sand
5
Rotten
Granite
29
Z0'0~
220
~J Hard Granite
23 0~
26 '6-
El. 365.5'
Earth
3 0"
Rotten
Granite
17 0"
Hard
Granite
Seamy
EI.387.S-
Earth and
Sand
A'O"
Hard
Rock
Seamy
El.371.5'
Earth and
Sand
5 0"
Rotten
Granite
I5'6"
Hard
Granite
176"
El. 383.5-
Earth and
Sand
ST)"
Rotten
Granite
1|50"
2I'0"
Hard Granite
24-0"
u
31-0"
Hard Granite
36'0"
Broken Granite
37 '0"
Hard Granite
40 '0"
-OG OF TEST HOLES
FOLSOM DAM SITE
"292
PlaATB XXV
-HOLE NUMBER
HOLE NUMBER ,.
HOLE
NUMBER
43 42 41
54
SO 47
53 40 48 52
49 51
39 7
3 II 4 6
KContti.r
5
2
37 38
35 56 34
36 32 58 31
a uu
Earth
Earth
Earth
Ea"n
CI.UU-
Eartn
faith
EI.3SB0
Earth
lr*
Lr"°
Sand
RK
El 106 6
It 106.0
El 206 1
•
Ei lot 0"
Earln
Eartn
El .MT*-
3 and
_
Eartn
Eartn
JO'
El 3*1 V
Earth
Earth
El 3ASQ-
Earth
Ei JM.5'
ej s-j.e
Earth and
CI3SS5'
earth
CI MT.S'
Eartn and
Sand
CUTIS'
[1 383 s
Eartn and
j.jj-
S'O"
10
3*0"
J'O"
10
3^"
J
3
3 0"
1
JO
Sa* d *
— '
30"
Sand
Sand
KS
Sffi
Wot It n
GrMtll
9 rd
Herd Granite
Grey
i6 6
Wain
Sand and
26
77
J6 6
g»o
'
&£»«•
Gravel
- 170"
1000-
Gravel
Gravel
■ •;« 6
- ..- .■-■'•
ISO
WO"
—
»v
Grty
Fine
Coars*
JOO
SCO"
Decomposed
Granite
Bro»n and
Soft
Granite
,«,-
Granite
WV
Hard Granite
Griv Orjn.lt
Grey
JT-0-
js'o"
Cora
Granite ft»r Core
no. ~
Rotten
Granite
«o-o-
..-.-
Hard Gran.te
Grey
Sand and
nard
Hard Granite
7S
WO"
Soft Granite
Boulders
4V0-
Granite
***°"
iS'O
as*o*
*5'0"
s.
*■»
-*"-
Granite
Hard Granite Seamy
G;ry
Sand
Ledje
«"—
_ SIS"
sand
Granite
wain
Soim
IT"
- sa o
SS6"
rre
- BrglLftrCin
er.Dec Or.n
Gravel
SB'B-
|$»ei.y
- n*o-
LOG OF TEST HOLES
Solid
Seamy
Grey
&r*ni-e
•"'■'
" U'o-
FOLSOM DAM SITE
(fO"
»■■-
Hard Granite
So't Seamy
Mard I Row
sort «. cay ^ Seam*
Soft Br. Clay :
G finite
= Brown Granite
|T)0
PUBLICATIONS
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
13—72924
-
PUBLICATIONS OF THE
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
When the Department of Public Works was created In July. 1921. the State Water Commission was succeeded
by the Division of Water Rights, and the Department of Engineering was succeeded by the Division of
Engineering and Irrigation in all duties except those pertaining to State Architect. Both the Division of
Water nights and the Division of Engineering and Irrigation functioned until August. 1929, when they were
consolidated to form the Division of Water Resources.
STATE WATER COMMISSION
First Report,- State Water Commission, March 24 to November 1, 1912.
Second Report, State Water Commission, November 1, 1912, to April 1, 1914.
•Biennial Report, State Water Commission, March 1, 1915, to December 1, 1916.
Biennial Report, State Water Commission, December 1, 1916, to September 1, 1918.
Biennial Report, State Water Commission, September 1, 1918, to September 1, 1920.
•Bulletin
No. 1—
•Bulletin
No. 2—
•Bulletin
No. 3—
•Bulletin
No. 4 —
Bulletin
No. 5—
Bulletin
No. 6—
Bulletin
No. 7 —
•Biennial
Report,
•Biennial
Report,
Biennial
Report,
Biennial
Report,
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
Hydrographic Investigation of San Joaquin River, 1920-1923.
Kings River Investigation, Water Master's Reports, 1918-1923.
Proceedings First Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con-
ference, 1924.
Proceedings Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con-
ference, and Water Supervisor's Report, 1924.
San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1923-1926.
San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1926-1928.
San Gabriel Investigation — Analysis and Conclusions, 1929.
Division of Water Rights, 1920-1922.
Division of Water Rights, 1922-1924.
Division of Water Rights, 1924-1926.
Division of Water Rights, 1926-1928.
•Bulletin
•Bulletin
Bulletin
•Bulletin
•Bulletin
•Bulletin
Bulletin
•Bulletin
Bulletin
•Biennial
•Biennial
•Biennial
•Biennial
•Biennial
•Biennial
•Biennial
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
1 — Cooperative Irrigation Investigations in California, 1912-1914.
2 — Irrigation Districts in California, 1887-1915.
3 — Investigations of Economic Duty of Water for Alfalfa in Sacra-
mento Valley, California, 1915.
No. 4 — Preliminary Report on Conservation and Control of Flood Waters
in Coachella Valley, California, 1917.
5 — Report on the Utilization of Mojave River for Irrigation in
Victor Valley, California, 1918.
6 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1919 (now obsolete).
7 — Use of water from Kings River, California, 1918.
8 — Flood Problems of the Calaveras River, 1919.
9 — Water Resources of Kern River and Adjacent Streams and Their
Utilization, 1920.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1907-190S.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1908-1910.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1910-1912.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1912-1914.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1914-1916.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1916-1918.
Report, Department of Engineering, 1918-1920.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
k
■I
fa
•■:;
* Reports and Bulletins out of print.
State Library at Sacramento, California.
These may be borrowed by your local library from the California
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Including Reports of the Former Division of Engineering and Irrigation
♦Bulletin No. 1— California Irrigation District Laws, 1921 (now obsolete).
♦Bulletin No. 2 — [Formation of Irrigation Districts, Issuance of Bonds, etc., 1922.
Bulletin No. 3 — Water Resources of Tulare County and Their Utilization, 1922.
Bulletin No. 4 — Water Resources of California, 1923.
Bulletin No. 5 — Flow in California Streams, 1923.
Bulletin No. 6 — Irrigation Requirements of California Lands, 1923.
♦Bulletin No. 7 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1923 (now obsolete).
♦Bulletin No. 8 — Cost of Water to Irrigators in California, 1925.
Bulletin No. 9 — Supplemental Report on Water Resources of California, 1925.
♦Bulletin No. 10 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1925 (now obsolete).
Bulletin No. 11 — Ground Water Resources of Southern San Joaquin Valley, 1927.
Bulletin No. 12 — Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a
Coordinated Plan for Their Development, 19 27.
Bulletin No. 13 — The Development of the Upper Sacramento River, containing U. S.
R. S. Cooperative Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1927.
Bulletin No. 14 — The Control of Floods by Reservoirs, 1928.
♦Bulletin No. IS — California Irrigation District Laws, 1927 (now obsolete).
Bulletin No. 18 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1929 Revision.
Bulletin No. 19 — Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation (with
packet of maps), 1928.
Bulletin No. 20 — Kennett Reservoir Development, an Analysis of Methods and
Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue, 1929.
♦Bulletin No. 21 — Irrigation Districts in California, 1929.
Bulletin No. 22 — Report on Salt Water Barrier (two volumes), 1929.
Bulletin No. 23 — Report of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervisor, 1924-1928.
Bulletin No. 24 — A Proposed Major Development on American River, 1929.
Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1920—1922.
Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1922—1924.
Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1924-1926.
COOPERATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
♦Report of the Conservation Commission of California, 1912.
♦Irrigation Resources of California and Their Utilization (Bui. 254, Office of Exp.
Sta., U. S. D. A.), 1913.
♦Report, State Water Problems Conference, November 25, 1916.
♦Report on Pit River Basin, April, 1915.
♦Report on Lower Pit River Project, July, 1915.
♦Report on Iron Canyon Project. 1914.
♦Report on Iron Canyon Project, California, May, 1920.
♦Sacramento Flood Control Project (Revised Plans), 1925.
Report of Commission Appointed to Investigate Causes Leading to the Failure of
St. Francis Dam, 1928.
Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly Dealing With the Water
Problems of the State, 1929.
PAMPHLETS
Rules and Regulations Governing the Supervision of Dams in California, 1929.
Water Commission Act with Latest Amendments Thereto, 1929.
Rules and Regulations Governing the Appropriation of Water in California, 1929.
Rules and Regulations Governing the Determination of Rights to Use of Water in
Accordance with the Water Commission Act, 1925.
Tables of Discharge for Parshall Measuring Flumes, 1928.
General Plans, Specifications and Bills of Material for Six ana Nine Inch Parshall
Measuring Flumes, 1930.
• Reports and Bulletins out of print. These may be borrowed by your local library from the California
State Library at Sacramento, California.
72924 10-30 1500
)
J UN 1 9 i
THIS BOOK 18 DUE ON THE LAST DATE
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL
NOV L b mi
PSL
LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
D4613-1 (5/02)M
c^lil
TC82.4-
CP
Aa
111593
3 1175 00473 8517
IIH
11
HHh
IB
88R"-- :
■in
^ililiBil